Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. 05-06]
RIN 1557-AC86

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 228

[Regulation BB; Docket No. R-1205]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 345

RIN 3064-AC82

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

12 CFR Part 563e

[No. 2005-06]
RIN 1550-AB91

Community Reinvestment Act Regulations

AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC);
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and Office of Thrift Supervision,
Treasury (OTS).

ACTION: Joint final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The OCC, Board, FDIC, and OTS (collectively, ``we'' or ``the
agencies'') are adopting, in final form, without change, the joint
interim rule that was published for comment in the Federal Register on
July 8, 2004. This joint final rule conforms our regulations
implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to changes in: the
Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas
published by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in December
2000; census tracts designated by the U.S. Census Bureau (Census); and
the Board's Regulation C, which implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act (HMDA). The joint final rule also makes a technical correction to a
cross-reference within our CRA regulations. This joint final rule does
not make substantive changes to the requirements of the CRA
regulations, and it is identical to the joint interim final rule
adopted by the agencies.

DATES: This joint final rule is effective on March 28, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OCC: Karen Tucker, National Bank
Examiner, Compliance Policy Division, (202) 874-4428; Margaret Hesse,
Special Counsel, Community and Consumer Law Division, (202) 874-5750;
or Patrick T. Tierney, Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Activities
Division, (202) 874-5090, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Board: William T. Coffey, Senior Review Examiner, (202) 452-3946;
Catherine M.J. Gates, Oversight Team Leader, (202) 452-3946; Kathleen
C. Ryan, Counsel, (202) 452-3667; or Dan S. Sokolov, Senior Attorney,
(202) 452-2412, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
FDIC: Pamela Freeman, Policy Analyst, (202) 898-6568, Division of
Supervision and Consumer Protection; Susan van den Toorn, Counsel,
(202) 898-8707; or Richard M. Schwartz, Counsel, (202) 898-7424, Legal
Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20429.
OTS: Celeste Anderson, Project Manager, Compliance Policy, (202)
906-7990; or Richard Bennett, Counsel, Regulations and Legislation
Division, (202) 906-7409, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

On July 8, 2004, the agencies published a joint interim rule with

[[Page 15571]]

request for comment in the Federal Register (69 FR 41181) that amended
our regulations implementing the CRA (12 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.). The
joint interim rule conformed the agencies' CRA regulations to recent
actions of OMB, Census, and the Board.\1\ Together, the agencies
received nine discrete comments: six from community organizations, two
from financial institutions, and one from an industry trade
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The joint rulemaking is not related to the agencies'
comprehensive review of the CRA regulations and the proposed
revisions to the regulations that were published for comment on
February 6, 2004, at 69 FR 5729.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Changes Made by the Joint Interim Rule and Comments Received

Changes Resulting From OMB Revisions

OMB updates its standards for defining statistical areas
approximately every 10 years. The agencies' CRA regulations use OMB's
standards for defining metropolitan areas for purposes of CRA data
collection and reporting, and for delineating institutions' assessment
area(s). Under OMB's 1990 standards, metropolitan areas consisted of:
(1) metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and (2) larger consolidated
metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs). These CMSAs consisted of
primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs).
In 2000, OMB adopted new Standards for Defining Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Statistical Areas, which replaced OMB's 1990 standards. 65
FR 82228 (Dec. 27, 2000). The 2000 standards retain the basic concept
of an MSA (an area with at least 50,000 population), but divided MSAs
having a single core with a population of at least 2.5 million into
``metropolitan divisions.'' OMB directed all agencies that conduct
statistical activities to collect and publish data for MSAs using the
most recent definition of the area.\2\ The joint interim rule made
several changes to the CRA regulations to incorporate OMB's new
standards and definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See OMB Bulletin No. 03-04 (June 6, 2003), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/b03-04.html and OMB Bulletin No. 04-03 (Feb. 18, 2004), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy04/b04-03.html._____________________________________-

The joint interim rule removed the definition of ``CMSA'' and all
references to CMSAs because OMB no longer uses that term. As discussed
below, where the regulations referred to CMSAs, the joint interim rule
replaced ``CMSA'' with ``MSA.''
The joint interim rule revised the definition of ``MSA'' to remove
the reference to PMSA, another term that OMB no longer uses. The
revised definition of ``MSA'' refers only to metropolitan statistical
areas, as defined by OMB (12 CFR 25.12(r), 228.12(r), 345.12(r), and
563e.12(q)).
We added a definition of ``metropolitan division'' in the joint
interim rule because in certain large MSAs, OMB has delineated
``metropolitan divisions,'' which are the statistical areas for which
the agencies have determined that CRA data are to be reported, median
family income is to be calculated, and within which an institution's
CRA performance is to be evaluated (12 CFR 25.12(q), 228.12(q),
345.12(q) and 563e.12(p)).
Next, the joint interim rule clarified that an institution may
designate an assessment area that includes one or more metropolitan
divisions within a large MSA (12 CFR 25.41, 228.41, 345.41, and
563e.41), just as an institution previously could have designated an
assessment area that included one or more PMSAs. Although the agencies'
regulations prior to publication of the joint interim rule allowed an
institution to delineate an entire CMSA as an assessment area,
examiners evaluated CRA performance at the PMSA level using PMSA income
data. The joint interim rule's supplementary information section
explained that examiners similarly will evaluate CRA performance at the
metropolitan division level in those MSAs that are divided into
metropolitan divisions, even if the institution delineates an
assessment area of more than one metropolitan division, an entire MSA,
or more than one contiguous MSA.
Prior to the adoption of the joint interim rule, 12 CFR
25.41(e)(4), 228.41(e)(4), 345.41(e)(4), and 563e.41(e)(4) stated that
an assessment area ``[m]ay not extend substantially beyond a CMSA
boundary * * *.'' The joint interim rule changed these provisions to
replace ``CMSA'' with ``MSA'' to conform the terminology to the new OMB
area standards. The regulations still allow an institution to delineate
an assessment area consisting of more than one contiguous MSA. See 12
CFR 25.41(c)(1), 228.41(c)(1), 345.41(c)(1), and 563e.41(c)(1). The
border of such an assessment area, however, may not extend
substantially beyond the boundaries of the MSAs in the assessment area.
Finally, the joint interim rule added a new definition of
``nonmetropolitan area,'' which is any area that is not included in an
MSA (12 CFR 25.12(s), 228.12(s), 345.12(s), and 563e.12(r)).\3\ In a
related matter, the joint interim rule changed the agency-prepared
annual aggregate disclosure statements to include a statement for the
``nonmetropolitan portion of each state'' rather than the ``non-MSA
portion of each state,'' which was the language prior to the change, to
ensure consistent terminology throughout the regulation. See 12 CFR
25.42(i), 228.42(i), 345.42(i), and 563e.42(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ As we noted in the supplementary information section of the
joint interim rule, a ``micropolitan statistical area'' is a new
statistical area, defined by OMB in 2000, that is a
``nonmetropolitan area.'' 69 FR at 41184. A micropolitan statistical
area is a ``core-based statistical area'' (as is an MSA), and has at
least one urban cluster that has a population of at least 10,000,
but less than 50,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some community organizations commented that financial institutions
should be required to designate an assessment area consisting of an
entire MSA, rather than having the option to designate an assessment
area limited to one or more metropolitan divisions within an MSA. They
were concerned that the option to choose a metropolitan division would
allow institutions to exclude from their assessment area(s) the urban
areas in the Detroit-Livonia-Warren MSA, and in other large MSAs that
are divided into metropolitan divisions. As discussed in the
supplementary information section of the joint interim rule, OMB's
boundaries cause some census tracts in the Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn
Metropolitan Division (which consists only of Wayne County and
represents the urban center of Detroit) to change classification from
moderate-to middle-income, while some census tracts in the suburban
Warren-Farmington Hills-Troy Metropolitan Division change
classification from middle-to moderate-income. 69 FR 41183 (July 8,
2004). The commenters argued that institutions will be encouraged by
these changes to exercise their option to include only the suburban
metropolitan division(s) in their assessment area(s).
The agencies have carefully considered the commenters' concern.
However, for the following reasons, we are not adopting the suggested
change. The change advocated by the commenters would represent a
significant departure from the CRA regulations regarding assessment
area delineation, which allow institutions to delineate assessment
areas smaller or larger than an entire MSA, if certain conditions are
met. Under the 1995 CRA regulations, an assessment area can be as small
as the census tracts in which the institution has its main office, its
branches, and its deposit-taking ATMs;

[[Page 15572]]

or a political subdivision such as a city, county, or town; or it could
consist of a single PMSA, an entire MSA, or a CMSA, if the conditions
are met.\4\ One of the conditions has been, and continues to be, that
the area designated does not arbitrarily exclude low-or moderate-income
geographies or reflect illegal discrimination.\5\ Further, the
regulations allow, and continue to allow, institutions to delineate
assessment areas smaller than an entire MSA. An institution can
delineate assessment areas that are political subdivisions and may even
adjust the boundaries of its assessment areas to include only the
portion of a political subdivision that it reasonably can be expected
to serve. An adjustment is particularly appropriate in the case of an
assessment area that otherwise would be extremely large, of unusual
configuration, or divided by significant geographic barriers.\6\
Requiring institutions to delineate assessment areas no smaller than an
entire MSA may be unreasonable for institutions that have delineated
smaller assessment areas based on their institutional size, capacity,
and business strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See 12 CFR 25.41(c) & (d), 228.41(c) & (d), 345.41(c) & (d),
and 563e.41(c) & (d) in effect prior to the changes adopted by the
joint interim rule; see also Interagency Questions and Answers
Regarding Community Reinvestment, 66 FR 36620, 36640-41 (July 12,
2001) (hereinafter Qs and As) (questions and answers addressing
Sec. --.41(c) & (d)).
\5\ 12 CFR 25.41(e)(2) & (3), 228.41(e)(2) & (3), 345.41(e)(2) &
(3), and 563e.41(e)(2) & (3). Redlining violates the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq., and the Fair Housing Act,
42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. Evidence of discriminatory credit practices
adversely affects an agency's evaluation of an institution's
performance under the CRA. 12 CFR 25.28(c), 228.28(c), 345.28(c),
and 563e.28(c).
\6\ 12 CFR 25.41(d), 228.41(d), 345.41(d), and 563e.41(d). See
also Qs and As at 66 FR 36641 (question and answer Sec. --.41(d)-1
(Adjustments to Geographic Area(s))).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unusual assessment area concerns, such as those presented by the
Detroit-Livonia-Warren MSA, can be better addressed by examiners on a
case-by-case basis, using the current CRA regulations and examination
procedures.\7\ The CRA regulations continue to prohibit delineating
assessment areas that reflect illegal discrimination or that
arbitrarily exclude low-or moderate-income neighborhoods.\8\ If an
institution in Detroit, or another MSA, changes its assessment area(s)
to exclude urban areas, examiners will look at factors such as income
levels inside and outside an institution's assessment area, the
institution's size, financial condition, where it lends, and its
business strategy to determine whether the institution is engaging in
redlining.\9\ Further, in the service test, examiners consider branch
distribution among geographies of different income categories and
branch closings, particularly in low- and moderate-income geographies.
Examination staffs at all of the agencies are aware of the new OMB
boundaries and the potential impact on income level classifications.
The agencies believe that these provisions are sufficient to prevent
institutions from inappropriately redrawing their assessment areas to
exclude urban metropolitan divisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ As noted in the supplementary information section of the
joint interim rule, many of the 11 MSAs that were subdivided into
metropolitan divisions experienced no or negligible change in census
tract income level classification because of the OMB changes, based
on Board staff estimates. For example, in the following MSAs, 0
percent to 0.05 percent of census tracts changed from either
moderate-income to middle-income, or from middle-income to moderate-
income, as a result of OMB's boundaries: Dallas-Fort Worth-
Arlington; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana; Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-
Miami Beach; San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont; and Seattle-Tacoma-
Bellevue.
\8\ 12 CFR 25.41(e)(3), 228.41(e)(3), 345.41(e)(3), and
563e.41(e)(3).
\9\ See Qs and As at 66 FR 36641 (particularly questions and
answers Sec. --.41(d)-1 (Adjustments to Geographic Area(s)) and
Sec. --.41(e)(3)-1 (May Not Arbitrarily Exclude Low-or Moderate-
Income Geographies)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the agencies do not believe that the joint final rule will
result in wholesale redlining of urban Detroit as commenters suggested.
Data from 2003 on the branch locations and assessment area(s) of the 32
institutions in Detroit that were deemed ``large'' for CRA purposes
suggest that a substantial majority of those institutions would not
exclude the urban metropolitan division from their assessment area(s).
Specifically, 20 of the large institutions in Detroit had at least one
branch in Wayne County. Of the 20 institutions, 16 had assessment areas
that included Wayne County and the suburban counties, and had branches
in both Wayne County and the suburban counties. Three institutions had
assessment areas and branches only in Wayne County, and one had
assessment areas that included both Wayne County and the suburban
counties, but had branches only in Wayne County. Thus, those
institutions cannot entirely exclude the Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn
Metropolitan Division from their assessment area(s).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ One additional institution included Wayne County in its
assessment area and had branches only in the suburban Detroit
counties. Eleven institutions had branches and assessment area(s)
only in the suburban counties that make up the Warren-Farmington
Hills-Troy Metropolitan Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One financial institution commenter suggested that, rather than
replacing the term ``CMSA'' with ``MSA'', the agencies should have
replaced ``CMSA'' with ``CSA'' (combined statistical area), another new
area standard that OMB adopted in 2000. The agencies believe that it
may be appropriate for some institutions to delineate an assessment
area based on a CSA. The agencies have not, however, made the suggested
change to the regulation because a CSA is not the direct equivalent of
a CMSA under the 1990 standards. A CMSA was an MSA with a population of
at least 1 million; in contrast, a CSA may be much smaller or much
larger than a CMSA in population. For example, a CSA may consist of two
Micropolitan Statistical Areas. The Micropolitan Statistical Area is a
new statistical unit introduced in the 2000 standards and consists of
an area with a population between 10,000 and 49,999. On the other hand,
a CSA may be quite populous; it may consist of three or more MSAs and
multiple Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Therefore, the agencies
believe that whether an assessment area should consist of a CSA is best
left to each institution, considering its size, business strategy,
capacity, and constraints, and subject to review by the appropriate
Federal financial institution supervisory agency. Further, if an
institution designates an assessment area that consists of a CSA that
includes an MSA and a Micropolitan Statistical Area, the examiner must
separately evaluate performance in the MSA and the Micropolitan
Statistical Area (i.e., the nonmetropolitan area) because each of these
areas has a distinct median family income.
For the reasons set forth above, the agencies are adopting as final
the provisions conforming our regulations to OMB's statistical area
changes as they were published in the joint interim rule.

Changes Resulting From Census Revisions

Prior to the joint interim rule, the CRA regulations defined the
term ``geography'' as ``a census tract or a block numbering area
delineated by the United States Bureau of the Census in the most recent
decennial census.'' Beginning with Census 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau
assigned census tracts in all counties, making block numbering areas
unnecessary.\11\ Therefore, in the joint interim rule, we changed the
regulations' definition of ``geography'' to omit the term ``block
numbering area'' (12 CFR 25.12(k), 228.12(k), 345.12(k), and
563e.12(j)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See, e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, Geographic Terms and
Concepts (definition of ``census tract'') available at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossry2.html#CensusTract
.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 15573]]

The agencies did not receive any comments addressing this change.
Accordingly, the agencies are adopting the change based on Census
revisions without modification. We are adopting this change as final as
it was published in the joint interim rule.

Changes Resulting From Revisions to the Board's Regulation C

Prior to the joint interim rule, the CRA regulations defined a
``home mortgage loan'' to mean a ``home improvement loan'' or a ``home
purchase loan'' as defined in the regulations implementing the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act (12 CFR part 203). The interagency CRA guidance
that we published clarified that this definition of ``home mortgage
loan'' also included refinancings of home improvement and home purchase
loans.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ See Qs and As at 66 FR 36628 (July 12, 2001) (question and
answer Sec. Sec. --.12(m) & 563e.12(l)-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Board substantially revised the HMDA regulation (Regulation C)
in 2002, effective January 1, 2004.\13\ Revised Regulation C defined
the term, ``refinancing,'' so that a loan is reportable as a
refinancing if it satisfies and replaces an existing obligation, and
both the new and the existing obligation are secured by a lien on a
dwelling. 12 CFR 203.2(k). As a result of the revisions to Regulation
C, we changed the definition of ``home mortgage loan,'' found at 12 CFR
25.12(l), 228.12(l), 345.12(l), and 563e.12(k), to include
refinancings, as well as home purchase loans and home improvement
loans, as defined in the Board's regulations at 12 CFR 203.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ 67 FR 7222 (Feb. 15, 2002); 67 FR 30771 (May 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we noted in the supplementary information section of the joint
interim rule, because of the change in the Regulation C definition,
loans to refinance small business or small farm loans, where a dwelling
continues to serve as collateral solely through an abundance of
caution, will now be reportable as refinancings under Regulation C.
Those loans will also be reportable for Call Report and Thrift
Financial Report purposes as small business or small farm loans,
resulting in the potential for ``double counting'' of these loans in
CRA examinations. See 69 FR 41184-85.
Two community organization commenters asserted that our CRA
regulations should prohibit such double reporting of small business
loans and small farm loans secured by residential real estate for
purposes of CRA. The agencies are not changing the CRA regulation to
address the commenters' suggestion. The suggested change would likely
increase the data collection and reporting burden for financial
institutions, without increasing the effectiveness of CRA examinations.
As stated in the supplementary information to the joint interim rule,
the agencies do not anticipate that ``double-reported'' loans will be
so numerous as to affect the typical institution's CRA rating. In the
event that an institution reports a significant number or amount of
loans as both home mortgage and small business or farm loans, examiners
will consider that overlap in evaluating the institution's performance.
Accordingly, the agencies are adopting the change based on the
Board's Regulation C revisions without modification. We are adopting
this change as it was published in the joint interim rule.

Technical Correction

The joint interim rule also corrected an error in the cross-
reference found in 12 CFR 25.27(g)(1), 228.27(g)(1), 345.27(g)(1), and
563e.27(g)(1). Those provisions, which address the time for an agency's
decision following receipt of a completed strategic plan, previously
referred the reader to paragraph (d) of 12 CFR 25.27, 228.27, 345.27,
or 563e.27, respectively, for a description of the materials that had
to be included with a strategic plan submission. This information is
found instead in paragraph (e) of 12 CFR 25.27, 228.27, 345.27, or
563e.27. Therefore, we corrected the cross-references in 12 CFR
25.27(g)(1), 228.27(g)(1), 345.27(g)(1), and 563e.27(g)(1) to refer to
paragraph (e) of 12 CFR 25.27, 228.27, 345.27, and 563e.27,
respectively.
The agencies did not receive any comments addressing this technical
correction. Accordingly, the agencies are adopting the technical
correction that was published in the joint interim rule as final
without modification.

General Comment

A financial industry trade association commented that inasmuch as
the changes to the CRA regulations are designed to coordinate the CRA
rules with existing regulatory changes, it does not object to the
revisions. However, the commenter pointed out that these types of
changes add to the regulatory burden for the small community bank. The
agencies are aware that many regulatory changes impact regulated
entities in some manner. However, the changes made by the joint interim
rule and this joint final rule are necessary because institutions could
not have complied with the regulations as previously written. For
example, some of the statistical areas referenced in the previous
regulations no longer exist.

Effective Date

The Administrative Procedure Act provides that, subject to several
exceptions, a substantive rule may not be made effective until 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). However, an
agency may make a rule immediately effective upon publication if the
agency finds good cause for doing so and publishes its findings with
the rule. Likewise, section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRI), Public Law 103-325,
authorizes a banking agency to issue a rule to be effective before the
first day of the calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on
which the regulations are published in final form if the agency finds
good cause for an earlier effective date. 12 U.S.C. 4802(b)(1)(B).
As described in the supplementary information section of the joint
interim rule, the agencies found good cause to dispense with the 30-day
delayed effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The agencies
also determined that good cause existed to adopt an effective date that
is before the first day of the calendar quarter that begins on or after
the date on which the regulation is published, as would otherwise be
required by section 302 of the CDRI (12 U.S.C. 4802(b)(1)(B)). The
joint interim rule became effective upon publication because financial
institutions must use the new statistical area standards and
definitions when adjusting assessment area delineations and collecting
loan data during calendar year 2004 (beginning with loans made as of
January 1, 2004) for reporting by March 1, 2005. The changes adopted in
the joint interim rule merely conformed our CRA regulations to recent
changes by OMB, Census, and the Board and corrected a cross-reference--
they were not substantive. That reasoning also applies to the joint
final rule, which is identical to the joint interim rule. Accordingly,
the agencies conclude that it is unnecessary and contrary to public
interest to delay the effective date of this joint final rule.

Regulatory Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no information collection requirements in this joint
final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C.

[[Page 15574]]

605(b)), the OCC, Board, FDIC, and OTS hereby certify that this joint
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The agencies expect that this joint final
rule will not have significant secondary or incidental effects on a
substantial number of small entities or create any additional burden on
small entities. This joint final rule merely confirms that the joint
interim rule, which made a technical correction and conformed
terminology in the current CRA regulations to terms and definitions
already adopted by OMB, Census, and the Board, is final. Accordingly, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

OCC and OTS Executive Order 12866 Determinations

The OCC and the OTS have determined that this joint final rule is
not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order
12866.

OCC and OTS Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determinations

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded
Mandates Act) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires that covered agencies prepare a
budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is
required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires
covered agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. The OCC and OTS
have determined that this joint final rule will not result in
expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, neither
agency has prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically
addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999--
Assessment of Impact of Federal Regulation on Families

The FDIC has determined that this joint final rule will not affect
family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999,
Public Law 105-277 (5 U.S.C. 601 note).

OCC Executive Order 13132 Determination

The OCC has determined that this joint final rule does not have any
Federalism implications, as required by Executive Order 13132.

List of Subjects

12 CFR Part 25

Community development, Credit, Investments, National banks,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

12 CFR Part 228

Banks, Banking, Community development, Credit, Investments,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

12 CFR Part 345

Banks, Banking, Community development, Credit, Investments,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

12 CFR Part 563e

Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.

Department of the Treasury

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Chapter I

PART 25--COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT AND INTERSTATE DEPOSIT
PRODUCTION REGULATIONS

0
Accordingly, the joint interim rule amending 12 CFR part 25, which was
published at 69 FR 41181 on July 8, 2004, is adopted as a joint final
rule without change.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

12 CFR Chapter II

PART 228--COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT (REGULATION BB)

0
Accordingly, the joint interim rule amending 12 CFR part 228, which was
published at 69 FR 41181 on July 8, 2004, is adopted as a joint final
rule without change.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

12 CFR Chapter III

PART 345--COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT

0
Accordingly, the joint interim rule amending 12 CFR part 345, which was
published at 69 FR 41181 on July 8, 2004, is adopted as a joint final
rule without change.

Department of the Treasury

Office of Thrift Supervision

12 CFR Chapter V

PART 563e--COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT

0
Accordingly, the joint interim rule amending 12 CFR part 563e, which
was published at 69 FR 41181 on July 8, 2004, is adopted as a joint
final rule without change.

Dated: February 14, 2005.
Julie L. Williams,
Acting Comptroller of the Currency.

By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, March 2, 2005.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
Dated: March 18, 2005.

By Order of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
Dated: February 11, 2005.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
James E. Gilleran,
Director.
[FR Doc. 05-5983 Filed 3-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-33-P