FDIC and OCC Seek Public Comment on Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Amend Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Regulations
FederalAgency guidance
Ask Donna
How this section applies to your facts.
FDIC Financial Institution Letters › FDIC and OCC Seek Public Comment on Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Amend Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Regulations
Text
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Parts 5, 24, 25, and 35
[Docket ID OCC-2026-0694]
RIN 1557-AF57
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Parts 345 and 346
RIN 3064-AG31
Community Reinvestment Act Regulations
AGENCY: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury, and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are proposing to amend their Community Reinvestment Act rules
by making certain substantive, technical, and process-oriented changes to refocus on the
statutory objective of encouraging banks to meet the credit needs of their communities; to better
ensure that community development grants reach the communities they are intended to benefit;
to reduce unnecessary burden, particularly for community banks; and to provide greater clarity
for how to obtain CRA consideration. The OCC and the FDIC are also proposing certain
technical changes to their rules implementing the Community Reinvestment Act sunshine
requirements of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. In addition, the OCC is proposing similar
technical changes to its Public Welfare Investments rule and its Rules, Policies, and Procedures
for Corporate Activities.
DATE: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to the agencies as follows:
OCC: Commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Please use the title “Community Reinvestment Act Regulations” to facilitate the organization and
distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal – Regulations.gov:
Go to https://regulations.gov/
ld be directed to the agencies as follows:
OCC: Commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Please use the title “Community Reinvestment Act Regulations” to facilitate the organization and
distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal – Regulations.gov:
Go to https://regulations.gov/. Enter Docket ID “OCC-2026-0694” in the Search Box
and click “Search.” Public comments can be submitted via the “Comment” box below the
displayed document information or by clicking on the document title and then clicking the
“Comment” box on the top-left side of the screen. For help with submitting effective comments,
please click on “Commenter’s Checklist.” For assistance with the Regulations.gov site, please
call 1-866-498-2945 (toll free) Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. EST, or e-mail
regulationshelpdesk@gsa.gov.
• Mail: Chief Counsel’s Office, Attention: Comment Processing, Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, 400 7th Street, SW, Suite 1E-216, Washington, DC 20219.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th Street, SW, Suite 1E-216, Washington, DC 20219.
Instructions: You must include “OCC” as the agency name and Docket ID “OCC-2026-
0694” in your comment. In general, the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket
and publish the comments on the Regulations.gov website without change, including any
business or personal information provided such as name and address information, e-mail
addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any
l comments received into the docket
and publish the comments on the Regulations.gov website without change, including any
business or personal information provided such as name and address information, e-mail
addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any
information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this action by the
following method:
• Viewing Comments Electronically – Regulations.gov:
Go to https://regulations.gov/. Enter Docket ID “OCC-2026-0694” in the
Search Box and click “Search.” Click on the “Dockets” tab and then the document’s title. After
clicking the document’s title, click the “Browse All Comments” tab. Comments can be viewed
and filtered by clicking on the “Sort By” drop-down on the right side of the screen or the “Refine
Comments Results” options on the left side of the screen. Supporting materials can be viewed
by clicking on the “Browse Documents” tab. Click on the “Sort By” drop-down on the right side
of the screen or the “Refine Results” options on the left side of the screen checking the
“Supporting & Related Material” checkbox. For assistance with the Regulations.gov site, please
call 1-866-498-2945 (toll free) Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. EST, or e-mail
regulationshelpdesk@gsa.gov.
The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as
during the comment period.
FDIC: Comments should be directed to the FDIC, identified by RIN 3064-AG31, by any of the
following methods:
• Agency Website: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/.
Follow instructions for submitting comments on the FDIC website.
• Mail: Jennifer M
docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as
during the comment period.
FDIC: Comments should be directed to the FDIC, identified by RIN 3064-AG31, by any of the
following methods:
• Agency Website: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/.
Follow instructions for submitting comments on the FDIC website.
• Mail: Jennifer M. Jones, Deputy Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments—RIN 3064-
AG31, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
• Hand Delivered/Courier: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of
the 550 17th Street NW building (located on F Street NW) on business days between 7 a.m. and
5 p.m.
• Email: comments@FDIC.gov. Include RIN 3064-AG31 on the subject line of the message.
• Public Inspection: Comments received, including any personal information provided, may be
posted without change to https://www.fdic.gov/federal-register-publications. Commenters should
submit only information that the commenter wishes to make available publicly. The FDIC may
review, redact, or refrain from posting all or any portion of any comment that it may deem to be
inappropriate for publication, such as irrelevant or obscene material. The FDIC may post only a
single representative example of identical or substantially identical comments, and in such cases
will generally identify the number of identical or substantially identical comments represented by
the posted example. All comments that have been redacted, as well as those that have not been
posted, that contain comments on the merits of this notice will be retained in the public comment
file and will be considered as required under all applicable laws. All comments may be
accessible under the Freedom of Information Act
umber of identical or substantially identical comments represented by
the posted example. All comments that have been redacted, as well as those that have not been
posted, that contain comments on the merits of this notice will be retained in the public comment
file and will be considered as required under all applicable laws. All comments may be
accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.
FDIC: Comments should be directed to the FDIC, identified by RIN 3064-AG31, by any of the
following methods:
• Agency Website: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/.
Follow instructions for submitting comments on the FDIC website.
• Mail: Jennifer M. Jones, Deputy Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments—RIN 3064-
AG31, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
• Hand Delivered/Courier: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of
the 550 17th Street NW building (located on F Street NW) on business days between 7 a.m. and
5 p.m.
• Email: comments@FDIC.gov. Include RIN 3064-AG31 on the subject line of the message.
• Public Inspection: Comments received, including any personal information provided, may be
posted without change to https://www.fdic.gov/federal-register-publications. Commenters should
submit only information that the commenter wishes to make available publicly. The FDIC may
review, redact, or refrain from posting all or any portion of any comment that it may deem to be
inappropriate for publication, such as irrelevant or obscene material. The FDIC may post only a
single representative example of identical or substantially identical comments, and in such cases
will generally identify the number of identical or substantially identical comments represented by
the posted example
ct, or refrain from posting all or any portion of any comment that it may deem to be
inappropriate for publication, such as irrelevant or obscene material. The FDIC may post only a
single representative example of identical or substantially identical comments, and in such cases
will generally identify the number of identical or substantially identical comments represented by
the posted example. All comments that have been redacted, as well as those that have not been
posted, that contain comments on the merits of this notice will be retained in the public comment
file and will be considered as required under all applicable laws. All comments may be
accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OCC: Emily Boyes, Special Counsel; Marjorie Dieter, Special Counsel; or Kevin Behne,
Counsel, Chief Counsel’s Office, (202) 649-5490; Michelle Newell, Lead Expert; Cassandra
Remmenga, CRA Modernization Program Manager; Chief National Bank Examiner’s Office
(202) 649-5470, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC
20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access
telecommunications relay services.
FDIC: Stephanie M. Baroody, Senior Examination Specialist, Compliance and CRA
Examinations Branch, Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection, (571) 858-8311;
Kristopher M. Rengert, Senior Policy Analyst, Supervisory Policy Branch, Division of Depositor
and Consumer Protection, (202) 898–3593; Cassandra Duhaney, Counsel, Legal Division, (202)
898– 6804; Alys V. Brown, Senior Attorney, Legal Division, (202) 898-3565, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
I
epositor and Consumer Protection, (571) 858-8311;
Kristopher M. Rengert, Senior Policy Analyst, Supervisory Policy Branch, Division of Depositor
and Consumer Protection, (202) 898–3593; Cassandra Duhaney, Counsel, Legal Division, (202)
898– 6804; Alys V. Brown, Senior Attorney, Legal Division, (202) 898-3565, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
I.
Introduction
The OCC and the FDIC (together, the agencies) are proposing targeted changes to their
regulations implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in order to better align with
the statutory mandate, reduce unnecessary burden, and improve clarity.1 Because these rules
generally date back to 1995,2 the agencies have decades of experience applying them to the
insured depository institutions they supervise (hereinafter, banks).3 Based on this experience, as
1 Pub. L. 95–128, 91 Stat. 1147 (1977) (codified at 12 U.S.C. 2901 et seq. (as amended) and implemented by
the OCC at 12 CFR part 25, subparts A through D, and by the FDIC at 12 CFR part 345). For reasons explained
below, the currently applicable rules, promulgated in 1995, can be found on the website for the Electronic Code of
Federal Regulation at https://www.ecfr.gov/on/2024-03-29/title-12/chapter-I/part-25 and
https://www.ecfr.gov/on/2024-03-29/title-12/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-345. See 12 CFR part 25 (version
effective as of Mar. 29, 2024); 12 CFR part 345 (version effective as of Mar. 29, 2024). References to “current rule”
or “current rules” in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION refers to these rules.
2 The agencies, along with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) and the Office of
Thrift Supervision (OTS), first promulgated CRA rules in 1978 and established the standards for evaluating a bank’s
CRA performance. 43 FR 47144 (Oct. 12, 1978). In 1995, the four agencies significantly revised and clarified the
1978 rules (1995 CRA rules). See 60 FR 22156 (May 4, 1995)
.
2 The agencies, along with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) and the Office of
Thrift Supervision (OTS), first promulgated CRA rules in 1978 and established the standards for evaluating a bank’s
CRA performance. 43 FR 47144 (Oct. 12, 1978). In 1995, the four agencies significantly revised and clarified the
1978 rules (1995 CRA rules). See 60 FR 22156 (May 4, 1995). As discussed below, the substance and structure of
the agencies current rules are primarily based on the 1995 CRA rules.
3 For purposes of the CRA, “insured depository institution” is defined by cross-reference to 12 U.S.C.
1813(c)(2) as “any bank or savings association the deposits of which are insured” by the FDIC pursuant to the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA). 12 U.S.C. 2902(2). The FDIA defines “bank” as “any national bank and
State bank, and any Federal branch and insured branch.” 12 U.S.C. 1813(a)(1). It defines “savings association” to
include any Federal or State savings association. 12 U.S.C. 1813(b)(1). As used in this SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, the term “bank” or “banks” includes uninsured Federal branches that result from an acquisition
described in the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3103(a)(8)). The CRA defines “appropriate Federal
financial supervisory agency” as the OCC, FDIC, and Board. 12 U.S.C. 2902(1). Pursuant to the CRA, the OCC is
the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency for national banks and Federal savings associations. 12 U.S.C.
2902(1)(A). The FDIC is the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency for state-chartered non-member
banks and savings associations. 12 U.S.C. 2902(1)(C). For purposes of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION,
the agencies use the term “appropriate agency” instead of “appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency.”
visory agency for national banks and Federal savings associations. 12 U.S.C.
2902(1)(A). The FDIC is the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency for state-chartered non-member
banks and savings associations. 12 U.S.C. 2902(1)(C). For purposes of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION,
the agencies use the term “appropriate agency” instead of “appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency.”
well as feedback the agencies have received through various initiatives described below, these
targeted changes are designed to retain the key elements of the current regulatory framework to
provide continuity and minimize disruptions while making revisions to accomplish the goals
listed above.
Congress enacted the CRA in 1977 based on its express findings that: “(1) regulated
financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the
convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business; (2) the
convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit
services; and (3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation[s] to
help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.”4 Congress
codified its intent in enacting the statute, stating that its purpose “is to require each appropriate
Federal financial supervisory agency . . . to encourage [the institutions that each agency
regulates] to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered
consistent with the safe and sound operation of the institutions.”5
To achieve this purpose, the CRA requires each agency to “assess [an] institution’s
record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income
[(LMI)] neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution.”6 Upon
completing this assessment, the statute requires the agency to “prepare a written evaluation of the
institution’s record of meeting the
purpose, the CRA requires each agency to “assess [an] institution’s
record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income
[(LMI)] neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution.”6 Upon
completing this assessment, the statute requires the agency to “prepare a written evaluation of the
institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including [LMI]
neighborhoods.”7 The statute further provides that the agency must “take such record into
4 12 U.S.C. 2901(a). The CRA defines “regulated financial institution” as an insured depository institution as
defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(2). 12 U.S.C. 2902(2).
5 12 U.S.C. 2901(b).
6 12 U.S.C. 2903(a)(1).
7 12 U.S.C. 2906(a).
account in its evaluation of an application for a deposit facility by such institution.”8 The CRA
also directs each agency to publish a rule to carry out the statute’s purposes.9
In recent years, the agencies have undertaken numerous initiatives, on an interagency
basis and individually, to revise and modernize their CRA rules. As a result of these efforts, they
have received significant public feedback. For example, from 2013 to 2016, the agencies
solicited feedback on their CRA regulatory framework as part of the Economic Growth and
Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA) review process.10 In 2018, the OCC
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit ideas for a new CRA regulatory
framework and received more than 1,500 comment letters.11 In 2019, the agencies issued a joint
notice of proposed rulemaking to update their CRA rules and received over 7,500 comment
letters,12 and in 2020, the OCC finalized that rule (2020 CRA rule).13 In 2021, the OCC
rescinded the 2020 CRA rule and replaced it with a rule based largely on the 1995 CRA rules.14
In 2022, the agencies, along with the Board (together with the agencies, the Federal
banking agencies), issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking to modern
pdate their CRA rules and received over 7,500 comment
letters,12 and in 2020, the OCC finalized that rule (2020 CRA rule).13 In 2021, the OCC
rescinded the 2020 CRA rule and replaced it with a rule based largely on the 1995 CRA rules.14
In 2022, the agencies, along with the Board (together with the agencies, the Federal
banking agencies), issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking to modernize their CRA rules.15
Approximately 950 unique comment letters were submitted in response. After considering public
8 12 U.S.C. 2903(a)(2).
9 12 U.S.C. 2905. Pursuant to Title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1522 (2010) (Dodd-Frank Act), Congress transferred the OTS’s rulemaking
authority for all savings associations to the OCC and its supervisory authority for State savings associations to the
FDIC. As a result, the OCC’s CRA regulation applies to both State and Federal savings associations (in addition to
national banks), and the FDIC enforces the OCC’s CRA regulation with respect to State savings associations.
10 See 82 FR 15900 (Mar. 30, 2017) (EGRPRA report to Congress). The Board and the National Credit Union
Association joined this report.
11 83 FR 45053 (Sept. 5, 2018).
12 85 FR 1204 (Jan. 9, 2020).
13 85 FR 34734 (June 5, 2020).
14 86 FR 71328 (Dec. 15, 2021).
15 87 FR 33884 (June 3, 2022).
comments received, the Federal banking agencies issued final rules (2023 CRA rules) on
October 24, 2023.16 On February 5, 2024, several trade association plaintiffs jointly sued the
Federal banking agencies in the U.S
his report.
11 83 FR 45053 (Sept. 5, 2018).
12 85 FR 1204 (Jan. 9, 2020).
13 85 FR 34734 (June 5, 2020).
14 86 FR 71328 (Dec. 15, 2021).
15 87 FR 33884 (June 3, 2022).
comments received, the Federal banking agencies issued final rules (2023 CRA rules) on
October 24, 2023.16 On February 5, 2024, several trade association plaintiffs jointly sued the
Federal banking agencies in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
challenging the 2023 CRA rules.17 On February 9, 2024, these trade associations sought
preliminary injunctive relief,18 which the court granted on March 29, 2024, preliminarily
enjoining the Federal banking agencies from enforcing the 2023 CRA rules against the plaintiffs
pending resolution of the litigation.19 The District Court also extended the effective date of and
all implementation dates for the 2023 CRA rules for each day that its preliminary injunction
would remain in place.20 As a result of these actions, the Federal banking agencies have been
continuing to apply the rules that were in effect when the District Court issued its order (the
current rules).21
In its memorandum opinion and order, the District Court concluded that the plaintiffs had
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Federal
banking agencies exceeded their authority in issuing the 2023 CRA rules.22 For example, the
District Court determined that the Federal banking agencies’ interpretation of “entire
16 89 FR 6574 (Feb. 1, 2024).
17 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, Civ. A. No. 2:24-cv-00025-Z (N.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2024), ECF No. 4.
18 Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, Civ. A. No. 2:24-cv-00025-Z (N.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2024), ECF No. 19.
19 Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 728 F. Supp.3d 412, 429-30 (N.D. Tex.
2024)
of the Comptroller of the
Currency, Civ. A. No. 2:24-cv-00025-Z (N.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2024), ECF No. 4.
18 Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, Civ. A. No. 2:24-cv-00025-Z (N.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2024), ECF No. 19.
19 Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 728 F. Supp.3d 412, 429-30 (N.D. Tex.
2024). The District Court issued the injunction just days before April 1, 2024, when the 2023 CRA rules would have
become effective and certain parts of those rules would have applied to banks. See 89 FR at 6574, 7137.
20 Tex. Bankers Ass’n, 728 F. Supp.3d at 430.
21 See id. at 429-30 and supra note 1. The proposal would recodify the text of the current rules, revised as
discussed in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
22 Tex. Bankers Ass’n, 728 F. Supp.3d at 420-25.
community” in the 2023 CRA rules clashed with the statutory text.23 It also concluded that the
plaintiffs’ argument about the required nexus between a bank’s “community” and its physical
location was stronger than the Federal banking agencies’ contrary argument.24 Additionally, the
District Court considered the Major Questions Doctrine and rejected the Federal banking
agencies’ assertion that Congress granted the authority to assess a bank CRA performance
wherever the bank makes loans.25
On April 18, 2024, the Federal banking agencies appealed the District Court’s
preliminary injunction to the U.S
than the Federal banking agencies’ contrary argument.24 Additionally, the
District Court considered the Major Questions Doctrine and rejected the Federal banking
agencies’ assertion that Congress granted the authority to assess a bank CRA performance
wherever the bank makes loans.25
On April 18, 2024, the Federal banking agencies appealed the District Court’s
preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.26 On March 28, 2025,
during the pendency of the appeal, the Federal banking agencies filed an unopposed motion to
stay the appeal pending completion of new rulemakings that would propose to rescind the
enjoined 2023 CRA rules and reinstate the prior CRA framework.27 On April 1, 2025, the Fifth
Circuit granted the Federal banking agencies’ motion.28
On July 16, 2025, the Federal banking agencies published a notice of proposed
rulemaking to rescind the 2023 CRA rules (rescission proposal) and, with minor conforming and
technical edits, to replace it with the rules in effect on March 29, 2024 (the date on which the
District Court enjoined the 2023 CRA rules).29 The Federal banking agencies explained that this
23 See id. at 420-23.
24 See id. at 421.
25 See id. at 425.
26 Defendants’ Notice of Appeal, Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Civ. A. No.
2:24-cv-00025-Z (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2024), ECF No. 79.
27 Defendants-Appellants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay Pending Completion of New Rulemaking Proceedings,
Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., No. 24-10367 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2025), ECF No.
165. As discussed above, the prior CRA framework refers to the agencies’ current rules.
28 Order, Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., Civ. A. No. 24-10367 (5th Cir. Apr.
1, 2025), ECF No. 174.
29 90 FR 34086 (July 18, 2025).
New Rulemaking Proceedings,
Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., No. 24-10367 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2025), ECF No.
165. As discussed above, the prior CRA framework refers to the agencies’ current rules.
28 Order, Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., Civ. A. No. 24-10367 (5th Cir. Apr.
1, 2025), ECF No. 174.
29 90 FR 34086 (July 18, 2025).
approach aligned with their shared objectives of restoring certainty to the CRA regulatory
framework and limiting regulatory burden on banks.30
The Federal banking agencies received approximately 47 comments on the rescission
proposal. After considering these comments, as well as public feedback from the initiatives
outlined above, the litigation related to the 2023 CRA rules, and their extensive supervisory
experience with the current rules, the OCC and the FDIC have decided not to finalize the
rescission proposal but to issue this new proposal instead.31
On July 1, 2026, the OCC and FDIC filed an unopposed motion with the Fifth Circuit to
dismiss their appeal of the District Court’s injunction against their 2023 CRA rules.32 The Fifth
Circuit dismissed the agencies’ appeal on July 9, 2026.33
The OCC and FDIC are now moving the District Court for the entry of a final judgment
against them. The language of the OCC’s and FDIC’s proposed judgment would, if entered by
the Court, declare that future amendments to the OCC’s and FDIC’s CRA regulations could
neither be based on (1) an expansive view of “entire community” that provides for or permits the
assessment of regulated institutions’ retail lending activities outside the geographic areas where
they operate and maintain deposit-taking facilities; nor (2) an expansive view of “credit needs”
that provides for or permits the assessment of regulated institutions’ deposit products.
II.
Summary of the Current Rules34
30 90 FR at 34089.
31 This notice of proposed rulemaking is being issued jointly by the agencies
titutions’ retail lending activities outside the geographic areas where
they operate and maintain deposit-taking facilities; nor (2) an expansive view of “credit needs”
that provides for or permits the assessment of regulated institutions’ deposit products.
II.
Summary of the Current Rules34
30 90 FR at 34089.
31 This notice of proposed rulemaking is being issued jointly by the agencies. Any decisions about the Board’s
next steps with respect to the rescission proposal rest exclusively with its Governors.
32 Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal in Part, Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve
Sys., Civ. A. No. 24-10367 (5th Cir. July 1, 2026), ECF No. 197.
33 Clerk Order, Tex. Bankers Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., Civ. A. No. 24-10367 (5th Cir.
July 9, 2026), ECF No. 201-1.
34 As noted above, the current rules are the rules in effect when the 2023 CRA rules were enjoined on March 29,
2024.
The agencies’ current rules address a variety of components intended to implement the
statute. They set out a performance assessment framework, which includes performance tests or
standards the agencies use to evaluate a bank’s CRA performance depending on its asset size or
business strategy. They also explain CRA assigned ratings; data collection, maintenance, and
disclosure requirements; the public’s right to access information about how a bank meets the
credit needs of its community; and the effect of a CRA rating on certain bank applications. To
provide guidance on the current rules, the Federal banking agencies have periodically published
the Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment (Interagency
Questions and Answers).35 The components of the current rules, as well as certain applicable
guidance, are described below.
A. CRA Regulatory Framework
Small banks, including intermediate small banks
lications. To
provide guidance on the current rules, the Federal banking agencies have periodically published
the Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment (Interagency
Questions and Answers).35 The components of the current rules, as well as certain applicable
guidance, are described below.
A. CRA Regulatory Framework
Small banks, including intermediate small banks. Under the current rules, a bank that
meets the definition of a “small bank”—currently, those with assets of less than $1.649 billion as
of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years—is evaluated under a lending test for
small banks.36 A subset of small banks that are “intermediate small banks”—currently, those
with assets of at least $412 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two calendar years—
are also evaluated under a community development (CD) test.37
35 See 81 FR 48506 (July 25, 2016). “Interagency Questions and Answers” refers to the “Interagency Questions
and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment” guidance in its entirety. “Q&A” refers to an individual question
and answer within the Interagency Questions and Answers.
36 See current 12 CFR __.12(u), __.21(a)(3), and __.26(b). As discussed below, the OCC has recently performed
its annual asset size threshold adjustments through a bulletin process. While the FDIC often makes the same
adjustments through a final rule, the FDIC has also used Federal Register announcements that do not revise the
regulatory text of its current rule.
37 See current 12 CFR __.12(u) and __.26(c).
CFR __.12(u), __.21(a)(3), and __.26(b). As discussed below, the OCC has recently performed
its annual asset size threshold adjustments through a bulletin process. While the FDIC often makes the same
adjustments through a final rule, the FDIC has also used Federal Register announcements that do not revise the
regulatory text of its current rule.
37 See current 12 CFR __.12(u) and __.26(c).
Large banks. Under the current rules, a bank with assets that exceed the small bank asset
size threshold—currently, those with assets greater than $1.649 billion as of December 31 of
both of the prior two calendar years (commonly referred to as a “large bank”)—is evaluated
under separate lending, investment, and service tests.38 The lending and service tests consider
both retail and CD activities,39 and the investment test focuses on qualified investments. To
facilitate the agencies’ CRA examinations, a large bank is required to collect, maintain, and
report annually certain data on CD loans, small business loans, and small farm loans; these banks
are also required to report annually the census tracts included in their assessment area(s).40 In
contrast, small banks, including intermediate small banks, are not required to report these data
unless they opt to be evaluated under the large bank lending test.41
Wholesale and limited purpose banks. A bank that is designated as either a wholesale
bank (i.e., a bank that is not in the business of extending retail loans to retail customers)42 or a
limited purpose bank (i.e., a bank that offers only a narrow product line to a regional or broader
market)43 is evaluated under a standalone CD test.44 In order for an agency to designate a bank as
a wholesale bank or limited purpose bank, the bank must file a request with and receive approval
from the appropriate agency.45
38 See current 12 CFR __.21(a)(1) and __.22 through__.24 (lending, investment, and service tests)
bank that offers only a narrow product line to a regional or broader
market)43 is evaluated under a standalone CD test.44 In order for an agency to designate a bank as
a wholesale bank or limited purpose bank, the bank must file a request with and receive approval
from the appropriate agency.45
38 See current 12 CFR __.21(a)(1) and __.22 through__.24 (lending, investment, and service tests). The current
rules do not define “large bank,” but their existence is implied for banks that exceed the asset-size threshold for the
intermediate small bank definition.
39 Throughout this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the term “activity” refers to a loan, investment,
grant, or service, as applicable.
40 See current 12 CFR __.42(a), (b), and (g).
41 See current 12 CFR __.42(f).
42 See current 12 CFR __.12(x).
43 See current 12 CFR __.12(n).
44 See current 12 CFR __.21(a)(2) and __.25.
45 See current 12 CFR __.25(b).
Strategic plans. Any bank may elect to be evaluated under a tailored strategic plan in lieu
of one of the otherwise applicable tests or standards discussed above.46 A bank that elects to be
evaluated under a strategic plan must develop that plan with community input and receive plan
approval from the appropriate agency.47
Retail and CD activities. Under the current rule, the appropriate agency evaluates a
bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its community by assessing its retail and CD
activities under the applicable performance tests or standards. The retail activities considered
under the current rules are (1) consumer, home mortgage, small business, and small farm
lending, as applicable; and (2) retail banking services and delivery systems
ent rule, the appropriate agency evaluates a
bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its community by assessing its retail and CD
activities under the applicable performance tests or standards. The retail activities considered
under the current rules are (1) consumer, home mortgage, small business, and small farm
lending, as applicable; and (2) retail banking services and delivery systems. The current rules
also consider as CD activities a bank’s loans, investments, and services that have a primary
purpose of community development.48 The current rules define “community development” to
mean: (1) affordable housing; (2) community services targeted to LMI individuals; (3) economic
development that finances small businesses and small farms; and (4) activities that revitalize or
stabilize LMI geographies, designated disaster areas, and distressed or underserved
nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies.49 Qualified investments are defined to include
investments, grants, deposits, and membership shares.50 CD services are generally volunteer
services provided by a bank that, in addition to having a primary purpose of community
development, also are related to the provision of financial services.51
46 See current 12 CFR __.21(a)(4) and __.27.
47 See current 12 CFR __.27(g).
48 See current 12 CFR __.12(h), (i), and (t).
49 See current 12 CFR __.12(g).
50 See current 12 CFR __.12(t).
51 See current 12 CFR __.12(i).
olunteer
services provided by a bank that, in addition to having a primary purpose of community
development, also are related to the provision of financial services.51
46 See current 12 CFR __.21(a)(4) and __.27.
47 See current 12 CFR __.27(g).
48 See current 12 CFR __.12(h), (i), and (t).
49 See current 12 CFR __.12(g).
50 See current 12 CFR __.12(t).
51 See current 12 CFR __.12(i).
Assessment areas. A bank is required to delineate one or more assessment areas in which
the appropriate agency evaluates its record of helping to meet the credit needs of its community
through the provision of retail and CD activities.52 An assessment area must include the
geographies (i.e., census tracts) in which the bank’s main office, branches, and deposit-taking
automated teller machines (ATMs) are located, as well as the surrounding census tracts where a
substantial portion of its loans are originated or purchased.53 A bank may adjust the boundaries
of its assessment areas to include only the portion of a political subdivision that it reasonably can
be expected to serve, subject to certain limitations.54
B. Performance Tests
Lending test. Under the current lending test, the appropriate agency evaluates a bank’s
record of helping to meet the credit needs of its assessment area(s) through its lending activities
by considering (1) its retail lending (i.e., consumer, home mortgage, small business, and small
farm lending, as applicable); and (2) its CD lending.55 The agency evaluates consumer lending in
one or more specific product lines (i.e., motor vehicle, credit card, other secured, and other
unsecured loans) either at a bank’s option or if consumer lending constitutes a substantial
majority of the bank’s business. If a bank opts to have the appropriate agency evaluate its
consumer lending, the bank must collect and maintain the data required by 12 CFR __.42 for
each category of consumer lending that it elects to have the agency evaluate. In considering a
52 See current 12 CFR __.41(a)
red loans) either at a bank’s option or if consumer lending constitutes a substantial
majority of the bank’s business. If a bank opts to have the appropriate agency evaluate its
consumer lending, the bank must collect and maintain the data required by 12 CFR __.42 for
each category of consumer lending that it elects to have the agency evaluate. In considering a
52 See current 12 CFR __.41(a).
53 See current 12 CFR __.41(b) and (c).
54 See current 12 CFR __.41(d) and (e).
55 See current 12 CFR __.22(a).
bank’s CD lending, the agency considers the number and amount of the bank’s CD loans, as well
as the complexity and innovativeness of the lending.
Investment test. Under the current investment test, the appropriate agency evaluates a
bank’s record of helping to meet the credit needs of its assessment area(s) through qualified
investments that benefit (1) the assessment area(s); or (2) a broader statewide or regional area
that includes the assessment area(s).56 The agency considers the dollar amount of the qualified
investments, as well as their complexity, innovativeness, and responsiveness and the extent to
which they are not routinely provided by private investors.57 Generally, an activity considered
under the lending or service tests may not be considered under the investment test.58
Service test. Under the current service test, the appropriate agency evaluates a bank’s
record of helping to meet the credit needs of its assessment area(s) by analyzing (1) the
availability and effectiveness of the bank’s systems for delivering retail banking services; and (2)
the extent, innovativeness, and responsiveness of the CD services that benefit the bank’s
assessment area(s) or the broader statewide or regional area(s) that includes the bank’s
assessment area(s).59 In evaluating a bank’s retail banking services, the agency considers its (1)
distribution and record of opening and closing branches; (2) alternative systems for delivering
retail banking services; and (3) the range of servic
d responsiveness of the CD services that benefit the bank’s
assessment area(s) or the broader statewide or regional area(s) that includes the bank’s
assessment area(s).59 In evaluating a bank’s retail banking services, the agency considers its (1)
distribution and record of opening and closing branches; (2) alternative systems for delivering
retail banking services; and (3) the range of services that the bank provides.60
Small bank performance standards. The current rules include small bank performance
standards, which include a small bank lending test. Under that test, the appropriate agency
56 See current 12 CFR __.23(a).
57 See current 12 CFR __.23(e).
58 See current 12 CFR __.23(b).
59 See current 12 CFR __.24(a) and (b).
60 See current 12 CFR __.24(d).
assesses a small bank’s (including an intermediate small bank’s) lending and other lending-
related activities, as applicable, under several performance criteria, including (1) its loan-to-
deposit ratio and the percentage of loans in its assessment area(s); (2) the borrower distribution
and geographic distribution of its loans; and (3) its record of taking action in response to written
complaints.61 For a small bank that is not an intermediate small bank, the agency may also
consider its CD lending under the lending test. For an intermediate small bank, the agency also
assesses its performance under a CD test that considers: (1) the number and amount of CD loans
and investments; (2) the extent to which the bank provides CD services; and (3) the
responsiveness of a bank’s CD activities to community needs.62
Wholesale and limited purpose bank tests
gency may also
consider its CD lending under the lending test. For an intermediate small bank, the agency also
assesses its performance under a CD test that considers: (1) the number and amount of CD loans
and investments; (2) the extent to which the bank provides CD services; and (3) the
responsiveness of a bank’s CD activities to community needs.62
Wholesale and limited purpose bank tests. Under the current CD test for wholesale and
limited purpose banks, the appropriate agency assesses (1) the number and amount of a
wholesale or limited purpose bank’s CD activities; (2) its use of innovative or complex CD
activities; and (3) the responsiveness of its CD activities.63 The agency considers CD activities
that benefit: (1) the bank’s assessment area(s); and (2) if the bank has adequately addressed the
needs of its assessment area(s), then areas outside of its assessment area(s).64
Strategic plan. For a bank of any size or business strategy that elects to be evaluated
under a strategic plan under the current rule, the appropriate agency assesses the bank’s strategic
plan under measurable goals that the bank establishes for lending, investments, and services, as
applicable.65 A bank must establish measurable goals for a “satisfactory” rating and may
61 See current 12 CFR __.26(b).
62 See current 12 CFR __.26(c).
63 See current 12 CFR __.25(c).
64 See current 12 CFR __.25(e).
65 See current 12 CFR __.27(f) and (g).
agency assesses the bank’s strategic
plan under measurable goals that the bank establishes for lending, investments, and services, as
applicable.65 A bank must establish measurable goals for a “satisfactory” rating and may
61 See current 12 CFR __.26(b).
62 See current 12 CFR __.26(c).
63 See current 12 CFR __.25(c).
64 See current 12 CFR __.25(e).
65 See current 12 CFR __.27(f) and (g).
establish measurable goals for an “outstanding” rating.66 The approval of a plan does not affect a
bank’s obligation, if any, to report required data.67
Performance context. Under the current rules, the appropriate agency also considers
applicable performance context information to inform its analysis and conclusions regarding a
bank’s CRA performance when conducting a CRA examination or approving a strategic plan.68
Performance context is comprised of a broad range of economic, demographic, bank-specific,
and community-specific information that the agencies consider to inform their assessment of a
bank’s efforts to meet the needs of and understand the opportunities in its local communities.
C. Ratings, Data and the Public File, and the Effect of CRA Performance on Applications
Ratings. Consistent with the statute, the appropriate agency assigns each bank a rating of
“outstanding,” “satisfactory,” “needs to improve,” or “substantial noncompliance” following a
CRA examination.69 The agencies rate a bank’s overall record of performance and the bank’s
record of performance in applicable States and multistate metropolitan statistical areas
(multistate MSA), as provided in the statute.70
66 See current 12 CFR __.27(f)(3).
67 See current 12 CFR __.27(b).
68 See current 12 CFR __.21(b).
69 12 U.S.C. 2906(b)(2), implemented by current 12 CFR __.28(a). The narrative descriptions of the ratings for
performance under each evaluation method are in appendix A to the current rules. See also Q&A appendix A to
part__—Ratings
cal areas
(multistate MSA), as provided in the statute.70
66 See current 12 CFR __.27(f)(3).
67 See current 12 CFR __.27(b).
68 See current 12 CFR __.21(b).
69 12 U.S.C. 2906(b)(2), implemented by current 12 CFR __.28(a). The narrative descriptions of the ratings for
performance under each evaluation method are in appendix A to the current rules. See also Q&A appendix A to
part__—Ratings.
70 An agency also assigns ratings for a bank’s performance in each State in which the bank maintains one or
more branches or other facilities that accept deposits and in each multistate metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in
which the bank maintains branches or other facilities that accept deposits in two or more states within the multistate
MSA. 12 U.S.C. 2906(d). Prior to reaching these overall ratings, an agency assigns performance test ratings at the
State, multistate MSA, and institution level for each applicable performance test. With one exception, the current
rating scale used for performance test ratings mirrors that of the four statutory institution-level ratings. For large
banks, however, the agency bifurcates the “satisfactory” rating for each of the three performance tests into “high
satisfactory” and “low satisfactory.” See Q&A § __.28(a)—3; current 12 CFR __, appendix A, paragraph (b);
Interagency Large Institution CRA Examination Procedures (Apr. 2014),
https://www.ffiec.gov/sites/default/files/data/cra/pdf/cra_exlarge.pdf.
itution-level ratings. For large
banks, however, the agency bifurcates the “satisfactory” rating for each of the three performance tests into “high
satisfactory” and “low satisfactory.” See Q&A § __.28(a)—3; current 12 CFR __, appendix A, paragraph (b);
Interagency Large Institution CRA Examination Procedures (Apr. 2014),
https://www.ffiec.gov/sites/default/files/data/cra/pdf/cra_exlarge.pdf.
To assign the bank, State, and multistate MSA ratings, the agencies rate a bank’s
performance under the applicable performance tests and then combine those ratings, if necessary.
Specifically, under the current large bank examination procedures, the appropriate agency uses a
rating scale to convert the rating assigned for each performance test into point values, which are
added together to determine a bank’s overall bank rating.71 The lending test generally accounts
for 50 percent of a large bank’s rating, and the investment test and service test each generally
account for 25 percent.72
In addition, an intermediate small bank may not receive an overall “satisfactory” rating
unless it receives at least a “satisfactory” rating on both the lending test and the CD test.73 An
intermediate small bank that receives an “outstanding” on one test and at least “satisfactory”
rating on the other test may receive an overall rating of “outstanding.”74 A small bank that is not
an intermediate small bank may receive an “outstanding” rating based on its performance only
under the lending test.75 The appropriate agency may consider qualified investments, services,
and delivery systems that enhance the availability of credit in a bank’s assessment areas for an
“outstanding” rating, but only if the bank meets or exceeds the standards for a “satisfactory”
rating under the lending test in the small bank performance standards.76 In assigning a bank’s
ratings, the appropriate agency considers any evidence of discriminatory or other illegal credit
71 See Q&A § __.28(a)—3; current 12 CFR __, appendix A, paragraph (b); see
a bank’s assessment areas for an
“outstanding” rating, but only if the bank meets or exceeds the standards for a “satisfactory”
rating under the lending test in the small bank performance standards.76 In assigning a bank’s
ratings, the appropriate agency considers any evidence of discriminatory or other illegal credit
71 See Q&A § __.28(a)—3; current 12 CFR __, appendix A, paragraph (b); see also Interagency Large
Institution CRA Examination Procedures.
72 See Q&A appendix A to part __—1.
73 See current 12 CFR __, appendix A, paragraph (d)(3)(i).
74 See current 12 CFR __, appendix A, paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A).
75 See current 12 CFR __, appendix A, paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B).
76 See Q&As §§ __. 26—1, __.26(b)—1, and __.26(b)—2.
practices in connection with home mortgage, small business, small farm, consumer, and CD
lending.77
Data and public file requirements. Under the current rules, a bank other than a small
bank, is generally required to collect, maintain, and report certain data related to small business
loans, small farm loans, CD loans, and assessment areas.78 The current rules also include
optional data collection requirements for: (1) a bank that elects to be evaluated based on
consumer lending; and (2) a small bank (including an intermediate small bank) that elects to be
evaluated under the lending, investment, and services tests.79 In addition, the current rules
require a bank to maintain a public file with information related to its CRA performance80 and to
provide a copy of this information in response to a request.81 Finally, the current rules require a
bank to post a CRA public notice in the public lobby of its main office and in each of its
branches.82
Effect of CRA performance on applications
and services tests.79 In addition, the current rules
require a bank to maintain a public file with information related to its CRA performance80 and to
provide a copy of this information in response to a request.81 Finally, the current rules require a
bank to post a CRA public notice in the public lobby of its main office and in each of its
branches.82
Effect of CRA performance on applications. Under the current rules, the appropriate
agency is required to take into account a bank’s CRA performance when considering certain
applications from the bank, including an application for: (1) the establishment of a domestic
branch or other facility with the ability to take deposits; (2) a merger, consolidation, acquisition
of assets, or assumption of liabilities; (3) the relocation of its main office or branch; (4) deposit
insurance; (5) a transaction subject to the Bank Merger Act or the Home Owners’ Loan Act; and
77 See current 12 CFR __.28(c).
78 See current 12 CFR __.42(a) and (b).
79 See current 12 CFR __.42(c) and (f).
80 See current 12 CFR __.43.
81 See current 12 CFR __.43(d). The copy can be either in paper form or another form that is acceptable to the
requestor.
82 See current 12 CFR __.44 and appendix B.
(6) a charter application.83 The bank’s CRA performance may be the basis for denying or
conditioning approval of an application.84 These provisions implement the CRA statutory
requirement that, in evaluating a bank’s “application for a deposit facility,” an agency must take
into account its record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including LMI
neighborhoods, consistent with the bank’s safe and sound operation.85
III.
Overview of the Proposal
Based on the extensive feedback the agencies have received on the current rules, the
results of the litigation regarding the 2023 CRA rules, and the agencies’ supervisory experience
examining banks for compliance with the CRA, the agencies are proposing targeted changes to
their current rules
neighborhoods, consistent with the bank’s safe and sound operation.85
III.
Overview of the Proposal
Based on the extensive feedback the agencies have received on the current rules, the
results of the litigation regarding the 2023 CRA rules, and the agencies’ supervisory experience
examining banks for compliance with the CRA, the agencies are proposing targeted changes to
their current rules. These changes seek to refocus the agencies’ CRA supervision on their
statutory mandate to encourage the banks under their supervision to meet the credit needs of their
local communities, including by increasing the focus on lending and by better ensuring the
community development grants benefit communities. These changes are also intended to address
specific and known challenges associated with the current rules by improving clarity and
reducing unnecessary burden, especially for community banks, and to better ensure that, when
banks receive credit for providing certain types of community development funding, the funds
reach the communities they are intended to benefit instead of being diverted to other activities or
excessive operating costs.
Before describing the proposed changes, however, it is important to note that as a general
matter, the proposal leaves much of the current framework unchanged. For example, large banks
would remain subject to lending, investment, and service tests that evaluate their retail lending
83 See current 12 CFR __.29(a) and (b).
84 See current 12 CFR __.29(d).
85 See 12 U.S.C. 2902(3) and 2903(a).
ore describing the proposed changes, however, it is important to note that as a general
matter, the proposal leaves much of the current framework unchanged. For example, large banks
would remain subject to lending, investment, and service tests that evaluate their retail lending
83 See current 12 CFR __.29(a) and (b).
84 See current 12 CFR __.29(d).
85 See 12 U.S.C. 2902(3) and 2903(a).
and services, as well as their CD activities. Small banks and a new category—intermediate banks
(which would replace the current rule’s intermediate small bank category)—would remain
subject to a tailored lending test, with a tailored CD test for intermediate banks. Banks would
retain the option to be evaluated, as appropriate: (1) as a wholesale or limited purpose bank
based on their CD activities; or (2) under a strategic plan based on specified measurable goals.
Notably, the proposal would also leave the current assessment area framework largely
unchanged.86 While the agencies recognize that banks’ customer bases are increasingly
geographically dispersed, the CRA statute focuses on the geographic area(s) surrounding a
bank’s physical facilities. For this reason, the agencies are not proposing significant changes to
the current assessment area framework, which is largely tied to a bank’s physical location(s).
A. Increase Focus on Lending
As discussed above, 12 U.S.C. 2903(a) requires an agency to assess a bank’s record of
meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including LMI neighborhoods
ding a
bank’s physical facilities. For this reason, the agencies are not proposing significant changes to
the current assessment area framework, which is largely tied to a bank’s physical location(s).
A. Increase Focus on Lending
As discussed above, 12 U.S.C. 2903(a) requires an agency to assess a bank’s record of
meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including LMI neighborhoods. In the agencies’
judgment, a community’s credit needs are best and most directly met through activities that
involve lending.87 To further encourage this lending, the agencies are proposing several targeted
86 The CRA statute instructs the agencies to assess a bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its “entire
community, including [LMI] neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution, and to
take such record into account in its evaluation of an application for a deposit facility by such institution.” 12 U.S.C.
2903(a). While the statute does not prescribe the delineation of assessment areas, the assessment area framework in
the current rules requires banks to identify areas around their physical locations within which the agencies evaluate
the bank’s record of helping to meet the credit needs of its community.
87 Retail and CD lending are not the only ways that a bank can meet the credit needs of its community under
CRA. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) added a section to
the CRA entitled “Written Evaluations,” which requires that the written evaluation of a bank’s overall CRA
performance and its performance in each evaluation area must: “state the appropriate [agency’s] conclusions for
each assessment factor identified in the regulations prescribed . . . to implement this chapter.” 12 U.S.C.
2906(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). The CRA rules in place in 1989, which the agencies adopted in 1978, included 12
“assessment factors,” which included the bank’s “record of . .
performance and its performance in each evaluation area must: “state the appropriate [agency’s] conclusions for
each assessment factor identified in the regulations prescribed . . . to implement this chapter.” 12 U.S.C.
2906(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). The CRA rules in place in 1989, which the agencies adopted in 1978, included 12
“assessment factors,” which included the bank’s “record of . . . providing services at offices” and “participation,
including investments, in local community development and redevelopment projects or programs.” 12 CFR 25.7 and
345.7 (1978). Although the current rules do not use the term “assessment factors,” it continues to consider the 12
items included in the 1978 assessment factors (referenced by Congress in the FIRREA), including investments and
services. As discussed below, this proposal would enhance the focus of these activities on meeting community credit
needs.
revisions to the current rules.
The proposal would modify how the agencies consider bank services.88 Specifically, the
proposal would narrow the range of services considered as retail banking services under the
current rules to limit them to the range and availability of an institution’s “credit services”—
thereby excluding deposit services—as well as the distribution and availability of an institution’s
retail banking facilities.
Additionally, the proposal would clarify the concept of “responsiveness,” a qualitative
consideration that would apply to the evaluation of retail and CD activities under the proposal,
and would define the term of “complexity,” one component of responsiveness to encourage a
focus on lending. Under the proposed definition, CD investments, grants, or services that are a
necessary or otherwise beneficial component of a multicomponent financing transaction
involving a loan would be considered complex, as would CD lending and certain CD
investments that require specialized lending expertise.
B
the term of “complexity,” one component of responsiveness to encourage a
focus on lending. Under the proposed definition, CD investments, grants, or services that are a
necessary or otherwise beneficial component of a multicomponent financing transaction
involving a loan would be considered complex, as would CD lending and certain CD
investments that require specialized lending expertise.
B. Ensure that Community Development Grants Benefit Communities
The proposal would modify the treatment of grants and donations for purposes of
qualifying grants and donations as CD activities. Currently, grants and donations are considered
qualified investments, but they differ from other types of qualified investments that involve more
structured financing and are more akin to lending, such as securities that are the functional
equivalent of a loan, or securities backed by loans, bonds, and other equity investments. Under
the proposal, a bank would only be permitted to receive CRA consideration for grants and
donations directly used by the recipient for a program, project, or initiative with a primary
purpose of community development in the bank’s local community. For large banks, the
88 See id.
proposed rules would also impose a 15 percent cap on the indirect costs that recipients could
incur as a part of administering a grant or donation. The proposal would also require more
transparency regarding a bank’s CD activities. The agencies intend that these modifications
would ensure that CD grants, like CD loans and CD investments, would provide direct financing
to banks’ communities, consistent with the CRA’s focus. For example, a bank recently received
CRA consideration for a grant to a community development organization engaged in directly
providing homeownership counseling to LMI individuals and health care services to individuals
experiencing homelessness
ould ensure that CD grants, like CD loans and CD investments, would provide direct financing
to banks’ communities, consistent with the CRA’s focus. For example, a bank recently received
CRA consideration for a grant to a community development organization engaged in directly
providing homeownership counseling to LMI individuals and health care services to individuals
experiencing homelessness. Approximately 25 percent of this grant was reported to be used for
the organization’s internal expenses, with the remaining share expended for direct service costs.
Under the proposed rules, this grant would not qualify as a CD grant for a large bank due to the
recipient using over 15 percent of its proceeds for indirect expenses.
C. Reduce Burden
As discussed in greater detail below, the agencies propose three categories of changes to
the current rules to reduce burden, especially for community banks. First, the agencies propose
three asset thresholds: (1) below $1 billion for a small bank; (2) $1 billion to $10 billion for an
intermediate bank; and (3) above $10 billion a large bank. These changes would reflect the
significant growth in the asset sizes of banks since the agencies set the current asset size
thresholds.89 As a result of these changes, banks with $10 billion or less in assets (proposed
small banks and proposed intermediate banks) would be subject to fewer data collection,
maintenance, and reporting requirements.
Second, the agencies propose that under both the large bank lending test and the small and
89 See 60 FR at 22180, 22202 (setting the small bank asset size threshold at $250 million in 1995); 70 FR
44256, 44266, 44269 (Aug. 2, 2005) (setting the large bank asset size threshold at $1 billion and introducing annual
inflation adjustments).
a collection,
maintenance, and reporting requirements.
Second, the agencies propose that under both the large bank lending test and the small and
89 See 60 FR at 22180, 22202 (setting the small bank asset size threshold at $250 million in 1995); 70 FR
44256, 44266, 44269 (Aug. 2, 2005) (setting the large bank asset size threshold at $1 billion and introducing annual
inflation adjustments).
intermediate bank lending test, they would consider only a bank’s major product line(s) when
assessing its retail lending (i.e., consumer, home mortgage, small business, and small farm loans).
These changes would reduce regulatory burden for banks by tailoring the lending test to focus on
the product lines that make up most of a bank’s record of serving community credit needs, thus
enabling banks to better focus their resources to more effectively manage their CRA programs.
Finally, the agencies also propose to revise the public file and public notice requirements
by: (1) no longer requiring a bank to provide a paper copy of the information in its public file;
(2) permitting a bank to make the information in its public file available on its public website;
and (3) allowing a bank to satisfy its public notice requirement by identifying the website on
which the bank posts information about its CRA performance. These changes would reduce
burden on banks by allowing them to use readily accessible technology to satisfy these
requirements, while continuing to ensure that the public can easily access important information
about a bank’s CRA performance.
D. Increase Clarity and Objectivity
The proposal would also make a number of changes to the implementation of the current
rules that would increase the clarity, transparency, and objectivity associated with evaluating a
bank’s CRA performance. These changes are in response to public feedback that the agencies
have received about the provisions addressed below.
First, the agencies propose several changes with respect to CD activities
posal would also make a number of changes to the implementation of the current
rules that would increase the clarity, transparency, and objectivity associated with evaluating a
bank’s CRA performance. These changes are in response to public feedback that the agencies
have received about the provisions addressed below.
First, the agencies propose several changes with respect to CD activities. Specifically,
they propose to revise the current principles-based definition of community development by
clarifying when loans, investments, grants, and services qualify as CD activities. This change
would largely codify and clarify current guidance on this topic. In addition, the agencies propose
to codify a process under which a bank could seek agency confirmation that a CD activity (i.e., a
loan, investment, grant, or service with a primary purpose of community development) would
receive CRA consideration. Further, they propose to clarify when an agency would provide CRA
consideration for a CD activity that benefits an area other than a bank’s assessment area(s)
(assuming the bank has already demonstrated that it is helping to meet the credit needs of its
assessment area(s)). Lastly, as discussed above, the proposal would clarify the information a
bank must collect from the recipients of CD grants to ensure that the bank receives consideration.
Second, the agencies propose to make the strategic plan option a more viable and less
burdensome option for banks by: (1) clarifying how to submit, amend, and implement a strategic
plan; and (2) providing additional information regarding a plan’s contents, particularly the
measurable goals. These proposed changes also respond to public feedback, namely that the
current strategic plan provisions are inaccessible, complex, and burdensome, particularly for
community banks.
IV.
Detailed Description of the Proposal
clarifying how to submit, amend, and implement a strategic
plan; and (2) providing additional information regarding a plan’s contents, particularly the
measurable goals. These proposed changes also respond to public feedback, namely that the
current strategic plan provisions are inaccessible, complex, and burdensome, particularly for
community banks.
IV.
Detailed Description of the Proposal.
Set forth below is a detailed description of the proposed changes referenced above, as
well as a description of other proposed conforming, technical, and clarifying changes.
A. Asset Size Thresholds
As described above, the performance tests or standards under which an agency evaluates
a bank’s CRA performance are generally determined by virtue of the bank’s asset size.90 The
current asset size thresholds have not, however, evolved with changes in the banking industry
90 This is, however, not always the case. For some banks, the applicable test or standard is a function of the
bank’s business strategy (e.g., wholesale or limited purpose banks or banks that elect to be evaluated under a
strategic plan). Banks that are evaluated as a wholesale or limited purpose bank or under a strategic plan are also
considered a small, intermediate, or large bank, as applicable, and requirements other than performance tests or
standards apply to a wholesale, limited purpose, or strategic plan bank based on the bank’s asset size-based
category. For example, a wholesale, limited purpose, or strategic plan bank that is a large bank is subject to data
collection, maintenance, and reporting requirements.
lso
considered a small, intermediate, or large bank, as applicable, and requirements other than performance tests or
standards apply to a wholesale, limited purpose, or strategic plan bank based on the bank’s asset size-based
category. For example, a wholesale, limited purpose, or strategic plan bank that is a large bank is subject to data
collection, maintenance, and reporting requirements.
over the past few decades, including bank consolidations. Although the CRA statute does not
require the agencies to tailor the performance tests by asset size, the agencies first established a
small bank category in the 1995 CRA rules and set the asset size threshold at $250 million.91 At
that time, small banks represented approximately 80.4 percent of all banks and held
approximately 13.8 percent of the total industry assets.92 Large banks represented approximately
19.6 percent of all banks and held approximately 86.2 of total industry assets.93
In contrast, using year-end 2024 and 2025 Consolidated Reports of Condition and
Income (Call Report) data about the banks with CRA obligations that the agencies supervise (a
total of approximately 3,577 banks), small banks that were not intermediate small banks94
represented approximately 57.0 percent of these banks (2,040 banks) and held approximately 2.0
percent of total industry assets.95 Comparing the 1995 data to the 2024 and 2025 data, small
banks represent a significantly smaller percentage of the total number of banks and a
significantly smaller percentage of total assets. The nature and degree of the change in the
91 Specifically, the 1995 CRA rules set the small bank threshold at $250 million in assets with an additional
requirement that a small bank must also be independent or an affiliate of a holding company with less than $1 billion
in total banking assets. 60 FR at 22180, 22202. The agencies removed these requirements related to a holding
company’s asset size from their CRA regulations in 2005. See 70 FR at 44256, 44264
995 CRA rules set the small bank threshold at $250 million in assets with an additional
requirement that a small bank must also be independent or an affiliate of a holding company with less than $1 billion
in total banking assets. 60 FR at 22180, 22202. The agencies removed these requirements related to a holding
company’s asset size from their CRA regulations in 2005. See 70 FR at 44256, 44264. Also in 2005, the agencies
raised the asset size threshold for small banks to $1 billion, added intermediate small banks as a subset of small
banks assets between $250 million and $1 billion, and provided for future indexing for inflation of both the $250
million and $1 billion threshold. See id. at 44266, 44269.
92 See 69 FR 51611, 51612 (Aug. 20, 2004) (FDIC proposed rule).
93 See id.
94 Although, under the current rules, intermediate small banks are a subset of small banks, it is appropriate to
look only to small banks for purposes of comparison to the 1995 CRA rules, because small banks at that time were
subject to similar performance standards (i.e., a lending test without CD obligations) as small banks other than
intermediate small banks under the current rules.
95 Using year-end 2024 and 2025 Call Report data, intermediate small banks represented approximately 30.0
percent of these banks (1,060 banks) and held approximately 4.6 percent of total industry assets.
distribution of small banks sizes demonstrate how the banking industry has changed and why the
agencies are proposing asset size threshold changes.96
To address the mismatch that has emerged between the current thresholds and a dynamic
industry, the agencies propose to adjust the asset size thresholds for all of the banks they
supervise. Specifically, the proposal would define “small bank” as a bank with less than $1
billion in total assets, reflecting an increase from the current small bank asset threshold of less
than $412 million
es.96
To address the mismatch that has emerged between the current thresholds and a dynamic
industry, the agencies propose to adjust the asset size thresholds for all of the banks they
supervise. Specifically, the proposal would define “small bank” as a bank with less than $1
billion in total assets, reflecting an increase from the current small bank asset threshold of less
than $412 million. The proposal would replace the “intermediate small bank” category with a
new “intermediate bank” category for a bank with at least $1 billion and up to and including $10
billion in assets, reflecting an increase from the current intermediate small bank threshold range
of between $412 million and $1.649 billion.97 Finally, the proposal would define “large bank” as
a bank with assets of more than $10 billion, reflecting an increase from the current large bank
threshold of over $1.649 billion. Asset size will continue to be calculated based on a bank’s
assets included in Call Report data as of December 31 of a calendar year, for two consecutive
calendar years, with the bank belonging to the lower asset size category that applied during either
of these two calendar years.
These changes would reduce the associated data collection, maintenance, and reporting
requirements for many smaller banks and would subject smaller banks to performance standards
with greater flexibility, which the agencies expect would enable these banks to meet the credit
needs of their communities without the burden of regulatory requirements that have not kept
96 The agencies have adjusted the thresholds annually since 2005 based on an inflation index, but these
adjustments have not been sufficient to keep up with changes in the industry, including its overall growth and
consolidation. For the most recent inflation adjustments, see FDIC change at 91 FR 509 (Jan. 7, 2026) and OCC
change at OCC Bulletin 2025-48, “Community Reinvestment Act: Revision of Small and Intermediate Small Bank
and Savings Association Asset Thresholds” (Dec
tion index, but these
adjustments have not been sufficient to keep up with changes in the industry, including its overall growth and
consolidation. For the most recent inflation adjustments, see FDIC change at 91 FR 509 (Jan. 7, 2026) and OCC
change at OCC Bulletin 2025-48, “Community Reinvestment Act: Revision of Small and Intermediate Small Bank
and Savings Association Asset Thresholds” (Dec. 23, 2025), https://www.occ.gov/news-
issuances/bulletins/2025/bulletin-2025-48.html.
97 See id.
pace with changes in the banking industry. In addition, under the proposal, the distribution of
banks of different sizes across the performance tests and standards would be substantially similar
to the proportions of their distribution in 1995. Accordingly, the changes would realign the CRA
regulatory framework with the original regulatory drafters’ conceptions about the CRA’s
application to different sizes and types of banks. The agencies invite feedback regarding the
methodology and data used to set thresholds for small, intermediate, and large banks.
Set forth below is a detailed discussion of each of the proposed thresholds.
Small bank threshold. Under the agencies’ proposed small bank asset size threshold, the
percentage of banks that qualify as small banks would significantly increase to about 79.8
percent of all banks subject to the CRA that the agencies supervise—a close alignment with the
overall percentage of small banks at the time of the implementation of the 1995 CRA rules.
While the percentage of total industry assets held by these banks would only increase to
approximately 4.9 percent, when combined with the new category of intermediate banks (with
asset sizes between $1 billion and $10 billion), together these banks would hold approximately
14.6 percent of total industry assets.98
One goal and effect of the proposal to raise the small bank asset threshold to up to $1
billion is to reduce the CRA regulatory burden on banks with between $412 million and $1
billion dollars
t, when combined with the new category of intermediate banks (with
asset sizes between $1 billion and $10 billion), together these banks would hold approximately
14.6 percent of total industry assets.98
One goal and effect of the proposal to raise the small bank asset threshold to up to $1
billion is to reduce the CRA regulatory burden on banks with between $412 million and $1
billion dollars. Under the current framework, these banks are considered intermediate small
banks and subject to the applicable CD test which considers the number, amount, and
responsiveness of their CD loans, investments and services. As a result, when small banks
transition to intermediate small banks under the current framework, their CD activities are
98 The agencies added the intermediate small bank category of small banks to the current rules in 2005. See 70
FR at 44258.
explicitly evaluated, which typically results in these banks adjusting their CRA programs. Under
the proposal, banks below $1 billion in assets would no longer be subject to the CD test.
With respect to the current annual inflation adjustment for the small bank asset size
threshold, the agencies are not proposing substantive changes, and it will remain keyed to
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) (not seasonally
adjusted). The agencies are, however, considering an alternative approach that would align the
small bank threshold with the size standard that the Small Business Administration (SBA) uses
to identify small banks.99 Under this alternative, the agencies would define a small bank using
the SBA’s current standard for commercial banks of $850 million (calculated as of December 31
of either of the prior two calendar years).100 Based on year-end Call Report data for 2024 and
2025, approximately 76.1 percent of agency supervised banks that are subject to the CRA (2,721
banks) would be small banks under the current SBA standard, representing about 4.2 percent of
total industry assets
SBA’s current standard for commercial banks of $850 million (calculated as of December 31
of either of the prior two calendar years).100 Based on year-end Call Report data for 2024 and
2025, approximately 76.1 percent of agency supervised banks that are subject to the CRA (2,721
banks) would be small banks under the current SBA standard, representing about 4.2 percent of
total industry assets.
If the agencies were to cross-reference the SBA size standard in its CRA framework, the
small bank asset threshold would automatically adjust when the SBA size threshold changes,
rather than yearly, based on CPI-W inflation adjustments. The historical difference between
99 The SBA establishes small business size definitions, usually referred to as “size standards,” for private sector
industries in the United States to determine eligibility for Federal small business assistance. It adjusts size standards
based on inflation at least once every five years and also adjusts based on industry structure. See, e.g., 90 FR 41168,
41171 (Aug. 22, 2025). The primary factors that the SBA evaluates to examine industry structure include average
firm size, startup costs and entry barriers, industry competition, and distribution of firms by size. Id. The SBA also
evaluates small business success in receiving Federal contracting assistance under the current size standards. Id.
These are generally the five most important factors that the SBA examines when establishing, reviewing, or revising
a size standard for an industry. Id. at 41172. However, the SBA will also consider and evaluate secondary factors
that it believes are relevant to a particular industry (such as technological changes, growth trends, SBA financial
assistance, other program factors). Id. The SBA also considers the possible impact of size standard revisions on
eligibility for Federal small business assistance, current economic conditions, the Administration’s policies, and
suggestions from industry groups and Federal agencies. Id
it believes are relevant to a particular industry (such as technological changes, growth trends, SBA financial
assistance, other program factors). Id. The SBA also considers the possible impact of size standard revisions on
eligibility for Federal small business assistance, current economic conditions, the Administration’s policies, and
suggestions from industry groups and Federal agencies. Id.
100 See 13 CFR 121.201. On August 22, 2025, the SBA proposed to increase the size standard for commercial
banks to $925 million. 90 FR at 41271.
these two approaches is clear when changes based on the CPI-W are compared to adjustments by
the SBA. For example, between December 2005 and January 2026, the agencies’ small bank
asset size threshold went from $250 million to $412 million, an increase of approximately 64.8
percent. During this same period, the SBA’s small bank size standard for commercial banks
increased from $150 million to $850 million, an increase of approximately 466.7 percent.101
The agencies invite comments on both the proposed small bank asset size threshold of $1
billion and the alternative proposal to align it with the SBA at $850 million, as well as other
options and supporting justifications. The agencies also solicit comment on whether to continue
making annual inflation-based adjustments to the small bank asset threshold based on the CPI-W
or align changes with SBA adjustments to small bank size standard for commercial banks, as
well as other options and supporting justifications. The agencies also intend to occasionally
evaluate the proposed asset size thresholds, if adopted, to consider whether additional
adjustments are needed, beyond annual inflation-based adjustments, to better reflect changes in
the banking industry and invite comment on the appropriate frequency for such evaluation (e.g.,
every 3 years; every 5 years)
other options and supporting justifications. The agencies also intend to occasionally
evaluate the proposed asset size thresholds, if adopted, to consider whether additional
adjustments are needed, beyond annual inflation-based adjustments, to better reflect changes in
the banking industry and invite comment on the appropriate frequency for such evaluation (e.g.,
every 3 years; every 5 years). In particular, the agencies invite comment on whether the
proposal’s predictable adjustments are preferable to the SBA’s less regular asset size changes,
even if the proposed adjustments are less effective at keeping pace with changes in the banking
industry.
The agencies are proposing additional revisions to the small bank definition. Specifically,
the agencies propose that their rules would expressly state that the annual adjustment to the small
bank asset threshold (as reflected in the proposed “small bank” definition) is published on the
101 As discussed above, the SBA small bank size standard reflects not only inflation but other variables such as
the number of institutions, total industry assets, and the distribution of those institutions and assets within the SBA’s
size standards. The SBA small bank size standard also considers and adjusts for secular trends in the banking
industry such as the overall consolidation of industry assets.
agencies’ websites. Since 2020, the OCC has announced the annual changes to asset size
thresholds through OCC bulletins posted to OCC.gov but there is nothing in the OCC’s current
rule to alert a stakeholder of threshold changes. The FDIC also intends to publish the annual
adjustment to the small bank asset threshold on the FDIC’s website. This proposed amendment
would ensure that banks and the public are informed that these asset thresholds are subject to
change and direct them to the agency’s website where the current thresholds are posted.
Intermediate bank threshold
ule to alert a stakeholder of threshold changes. The FDIC also intends to publish the annual
adjustment to the small bank asset threshold on the FDIC’s website. This proposed amendment
would ensure that banks and the public are informed that these asset thresholds are subject to
change and direct them to the agency’s website where the current thresholds are posted.
Intermediate bank threshold. The agencies are proposing to replace the defined term
“intermediate small bank” with “intermediate bank,” which they would define as any bank that is
not a small bank with assets of $10 billion or less as of December 31 for either of the prior two
calendar years.102 Generally, intermediate banks would be those banks with assets between $1
billion and $10 billion. Based on 2024 and 2025 year-end Call Report data, approximately 636
out of the approximately 3,577 banks with CRA obligations that the agencies supervise fell
within this asset size range. This would result in the inclusion of approximately 17.8 percent of
all banks in the classification. However, the same intermediate bank asset size thresholds would
result in 9.7 percent of total industry assets being classified as intermediate banks. In comparison
to values for current intermediate small banks, 1,060 banks are intermediate small banks,
representing about 29.6 percent of all banks in the classification and 4.6 percent of total industry
assets.
In setting the intermediate bank asset threshold cap at $10 billion, the agencies note that
Congress has used this figure for a number of relevant thresholds. For example, in the Dodd-
Frank Act, it imposed certain requirements on banks with greater than $10 billion in assets and
102 In addition to replacing the current “intermediate small bank” definition with a proposed “intermediate bank”
definition, the agencies are proposing a number of additional technical and conforming changes to the CRA
framework
figure for a number of relevant thresholds. For example, in the Dodd-
Frank Act, it imposed certain requirements on banks with greater than $10 billion in assets and
102 In addition to replacing the current “intermediate small bank” definition with a proposed “intermediate bank”
definition, the agencies are proposing a number of additional technical and conforming changes to the CRA
framework. Among other things, these changes would subject intermediate banks to the same performance tests or
standards that are currently applicable to intermediate small banks.
declined to impose other requirements on banks with$10 billion or less in assets.103 The agencies
are using this same threshold in their CRA rules to differentiate between intermediate and large
banks.
The agencies are aware that, under the current framework, there is an increased
regulatory burden and associated cost when a bank moves from one size category to a larger one
(e.g., from the intermediate small bank to the large bank category). Although current
intermediate small banks and large banks are evaluated on many of the same CRA activities, the
three tests applicable to large banks are more comprehensive in scope and, as a result, tend to
impose larger compliance costs on banks seeking to maintain a similar level of performance.104
In addition, large banks are subject to data collection, maintenance, and reporting requirements
while small banks, including intermediate small banks, are not. The agencies intend that the
proposed changes regarding intermediate banks would relieve regulatory burden for these banks
and would better align bank categories with the historical distribution of banks subject to CRA
under the 1995 CRA rules.
The agencies are also considering an alternative intermediate bank asset threshold cap of
$3.252 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years
tend that the
proposed changes regarding intermediate banks would relieve regulatory burden for these banks
and would better align bank categories with the historical distribution of banks subject to CRA
under the 1995 CRA rules.
The agencies are also considering an alternative intermediate bank asset threshold cap of
$3.252 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years. This figure comes
from the OCC’s 2020 CRA rule in which the intermediate bank cap was $2.5 billion,105 adjusted
103 See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5515(a) and 5516(a); 15 U.S.C. 1693o-2(a)(6). Congress has also referenced $10 billion
in assets in subsequent legislation providing regulatory relief to certain financial institutions. See, e.g., Pub. L. 115-
174, 132 Stat. 1296 (2018).
104 Under the current CRA rules, small banks, including intermediate small banks, may elect to be evaluated
under the lending, investment, and service tests that are generally applicable to larger banks if they collect the data
required under 12 CFR __.42. See current 12 CFR __.21(a)(3). The proposed rules would permit small banks and
intermediate banks to elect to be evaluated under the lending, investment, and service tests that would generally be
applicable to large banks if they collect the data required under 12 CFR __.42.
105 85 FR at 34794.
for inflation since June 2020 using the CPI-W, not seasonally adjusted.106 If the agencies were to
finalize rules using this alternative, they would adjust it further for any additional inflation
between the proposal and issuance of any final rule.
The agencies invite comments on all aspects of the proposed intermediate bank definition
and alternative, as well as other options, such as retaining the current asset size threshold that
applies to intermediate small banks
the agencies were to
finalize rules using this alternative, they would adjust it further for any additional inflation
between the proposal and issuance of any final rule.
The agencies invite comments on all aspects of the proposed intermediate bank definition
and alternative, as well as other options, such as retaining the current asset size threshold that
applies to intermediate small banks. Because the proposed intermediate bank threshold is aligned
with other thresholds that do not adjust and is much higher than the current threshold for
intermediate small banks, the agencies are not proposing annual adjustments but could consider
adjustments as part of a future rulemaking, if warranted. The agencies invite comment on this
decision as well.
Large bank threshold. The agencies are proposing to define “large bank” as a bank with
more than $10 billion in assets as of December 31 of both of the prior two calendar years. Using
2024 and 2025 year-end Call Report data, approximately 2.4 percent of banks (86 banks) would
have been large banks under this definition and held 85.4 percent of total industry assets. Given
that in 1995, “large banks” held approximately 86.2 percent of total industry assets, this
proposed definition would align with the historical distribution.107
The agencies invite comments on all aspects of the proposed large bank definition, as
well as other options such as retaining the current implicit concept and asset threshold for large
banks.
Request for Feedback
106 This calculation is based on CPI-W data available for the month of April 2026.
107 It should be noted that the current rules have never actually defined “large bank.” Instead, their existence has
been implied for banks that do not meet the “small bank” definition, which includes “intermediate small banks.”
Likewise, the applicable low end of the asset threshold for large banks has been implicit in the threshold for
intermediate small banks
le for the month of April 2026.
107 It should be noted that the current rules have never actually defined “large bank.” Instead, their existence has
been implied for banks that do not meet the “small bank” definition, which includes “intermediate small banks.”
Likewise, the applicable low end of the asset threshold for large banks has been implicit in the threshold for
intermediate small banks. In this rulemaking, the agencies propose to make express that which has, to date, been
implied.
Question 1: To better align with agency policies that establish an asset size of less than
$30 billion as a threshold for community banks,108 should the agencies consider adjusting the
intermediate bank asset size threshold to include all banks with an asset size of less than $30
billion that do not qualify as small banks? If the agencies establish $30 billion as the appropriate
threshold to delineate between intermediate banks and large banks, should the agencies also
adopt a larger threshold for small banks, such as the $10 billion currently proposed as the
intermediate bank threshold?
Question 2: Should the agencies clarify in the rules that designation as a wholesale or
limited purpose bank or election of a strategic plan does not override the bank’s asset-based
definition (e.g., a bank can be both a large bank and a wholesale bank)?
Question 3: Should the final rules include a definition for “assets” or to be used in setting
asset-size thresholds and assessing banks position relative to these thresholds? For example,
should the agencies define “assets” to mean a bank’s total assets as reported in Schedule RC of
the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) as filed under 12 U.S.C. 161,
1464, or 1817, as applicable, or Schedule RAL of the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S.
Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks as filed under 12 U.S.C. 1817 or 3102(b) or (c)(5), as
applicable?
B. Performance Tests
108 See, e.g., OCC News Release 2025-89 (Sept
ts as reported in Schedule RC of
the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) as filed under 12 U.S.C. 161,
1464, or 1817, as applicable, or Schedule RAL of the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S.
Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks as filed under 12 U.S.C. 1817 or 3102(b) or (c)(5), as
applicable?
B. Performance Tests
108 See, e.g., OCC News Release 2025-89 (Sept. 18, 2025), https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-
releases/2025/nr-occ-2025-89.html (identifying “community banks” as institutions with up to $30 billion in assets);
Then-Acting Chairman Travis Hill, Testimony, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of
Representatives (Dec. 2, 2025), https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2025/oversight-prudential-regulators (“The
FDIC recently raised the threshold for presumptive inclusion in the continuous examination process from $10 billion
to $30 billion in assets, while retaining the ability to, on occasion, include a bank below $30 billion in assets if
warranted.”); 91 FR 10491 (Mar. 4, 2026) (OCC Community Bank Licensing Amendments final rule).
The current rules, as discussed above, set forth general information about the CRA
performance tests and standards. For large banks, the applicable performance tests are a lending
test (in § __.22), an investment test (in § __.23), and a service test (in § __.24). Small banks,
including intermediate small banks, are subject to performance standards that include a lending
test, and, for intermediate small banks, there is also a CD test (all in § __.26). Wholesale and
limited purpose banks are subject to a specialized CD test (in § __.25).
The proposal would retain this general framework for the CRA performance tests and
standards. Under the proposal, large banks would continue to be subject to the lending test,
investment test, and service test and wholesale and limited purpose banks would continue to be
subject to a specialized CD test
). Wholesale and
limited purpose banks are subject to a specialized CD test (in § __.25).
The proposal would retain this general framework for the CRA performance tests and
standards. Under the proposal, large banks would continue to be subject to the lending test,
investment test, and service test and wholesale and limited purpose banks would continue to be
subject to a specialized CD test. Generally, the proposal would also retain the current
performance standards for small banks but would retitle § __.26 and the applicable tests, as
appropriate, to refer, separately, to small banks and intermediate banks.109
With respect to the requirements of the performance tests and standards themselves, the
agencies are proposing targeted changes that would tailor CRA examinations to: (1) focus on the
statutory mandate of assessing a bank’s record of meeting community credit needs; (2) more
closely align with a bank’s business model; and (3) reduce burden. As discussed in detail below,
these targeted changes would, among other things:
•
Base a bank’s retail lending evaluation on its major product lines, regardless of
the bank’s asset size;
•
Prescribe standards to ensure that the agencies conduct meaningful assessments of
banks’ lending activities;
109 See supra section IV.A of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (describing small banks and
intermediate banks under the proposal). As needed, the agencies are also proposing conforming changes throughout
their CRA rules to amend current references to refer to “intermediate banks” in lieu of “intermediate small banks.”
t the agencies conduct meaningful assessments of
banks’ lending activities;
109 See supra section IV.A of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (describing small banks and
intermediate banks under the proposal). As needed, the agencies are also proposing conforming changes throughout
their CRA rules to amend current references to refer to “intermediate banks” in lieu of “intermediate small banks.”
•
Clarify that the evaluation of a bank’s CRA performance includes:
o The range of retail credit services, as opposed to any retail deposit
services;
o CD activities and retail banking services as part of performance context, to
the extent that activities and services are not considered under another
performance test; and
o The responsiveness of all retail and CD activities;
•
Adjust small bank and intermediate bank performance standards regarding written
complaints;
•
Allow an intermediate bank to receive a “satisfactory” or “outstanding” rating
overall, provided that it receives at least a “satisfactory” rating on the lending test;
and
Modify how the agencies consider CD activities, as discussed in section IV.C of
this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Retail lending product lines. Under the current rules, most banks are evaluated based on
their retail lending, with large banks evaluated under the lending test in § __.22, and small banks,
including intermediate small banks, under the small bank lending test in § __.26(b).110
For purposes of CRA, retail lending refers to home mortgage, small business, small farm,
and consumer lending (collectively, retail lending product lines). Large banks are generally
evaluated on home mortgage, small business, and small farm lending and, at the bank’s option or
if consumer lending constitutes a substantial majority of its business, they are also evaluated on
110 As discussed in this section of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, wholesale and limited purpose
banks are not evaluated based on their retail lending activities
ct lines). Large banks are generally
evaluated on home mortgage, small business, and small farm lending and, at the bank’s option or
if consumer lending constitutes a substantial majority of its business, they are also evaluated on
110 As discussed in this section of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, wholesale and limited purpose
banks are not evaluated based on their retail lending activities. Further, the agencies would only evaluate a bank
under a strategic plan for its retail lending activities to the extent it includes retail lending goals in its plan.
their consumer lending in one or more of the following categories: motor vehicle, credit card,
other secured, and other unsecured loans.111
In contrast, small banks, including intermediate small banks, are evaluated only with
respect to those retail lending product lines that are considered to be their major product lines.
Examiners select a small bank’s major product lines for evaluation based on a review of relevant
information, including the retail lending product lines where the bank did the most lending by
dollar amount and loan count. If consumer loans are selected, examiners may either evaluate all
of a small bank’s consumer loans together or select a category of consumer lending (e.g., credit
card or motor vehicle) if that category is deemed to constitute a major product line.
The agencies propose adopting a major product line approach for all banks and are
considering two alternatives, both of which are reflected in the proposed regulatory text. Under
the first alternative (Option 1), the agencies would generally use a quantitative, bank level
approach to evaluate a bank’s retail lending in two of the four retail lending product lines (home
mortgage, small business, small farm, and consumer lending). The two product lines evaluated
would be considered the bank’s major product lines
which are reflected in the proposed regulatory text. Under
the first alternative (Option 1), the agencies would generally use a quantitative, bank level
approach to evaluate a bank’s retail lending in two of the four retail lending product lines (home
mortgage, small business, small farm, and consumer lending). The two product lines evaluated
would be considered the bank’s major product lines. Under the second alternative (Option 2), the
agencies would use an assessment area level approach that is both qualitative and quantitative to
determine a bank’s major product lines, similar to the current rules’ methodology for
determining major product lines for small banks, including intermediate small banks. Under
either proposed approach, the agencies would only consider consumer lending to be a major
111 Under the current large bank lending test, a bank’s consumer lending is evaluated at the bank’s option or if
consumer lending constitutes a “substantial majority” of its business. See current 12 CFR § __.22(a). In the CRA
Interagency Questions and Answers, the agencies have interpreted “substantial majority” to be so significant a
portion of a bank’s lending activity, by number and dollar volume of loans, that the lending test evaluation would
not meaningfully reflect its lending performance if consumer loans were excluded. See Q&A § __.22(a)(1)—2.
Generally, the agencies have considered consumer lending to constitute a substantial majority where consumer
lending makes up the majority of a bank’s overall business by dollar and number of loans. See id.
vity, by number and dollar volume of loans, that the lending test evaluation would
not meaningfully reflect its lending performance if consumer loans were excluded. See Q&A § __.22(a)(1)—2.
Generally, the agencies have considered consumer lending to constitute a substantial majority where consumer
lending makes up the majority of a bank’s overall business by dollar and number of loans. See id.
product line if consumer lending constitutes a majority of the bank’s retail lending by both dollar
amount and loan count, or at the bank’s option.
Under Option 1 for proposed new paragraph § __.21(g), an agency would select the two
product lines based on a bank’s total retail lending activity, determined at the bank level and
based on both loan count and dollar volume during the evaluation period.112 This would be the
two largest product lines by dollar volume and loan count, as set forth in proposed Appendix C,
provided the bank makes loans in at least two of the product lines. If a bank makes loans in only
one product line, the agency would only evaluate the bank in that product line.
As noted above, even if consumer lending is one of the bank’s two largest product lines
by dollar volume and loan count, the agencies would only evaluate consumer lending if the
bank’s consumer loans constitute more than 50 percent of its retail lending by both dollar volume
and loan count (i.e., majority consumer lender) or at the bank’s option.113 If consumer lending is
among the two largest product lines but this majority consumer lender standard is not met, the
agency would not evaluate the bank’s consumer lending and would instead evaluate the largest
two product lines of home mortgage, small business, and small farm lending. The proposal
would treat major product lines in consumer lending differently than home mortgage, small
business, and small farm lending because of differences in the data collection requirements for
consumer lending for large banks, as discussed below
e the bank’s consumer lending and would instead evaluate the largest
two product lines of home mortgage, small business, and small farm lending. The proposal
would treat major product lines in consumer lending differently than home mortgage, small
business, and small farm lending because of differences in the data collection requirements for
consumer lending for large banks, as discussed below.
112 Under the proposal, “consumer loan” would mean a loan to one or more individuals for household, family, or
other personal expenditures as defined in Schedule RC-C of the instructions for preparation of Call Reports,
including the categories of credit cards, other revolving credit plans, automobile loans, and other consumer loans.
The proposal would revise this definition to include a cross-reference to the Call Report instructions instead of
including the text of those instructions.
113 This determination would not be based on averaging dollar volume and loan count, as provided in proposed
appendix C.
The agencies intend that the quantitative major product line standard described in
Option 1 would help ensure that a bank’s CRA examination is tailored to its retail lending
business model to provide a consistent and objective standard for when the agencies would
assess specific product lines. To provide a consistent evaluation of lending across assessment
areas, the agencies would assess a bank’s major product lines at the bank level. This approach
would also resolve issues that have arisen under the current rules where the requirement for the
agencies to evaluate home mortgage, small business, and small farm lending has resulted in the
assessment of performance in product lines that are not a meaningful component of a bank’s
business model
nt
areas, the agencies would assess a bank’s major product lines at the bank level. This approach
would also resolve issues that have arisen under the current rules where the requirement for the
agencies to evaluate home mortgage, small business, and small farm lending has resulted in the
assessment of performance in product lines that are not a meaningful component of a bank’s
business model. This has increased burden for banks that feel the need to manage their lending
activity in each of these product lines despite the fact that they do not meet the proposed major
product line standard are rarely a significant factor in the agencies’ conclusions on a bank’s CRA
performance. Based on the agencies’ supervisory experience and feedback received, this can
result in banks expending resources that could otherwise have been deployed towards more
impactful activities. As discussed below, proposed section § __.21(g) provides the standards the
agencies would apply for determining how to assess a bank’s retail lending in its major product
lines at the assessment area level.
The agencies considered that reducing the product lines that they evaluate as retail
lending under the applicable lending test could raise concerns that banks would no longer be
incentivized to engage in those activities going forward, which could have a negative impact on
communities. However, the agencies preliminarily believe the potential negative impact is
unlikely to be significant because, in many instances, banks provide those loans primarily for
business reasons rather than to address CRA obligations. The agencies also note that any small
reduction in lending may be outweighed by the benefits of reducing burden for banks, which
ave a negative impact on
communities. However, the agencies preliminarily believe the potential negative impact is
unlikely to be significant because, in many instances, banks provide those loans primarily for
business reasons rather than to address CRA obligations. The agencies also note that any small
reduction in lending may be outweighed by the benefits of reducing burden for banks, which
would allow them to focus CRA resources on other retail lending or CD activities. Further, as
discussed in section IV.C of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, as a result of a change
in the definition of CD loan, the proposal would allow banks to receive consideration for loans in
non-major product lines that meet the definition of community development. Based on other
proposed changes to the definition of affordable housing and economic development, the
proposed change to the definition of CD loan would mean that certain home mortgage, small
business, and small farm loans that were previously considered as retail loans may now be
considered as CD loans. This would modify the form of CRA consideration that these loans
receive but would still provide a potential incentive for banks to engage in these activities.
Alternatively, the agencies are considering a standard that is both qualitative and
quantitative to determine a bank’s major product lines (Option 2). Under Option 2 for proposed
new paragraph § __.21(g), the agencies would assess a bank’s retail lending in major product
line(s) based on certain considerations at the assessment area level. Under this approach, a bank
could have more or less than two major product lines
s are considering a standard that is both qualitative and
quantitative to determine a bank’s major product lines (Option 2). Under Option 2 for proposed
new paragraph § __.21(g), the agencies would assess a bank’s retail lending in major product
line(s) based on certain considerations at the assessment area level. Under this approach, a bank
could have more or less than two major product lines. Whether home mortgage, small business,
small farm, or consumer lending would be a major product line in an assessment area would be
based on: (i) the bank’s overall lending volume and business strategy; (ii) the bank’s capacity to
lend in that assessment area; and (iii) the extent to which lending in the product line
meaningfully contributes to the bank or saving association’s record of meeting the credit needs
of that assessment area.
Under Option 2, an agency would select major product lines in each assessment area
through consideration of a bank’s overall lending volume and business strategy; a bank’s
capacity to lend in that assessment area; and the extent to which lending in the product line
meaningfully contributes to the bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of that assessment
area. For example, a bank that is primarily a home mortgage lender (as determined by overall
lending volume and business strategy) would have home mortgage loans considered as a major
product line in all assessment areas. If overall, however, the bank does not have a significant
volume of small farm lending, but in the bank’s nonmetropolitan assessment area the bank is a
significant provider of small farm loans and the small farm loans meaningfully contribute to the
bank meeting the assessment area credit needs, the agencies could factor that information into
their qualitative determination of the bank’s major product lines. In that instance, small farm
loans would be considered as a major product line in the nonmetropolitan assessment area along
with home mortgage loans
provider of small farm loans and the small farm loans meaningfully contribute to the
bank meeting the assessment area credit needs, the agencies could factor that information into
their qualitative determination of the bank’s major product lines. In that instance, small farm
loans would be considered as a major product line in the nonmetropolitan assessment area along
with home mortgage loans. This approach would maintain flexibility in the lending test
evaluation by considering different community credit needs and bank lending product emphases
in different assessment areas.
As proposed, the major product line standard would apply to large, intermediate, and
small banks. The agencies also are considering whether to retain the current standard for small
and intermediate banks, which permits more discretion if Option 1 is adopted.
Request for Feedback
Question 4: With respect to Option 1 for the major product line standard, should the
agencies specify a de minimis amount of lending that would not count as making loans in a
product line? For example, should the agencies consider whether a bank did not make 30 loans in
the product line overall or 30 loans in the product line in any assessment area? Should the
agencies use the proposed definition of “incidental basis” to find that a bank does not make loans
in a product line if it only makes loans in that product line on an incidental basis?
Question 5: Should the agencies consider consumer lending—
e agencies consider whether a bank did not make 30 loans in
the product line overall or 30 loans in the product line in any assessment area? Should the
agencies use the proposed definition of “incidental basis” to find that a bank does not make loans
in a product line if it only makes loans in that product line on an incidental basis?
Question 5: Should the agencies consider consumer lending—
a. By type of consumer loans, rather than in the aggregate, when consumer loans
constitute a major product line?
b. When consumer loans account for less than a majority of retail lending but is one of a
bank’s largest two product lines? In this circumstance, should the agencies permit the
optional consideration of consumer lending?
c. At the bank’s request, regardless of whether the consumer loans constitute a major
product line.
Question 6: Should the agencies rely on dollar volume, loan count, or both to determine a
bank’s major product line(s), and, if so, should the agencies do so consistent with the
methodology in proposed appendix C?
Question 7: If the agencies adopt Option 1, should the agencies determine a bank’s major
product lines by assessment area, as opposed to at the institution level as proposed?
Lending test borrower distribution. The current lending test considers the distribution,
particularly in a bank’s assessment area(s), of the bank’s home mortgage, small business, small
farm, and consumer loans, if applicable, based on borrower characteristics, including the number
and amount of retail loans to low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income individuals and small
businesses and small farms.114 This language suggests that the agencies may consider borrower
distribution in a geographic area beyond a bank’s assessment area(s)
nk’s home mortgage, small business, small
farm, and consumer loans, if applicable, based on borrower characteristics, including the number
and amount of retail loans to low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income individuals and small
businesses and small farms.114 This language suggests that the agencies may consider borrower
distribution in a geographic area beyond a bank’s assessment area(s). In guidance, the agencies
have addressed when they will currently consider loans (other than CD loans) made outside a
bank’s assessment area(s) and have indicated consideration will be given for loans to low- and
moderate-income persons and small business and farm loans outside of a bank’s assessment
114 See current 12 CFR § __.22(b)(3). See also, e.g., current 12 CFR __, appendix A, paragraph (b)(1)(i)(D).
area(s), provided the bank has adequately addressed the needs of borrowers within its assessment
area(s).115
The proposal would modify the borrower characteristics provision of the lending test and
make conforming changes in proposed appendix A to omit language that would consider
borrower characteristics particularly in a bank’s assessment area(s). The agencies intend that this
change would mean that the agencies would only consider borrower characteristics in a bank’s
assessment area(s) and would supersede Q&A § __.22(b)(2) & (3)—4. The agencies find that the
current rules do not adequately explain when and how the agencies may consider borrower
characteristics outside of a bank’s assessment areas. Consideration of retail lending outside of a
bank’s assessment area(s) would exceed the agencies’ statutory authority.
Limited purpose bank category. In addition to the proposed major product line standard,
the agencies are considering whether to eliminate the category of limited purpose banks. By
definition, a limited purpose bank would be a consumer lender (i.e., a bank that offers only a
narrow product line, such as credit card or motor vehicle loans)
area(s) would exceed the agencies’ statutory authority.
Limited purpose bank category. In addition to the proposed major product line standard,
the agencies are considering whether to eliminate the category of limited purpose banks. By
definition, a limited purpose bank would be a consumer lender (i.e., a bank that offers only a
narrow product line, such as credit card or motor vehicle loans). If a bank is instead not in the
business of extending retail loans to retail customers, it would be a wholesale bank. Because the
current rules do not require the evaluation of consumer lending in most circumstances, and the
lending test focuses on assessing home mortgage, small business, and small farm lending, banks
that meet the current definition of limited purpose bank may request that designation and be
examined solely on the basis of their CD activities. Under the proposal, however, banks would
be evaluated based on their consumer lending if that lending was determined to be a major
product line for the bank, as discussed above. Therefore, the agencies could apply the proposed
115 Q&A § __.22(b)(2) & (3)—4 (also providing this consideration to small banks, including intermediate small
banks).
lending test to banks that would be limited purpose banks under the current or proposed rules.
The agencies recognize, however, that this may be a significant change for a handful of banks
that the agencies currently evaluate only under the CD test for wholesale or limited purpose
banks and now would be evaluated under the otherwise applicable tests or standards based on
their asset size category, including on their consumer retail lending
pose banks under the current or proposed rules.
The agencies recognize, however, that this may be a significant change for a handful of banks
that the agencies currently evaluate only under the CD test for wholesale or limited purpose
banks and now would be evaluated under the otherwise applicable tests or standards based on
their asset size category, including on their consumer retail lending. Even if the agencies were to
retain the limited purpose bank definition and designation, because seeking a limited purpose
designation is optional, under the proposal, banks that meet the limited purpose bank definition
could elect not to seek such a designation, in which case, the bank would be examined under the
applicable test or standard based on their retail lending. The agencies invite comment on the
proposed changes to the consideration of consumer lending and how those proposed changes
relate to the definition of limited purpose bank.
Meaningful assessment. The agencies are proposing a new § __.21(h) to discuss their
approach to assessing a bank’s major product lines in an assessment area of the applicable
lending test. Proposed § __.21(h) would provide that, if possible, the agencies will evaluate a
bank’s lending performance under the lending test based on a number of retail loans that allows
the agency to perform a meaningful analysis. This provision would apply to the agencies’
consideration of a bank’s major product lines, discussed above, for each performance criterion in
the applicable lending test.
The agencies generally believe that using 30 or more loans, whether a sample or the
entire population of loans, will result in a meaningful analysis of the bank’s lending
performance. In statistical analysis, at least 30 observations are a general standard for a large
sample because the mean of 30 randomly drawn values from a population will have a
e criterion in
the applicable lending test.
The agencies generally believe that using 30 or more loans, whether a sample or the
entire population of loans, will result in a meaningful analysis of the bank’s lending
performance. In statistical analysis, at least 30 observations are a general standard for a large
sample because the mean of 30 randomly drawn values from a population will have a
distribution that is approximately normal.116 Therefore, the proposal would provide that the
agencies will consider 30 loans from a product line to be a sufficient number of loans to perform
a meaningful analysis under any applicable performance criterion.117
Given that 30 loans are not always available for analysis under each performance
criterion, the agencies are also including a provision in proposed § __.21(h) that would allow
them to consider less than 30 loans if they determine that a smaller number of loans would allow
for a meaningful assessment. This determination would be based on examiner judgment and the
appropriate agency’s supervisory experience. For instance, for small banks, the agencies have
effectively used samples of 20 loans in the past with meaningful results. This provision would
allow the agencies to consider a smaller number of loans with the understanding that the
resulting analysis may have less precision and a larger risk of random variation (e.g., that one
loan will cause a large change in the analysis). In addition, in the agencies’ experience there is a
point at which the number of loans is small enough that it does not support a meaningful
analysis. For example, if a bank only made five home mortgage loans in an assessment area and
one of those loans was to an LMI individual, concluding on the fact that 20 percent of the bank’s
home mortgage loans went to LMI individuals would not be meaningful given that 20 percent is
a reference to a single loan
at which the number of loans is small enough that it does not support a meaningful
analysis. For example, if a bank only made five home mortgage loans in an assessment area and
one of those loans was to an LMI individual, concluding on the fact that 20 percent of the bank’s
home mortgage loans went to LMI individuals would not be meaningful given that 20 percent is
a reference to a single loan. For that reason, the agencies are also proposing a provision that
would explain how they will conclude on a bank’s lending performance when a meaningful
assessment of the bank’s loan data cannot be performed.
116 See Sheldon M. Ross, Introductory Statistics 398 (4th ed. 2017); Robert V. Hogg et al., Probability and
Statistical Inference 303 (9th ed. 2015).
117 For some performance criteria (e.g., borrower and geographic characteristics under the lending test), this
applies to the number of loans in a major product line in an assessment area. For other performance criteria (e.g., the
percentage of loans located in a bank’s assessment area(s)), this would apply to the number of loans in a product line
overall.
If there is insufficient loan data to perform a meaningful assessment of a bank’s lending
performance for a particular performance criterion, the agencies are proposing that they will
assess the bank’s lending performance based on other performance criteria for which a
meaningful assessment may be conducted or consideration of applicable performance context
factors described in § __.21(b) that inform the bank’s lending activity in the assessment area
assessment of a bank’s lending
performance for a particular performance criterion, the agencies are proposing that they will
assess the bank’s lending performance based on other performance criteria for which a
meaningful assessment may be conducted or consideration of applicable performance context
factors described in § __.21(b) that inform the bank’s lending activity in the assessment area.
This provision is intended to allow the agencies to conclude on a bank’s lending test
performance by: (1) only considering those performance criteria that the agencies can conduct a
meaningful assessment of using the available lending data, such as the loan-to-deposit ratio and
the in-out ratio; (2) only considering the performance context factors that inform the bank’s
lending activity in the applicable assessment area; or (3) a combination of both the performance
criterion with meaningful assessments and applicable performance context.
The agencies believe that the proposed meaningful analysis provision will improve
consistency in the application of the applicable performance tests and standards while still
allowing for flexibility to account for bank-specific and assessment area-specific factors that
influence a bank’s retail lending activity. The agencies believe this provision also supports the
proposed major product lines approaches (Option 1 and Option 2), by explaining how the
agencies will consider variations in lending across those product lines at the assessment area
level. Taken together, the agencies believe that the proposed meaningful analysis provision is
consistent with the agencies supervisory experience for the best practices in assessing lending
performance while clarifying consideration of retail lending under the current rules and new
aspects of the proposal.
will consider variations in lending across those product lines at the assessment area
level. Taken together, the agencies believe that the proposed meaningful analysis provision is
consistent with the agencies supervisory experience for the best practices in assessing lending
performance while clarifying consideration of retail lending under the current rules and new
aspects of the proposal.
Range of retail services. Under the current rules, the agencies assess a bank’s retail
banking services as part of the service test in § __.24.118 Specifically, the service test includes a
performance criterion that considers “[t]he range of services provided in low-, moderate-,
middle-, and upper-income geographies and the degree to which the services are tailored to meet
the needs of those geographies.”119 Under the current Interagency Questions and Answers, the
agencies have explained that this examination includes “services generally offered at [the bank’s]
branches, including their hours of operation; available loan and deposit products; transaction
fees, as well as descriptions, where applicable, of material differences in the availability or cost
of services at particular branches.”120 The agencies also consider additional information provided
by the bank, including “data regarding the costs and features of loan and deposit products.”121
Under the proposal, the agencies would modify the retail banking performance criterion
in current § __.24(d)(4) (proposed § __.24(c)(4)) by adding the term “credit” to specify that the
agencies would consider only the “[t]he range of credit services provided in low-, moderate-,
middle-, and upper-income geographies and the degree to which the services are tailored to meet
the needs of those geographies.” (emphasis added)
cies would modify the retail banking performance criterion
in current § __.24(d)(4) (proposed § __.24(c)(4)) by adding the term “credit” to specify that the
agencies would consider only the “[t]he range of credit services provided in low-, moderate-,
middle-, and upper-income geographies and the degree to which the services are tailored to meet
the needs of those geographies.” (emphasis added). In the agencies’ view, this limitation is
appropriate in light of the agencies’ statutory mandate to assess a bank’s “record of meeting the
credit needs of its entire community.” The proposed rules would supersede the Interagency
Questions and Answers to the extent they provide that the agencies’ evaluation of a bank’s retail
banking services includes deposit products.
118 See current 12 CFR __.24(d). Under the current rules, retail banking services tailored to the needs of LMI
individuals may be considered as CD services in certain circumstances. See, e.g., Q&A § __.26(c)(3)—1
(consideration of retail banking services for intermediate small banks).
119 Current 12 CFR __.24(d)(4).
120 Q&A § __.24(d)(4)—1.
121 Id.
Responsiveness. The proposal would add a new provision addressing the qualitative
factors considered in assessing a bank’s CRA performance. Specifically, the proposal would
codify and clarify certain guidance in the Interagency Questions and Answers in proposed
§ __.14, Responsiveness. Under the current rules, responsiveness is referenced in several of the
performance criteria used to assess a bank’s CD activities; however, the current regulatory
framework is qualitative and responsiveness and has been incorporated into the consideration of
the retail components of the performance tests and standards.122 For example, in assessing retail
lending activities the agencies have considered a bank’s use of flexible lending products to meet
community credit needs
e criteria used to assess a bank’s CD activities; however, the current regulatory
framework is qualitative and responsiveness and has been incorporated into the consideration of
the retail components of the performance tests and standards.122 For example, in assessing retail
lending activities the agencies have considered a bank’s use of flexible lending products to meet
community credit needs.
The agencies considered how qualitative considerations have factored into their
assessment of bank’s CRA performance historically and are clarifying in the proposal that
responsiveness is a factor considered with respect to both retail and CD activities. As such, the
performance tests and standards were revised to include a new or amended, as applicable,
performance criterion regarding the responsiveness of the bank’s retail loans and community
development loans in meeting community credit needs. Section IV.C of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION provides further discussion of proposed § __.14 and
related provisions, particularly as those provisions relate to CD activities.
Performance context. As part of their current assessment of CRA performance, the
agencies consider certain performance context factors in applying the applicable performance
tests and standards and also when considering whether to approve a proposed strategic plan.123
The proposal would largely retain the current rules’ performance context provision in § __.21(b).
122 See, e.g., current 12 CFR __.25 and appendix A, paragraph (b)(1); Q&As §§ __.22(a)—1 and __.22(b)(5)—
1.
123 See current 12 CFR __.21(b).
nce context factors in applying the applicable performance
tests and standards and also when considering whether to approve a proposed strategic plan.123
The proposal would largely retain the current rules’ performance context provision in § __.21(b).
122 See, e.g., current 12 CFR __.25 and appendix A, paragraph (b)(1); Q&As §§ __.22(a)—1 and __.22(b)(5)—
1.
123 See current 12 CFR __.21(b).
The agencies are proposing, however, to add a new performance context factor to proposed
§ __.21(b). The new performance context factor would provide that the agencies would consider
a bank’s CD activities and retail banking services, to the extent not considered under another
performance test. The proposed performance context factor would codify how the agencies have
applied certain provisions of the current rules.
In practice, the agencies have considered “other lending-related activities” described in
current § __.26(b) as performance context under the small bank lending test. The agencies are
proposing to include the new performance context factor in proposed § __.21(b) to better reflect
how these activities are considered in CRA examinations. Other lending-related activities inform
the agencies’ assessment of the retail and CD lending activities considered directly under the
performance criteria in the lending test by providing context that explains a bank’s lending
capacity. The agencies also propose conforming revisions to remove the current references to
“other lending-related activities” included in § __.26(b).
Small and Intermediate Bank Performance Standards. The agencies are proposing to
remove the consideration of a small or intermediate bank’s record of taking action in response to
written complaints about its performance in helping to meet the credit needs in its assessment
areas (current § __.26(b)(5)). It is the agencies’ view that this factor would be duplicative of
considerations contemplated with respect to bank performance under new provisions in the
proposal
sing to
remove the consideration of a small or intermediate bank’s record of taking action in response to
written complaints about its performance in helping to meet the credit needs in its assessment
areas (current § __.26(b)(5)). It is the agencies’ view that this factor would be duplicative of
considerations contemplated with respect to bank performance under new provisions in the
proposal. In particular, proposed clarification regarding responsiveness (proposed § __.14), a
factor that would apply across all bank performance tests, renders this aspect of small banks’
performance standards redundant.
Intermediate bank ratings. To better focus CRA examinations on lending performance
for intermediate banks and to improve flexibility, the agencies are also proposing to modify a
limitation in the current rules for when an intermediate bank (currently, an intermediate small
bank) may receive an overall rating of “satisfactory.” Specifically, the agencies are proposing an
amendment to paragraph (d)(3) of appendix A regarding ratings. In its current form, paragraph
(d)(3) of appendix A requires an intermediate small bank to receive a rating of at least
“satisfactory” on both the lending test and the CD test to receive an overall rating of
“satisfactory.” The agencies are proposing a change so that intermediate banks must receive a
rating of at least “satisfactory” on only the lending test to receive an overall rating of
“satisfactory.”
In comparison to the current approach in appendix A, the proposed amendment is
intended to allow stronger performance on the lending test to compensate for weaker
performance on the CD test, thereby emphasizing lending performance consistent with the
CRA’s statutory focus on credit needs. Since intermediate banks do not know the exact
performance rating they will receive before it is assigned, the agencies do not believe that it will
create a strong incentive for banks to intentionally scale back their performance on either the
lending test or the CD test
rformance on the CD test, thereby emphasizing lending performance consistent with the
CRA’s statutory focus on credit needs. Since intermediate banks do not know the exact
performance rating they will receive before it is assigned, the agencies do not believe that it will
create a strong incentive for banks to intentionally scale back their performance on either the
lending test or the CD test. Instead, the agencies believe that the more likely outcome is that
banks will have improved incentives to perform better on both tests because there is no longer an
artificial constraint that prevents banks from receiving an overall rating of “satisfactory” without
a “satisfactory” rating on both tests.
Other changes to performance tests. The agencies are proposing several other clarifying
changes regarding performances tests and appendix A—Ratings. Specifically, the agencies are
proposing conforming edits throughout appendix A to account for other proposed changes to the
regulations (e.g., to address changes related to “responsiveness” and including considerations
like innovativeness and flexibility within the consideration of responsiveness). The agencies are
also proposing to remove factors that require specific consideration of serving credit needs of
highly disadvantaged areas and low-income people. Highly disadvantaged areas is not a defined
term and the agencies believe this factor is already considered in factors related to borrower and
geographic characteristics.
C. CD Activities
Under the current rules, the agencies consider CD activities (i.e., CD loans, qualifying
investments, and CD services) across several tests: the lending, investment, and service tests for
large banks; the CD test for wholesale or limited purpose banks; the CD test for intermediate
small banks; and for banks evaluated using strategic plans to the extent a bank’s plan includes
goals for CD activities
the current rules, the agencies consider CD activities (i.e., CD loans, qualifying
investments, and CD services) across several tests: the lending, investment, and service tests for
large banks; the CD test for wholesale or limited purpose banks; the CD test for intermediate
small banks; and for banks evaluated using strategic plans to the extent a bank’s plan includes
goals for CD activities. Consideration of CD activities has been a component of the agencies’
CRA rules since they were first promulgated in 1978.124 Under the proposal, the agencies would
revise the definitions of CD loan, qualifying investment, and CD service to improve consistency
and clarity in how CD activities are treated across tests.
The agencies would add a new definition of “community development grant.” As
explained in greater detail below, grants and donations (including in-kind donations) are
currently included within the definition of “qualifying investment.” Under the new definition,
however, the agencies would restrict grants and donations that may be considered for CRA credit
to those that a bank can demonstrate will be directly used by the recipient to deploy the funds to
meet community credit needs. For large banks or saving association, the proposed rules would
further require that the grant or donation be directed to a recipient whose indirect costs for
administering the grant or donation would not exceed 15 percent. In the agencies’ experience,
124 See 43 FR at 47148 (evaluating the bank’s participation, including investments, in local CD and
redevelopment projects or programs in § __.7(h) of the 1978 CRA rule).
ciation, the proposed rules would
further require that the grant or donation be directed to a recipient whose indirect costs for
administering the grant or donation would not exceed 15 percent. In the agencies’ experience,
124 See 43 FR at 47148 (evaluating the bank’s participation, including investments, in local CD and
redevelopment projects or programs in § __.7(h) of the 1978 CRA rule).
inefficient use of funds is most common in grants and donations, particularly because middlemen
are more frequently relied upon to indirectly deploy funds. This results in increased indirect costs
and less funds directly serving LMI individuals, LMI census tracts, small businesses, and small
farms.
As described below, the agencies would also add a new section to their CRA rules to
identify when a CD activity would be considered responsive, a qualitative factor under
applicable tests, and would make other revisions to standardize the discussion of qualitative
factors in each test.
CD loans. Under the current rules, a CD loan is a loan that has as its primary purpose
community development and, except in the case of a wholesale or limited purpose bank, has not
been reported or collected by the bank for its assessment as a retail loan evaluated under CRA
and benefits the bank’s assessments areas or the broader statewide or regional area. The proposal
would generally retain this definition with certain modifications. First, the definition would
clarify that a CD loan also includes a legally-binding commitment to lend. In the CRA context,
the agencies regard a legally binding commitment to lend as the functional equivalent of a loan
because the bank is bound to provide the funding, which limits the bank’s resources available for
other activities
d generally retain this definition with certain modifications. First, the definition would
clarify that a CD loan also includes a legally-binding commitment to lend. In the CRA context,
the agencies regard a legally binding commitment to lend as the functional equivalent of a loan
because the bank is bound to provide the funding, which limits the bank’s resources available for
other activities. Second, the revised definition clarifies that a CD loan must not have been
considered by the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency as a part of the bank’s
assessment as a home mortgage, small business, small farm, or consumer loan unless the loan is
for a multifamily dwelling or for a low-cost education loan. This revision would have two
effects: (1) it would allow a low-cost education loan to be considered as both a retail loan and a
CD loan, akin to multifamily affordable housing under current guidance125 and (2) it would mean
125 See current 12 CFR __.12(h)(2)(i); Q&A § __.42(b)(2)—2.
that some lending that is a retail loan but not included in a major product line could be
considered as a CD loan, to the extent it otherwise met the CD definition. This revision would
extend to all banks a modified form of the treatment provided to intermediate small banks under
the Interagency Questions and Answers.126 For example, if small farm lending is not considered
one of a bank’s major product lines, certain small farm loans may qualify as a CD loan under the
economic development category of community development.127 Finally, the definition in the
proposal provides that, for all banks, a CD loan would need to benefit the bank’s assessment
area(s), except as a provided in proposed § __.13(e). This revision would expand geographic
consideration of CD activities in some instances, as explained in the CD activities outside
assessment area(s) discussion in section IV.E of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
ment.127 Finally, the definition in the
proposal provides that, for all banks, a CD loan would need to benefit the bank’s assessment
area(s), except as a provided in proposed § __.13(e). This revision would expand geographic
consideration of CD activities in some instances, as explained in the CD activities outside
assessment area(s) discussion in section IV.E of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
In addition, the agencies are proposing a new § __.21(f) to clarify that, similar to CD
investments, the agencies will consider prior period CD loans. This provision would create parity
with the current treatment of CD investments. The agencies believe that this provision
appropriately encourages longer-term lending. By considering the amount of prior period CD
loans, as well as CD investments, in addition to the new originations and purchases, the proposal
would provide an incentive for banks to extend the length and type of financing needed for a
project. The agencies invite comment on whether a prior period CD loan or CD investment
should receive consideration based on whether it is on a bank’s balance sheet at the (1) end of the
year, (2) end of the evaluation period, or (3) an alternative. The agencies also invite comment on
whether consideration for CD loans should be limited to one time per evaluation period even if
126 See Q&A § __.12(h)—3.
127 The agencies recognize that if loans currently considered as retail loans were able to be considered CD loans
then banks would need to provide additional documentation during a CRA examination to demonstrate that the loans
qualify as CD loans. Additionally, large banks would need to collect and maintain data for these CD loans as
explained in proposed § __.42(a)(2) and would need to report data for these loans as explained in proposed
§ __.42(b)(2).
as retail loans were able to be considered CD loans
then banks would need to provide additional documentation during a CRA examination to demonstrate that the loans
qualify as CD loans. Additionally, large banks would need to collect and maintain data for these CD loans as
explained in proposed § __.42(a)(2) and would need to report data for these loans as explained in proposed
§ __.42(b)(2).
the CD loan is renewed multiple times during an evaluation period so that renewal decisions and
loan terms are not influenced by their consideration under this rule.
Request for Feedback
Question 8: Does annual or evaluation period-based consideration better serve the goal of
encouraging banks to meet the credit needs of their communities better than the other?
CD investments. Under the current rule, a qualified investment is a lawful investment,
deposit, membership share, or grant that has community developments as its primary purpose.128
Under the proposal, the agencies would change the term “qualified investment” to “community
development investment” for clarity and to create alignment with CD loans and CD services.
The agencies would also redefine the term “community development investment” to
mean a security or a deposit or membership share in a financial institution, including a legally-
binding commitment to invest, that has as its primary purpose CD; is permissible under
applicable laws and rules; and, except as specified in § __.13(e), benefits the bank’s assessment
area(s). The agencies intend the term “security” to provide greater clarity regarding what the
agencies mean by an “investment” and would broadly include equity investments as well as debt
instruments like bonds.129 The term would not include loans, which are considered for CRA
purposes under applicable lending tests
rules; and, except as specified in § __.13(e), benefits the bank’s assessment
area(s). The agencies intend the term “security” to provide greater clarity regarding what the
agencies mean by an “investment” and would broadly include equity investments as well as debt
instruments like bonds.129 The term would not include loans, which are considered for CRA
purposes under applicable lending tests. The proposed definition would also clarify that, to
qualify as an investment, a deposit or membership share would need to be in a financial
institution, which is consistent with the agencies’ intended meaning of these terms under the
current rule.130 For example, membership shares in a low-income credit union may qualify as a
128 See current 12 CFR __.12(t).
129 See 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(1) and 78c(a)(10) (defining “security” for the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934).
130 See 60 FR at 22161.
CD investment. This is distinct from membership fees in a community group, which would not
qualify. The proposal would remove grants from the scope of the term CD investment and would
add a new “community development grant” definition, discussed below.
The agencies would also replace the qualifier that a CD investment be “lawful” with the
requirement that an investment be permissible under applicable laws and rules. This requirement
is necessary because the CRA does not provide a separate source of investment authority for
banks. As described regarding CD loans, the cross reference to § __.13(e) provides for expanded
geographic consideration of CD activities in some instances.
CD grants. Under the current rule, qualified investments include both structured equity
and debt investments, such as state and municipal affordable housing bonds and certain
mortgage-backed securities, and unstructured activities, such as grants and donations to non-
profit entities
oss reference to § __.13(e) provides for expanded
geographic consideration of CD activities in some instances.
CD grants. Under the current rule, qualified investments include both structured equity
and debt investments, such as state and municipal affordable housing bonds and certain
mortgage-backed securities, and unstructured activities, such as grants and donations to non-
profit entities. In their supervisory experience, the agencies have found that the latter type of
activities may be susceptible to rent extraction, in which entities divert funds away from local
communities, including LMI individuals, small businesses, and small farms. This may be
particularly true when banks provide indirect grants (i.e., grants to organizations that do not
directly provide services to local communities but provide financing to other non-profit
organizations) because such grants may increase the total amount of funds that go to aggregate
overhead costs and thus are not available to contribute directly to community development
projects or initiatives.
Accordingly, the proposal would narrow the circumstances in which banks may receive
CRA consideration for grants or donations to ensure that a grant or donation would directly
benefit the bank’s assessment area(s). Specifically, the agencies are proposing to add a new
“community development grant” definition to proposed § __.12 and define the term to mean a
velopment
projects or initiatives.
Accordingly, the proposal would narrow the circumstances in which banks may receive
CRA consideration for grants or donations to ensure that a grant or donation would directly
benefit the bank’s assessment area(s). Specifically, the agencies are proposing to add a new
“community development grant” definition to proposed § __.12 and define the term to mean a
grant or donation that: (1) will be directly used by the recipient for a program, project, or
initiative with a primary purpose of community development; (2) except as specified in
§ __.13(e), benefits the bank’s assessment area(s); and (3) for a large bank, is provided to a
recipient whose indirect costs for administering the grant or donation do not exceed 15 percent,
calculated consistent with the Uniform Guidance for Federal Awards, 2 CFR part 200, or a
comparable standard. The agencies believe this third requirement will help ensure the vast
majority of community development grant dollars are used to benefit the large bank’s assessment
area, rather than the organization administering the community development program, project, or
initiative. The agencies also believe this requirement would better prevent rent extraction and
ensure the vast majority of grant funds are provided directly to the large bank’s local
communities.
The agencies are proposing a 15 percent limit on indirect costs based on guidance from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and propose to calculate those costs using the
OMB’s Uniform Guidance for Federal Awards, which is an established standard that is applied
to recipients of Federal grants and awards. Under the proposal, banks could provide grants and
donations to entities that directly engage in affordable housing, civic assistance, economic
development, or revitalization and stabilization, as discussed in section IV.D of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
he
OMB’s Uniform Guidance for Federal Awards, which is an established standard that is applied
to recipients of Federal grants and awards. Under the proposal, banks could provide grants and
donations to entities that directly engage in affordable housing, civic assistance, economic
development, or revitalization and stabilization, as discussed in section IV.D of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. For example, a bank could receive CRA consideration
for a grant or donation to a non-profit organization that develops and builds owner-occupied
housing for LMI individuals or provides disaster relief services in a designated disaster area. A
bank could also receive CRA consideration for a grant or donation to a local non-profit
organization that provides technical assistance to small businesses or that provides financial
literacy programming to the community. A grant or donation to a non-profit organization made
by a large bank to a recipient whose indirect costs to administer the grant or donation exceeds 15
percent of the grant or donation dollar amount, however, would not qualify for CRA
consideration.131
Under the proposal, a bank could demonstrate that a grant or donation would be directly
used for a program, project, or initiative with a primary purpose of CD consistent with current
guidance regarding primary purpose, discussed below. As discussed in section IV.G of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, a large bank would have additional requirements to
demonstrate that the definition is satisfied, specifically the recipient’s written commitment to use
the funds to provide specific qualifying activities in the bank’s assessment area(s); the recipient’s
written attestation that their indirect costs for administering the grant or donation will not exceed
15 percent, calculated consistent with the Uniform Guidance for Federal Awards, 2 CFR part
200, or a comparable standard; and documentation provided by the recipient supporting the
attestation, including IRS Form 990 (Return for Tax Exempt Organ
n the bank’s assessment area(s); the recipient’s
written attestation that their indirect costs for administering the grant or donation will not exceed
15 percent, calculated consistent with the Uniform Guidance for Federal Awards, 2 CFR part
200, or a comparable standard; and documentation provided by the recipient supporting the
attestation, including IRS Form 990 (Return for Tax Exempt Organizations) with annual
operating and program budgets. In the agencies’ view, these guardrails are important to prevent
banks from receiving CRA consideration for grants and donations that do not sufficiently benefit
the bank’s local community.
The agencies invite comment on the new proposed definition for community
development grants. In particular, the agencies request comment on whether the proposed use of
the indirect cost rate from the Uniform Guidance for Federal Awards is an appropriate standard
for considering a CD grant recipient’s indirect costs associated with grant administration.
Request for Feedback
131 OMB guidance guarantees a de minimis rate for indirect costs of 15 percent to “allow for a more reasonable
and realistic recovery of indirect costs, particularly for new or inexperienced organizations that may not have the
capacity to undergo a formal rate negotiation but still deserve to be fully compensated for their overhead costs.” See
89 FR 30046, 30093 (Apr. 22, 2024); see generally 2 CFR part 200, subpart E.
s a de minimis rate for indirect costs of 15 percent to “allow for a more reasonable
and realistic recovery of indirect costs, particularly for new or inexperienced organizations that may not have the
capacity to undergo a formal rate negotiation but still deserve to be fully compensated for their overhead costs.” See
89 FR 30046, 30093 (Apr. 22, 2024); see generally 2 CFR part 200, subpart E.
Question 9: Are there alternative standards the agencies should consider relying on in the
context of limiting indirect costs for CD grants? Do the proposed guardrails do enough to ensure
the majority of grant and donation funds go directly towards benefiting the bank’s assessment
area(s)?
Question 10: As an alternative, should the agencies eliminate all grants and donations
from CRA consideration?
CD services. Under the current rule, a CD service means a service that has CD as its
primary purpose, is related to the provision of financial services; and has not been considered in
the evaluation of the bank’s retail banking services under § __.24(d). Generally, the agencies
would retain this definition, with several modifications for clarity. Specifically, consistent with
current agency practices, the proposal would provide that a CD service is a volunteer service
performed by a bank or saving association employee representing the bank or savings
association. With this clarification that a CD service is a “volunteer service,” the requirement
that the CD service has not been considered in the evaluation of the bank’s retail banking
services is not necessary because there would not be any overlap. This is not intended as a
substantive change. The proposed definition would also add “or the employee’s area of expertise
at the bank” to the requirement that a CD service relate to the provision of financial services,
which would incorporate guidance found in the Interagency Questions and Answers.132
f the bank’s retail banking
services is not necessary because there would not be any overlap. This is not intended as a
substantive change. The proposed definition would also add “or the employee’s area of expertise
at the bank” to the requirement that a CD service relate to the provision of financial services,
which would incorporate guidance found in the Interagency Questions and Answers.132. This
addition is intended to capture instances where bank employees utilize their expertise, whether
related to the provision of financial services or not, in providing a CD service. In addition, as
with CD loans and CD investments, the proposed definition would provide that the CD service
must, except as specified in § __.13(e), benefit the bank’s assessment area(s).
132 See Q&A § __.12(i)—3.
Definition of CD activity. The proposal would add a definition of “community
development activity,” that would include “a community development grant, community
development investment, community development loan, or community development service.”
The agencies intend to use this definition throughout their CRA rules as a streamlined reference
for the collective discussion of CD grants, investments, loans, and services.
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.