1

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

[Docket ID OCC-2014-0021]

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

[Docket No. OP-1497]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Community Reinvestment Act; Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding 

Community Reinvestment; Notice

AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC); Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The OCC, Board, and FDIC (the Agencies) are adopting as final revisions 

to the Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment 

(Questions and Answers) based on the proposal issued on September 10, 2014 addressing 

alternative systems for delivering retail banking services; community developmentrelated issues; and the qualitative aspects of performance, including innovative or flexible 

lending practices and the responsiveness and innovativeness of an institution’s loans, 

qualified investments, and community development services. The Agencies are 
2

clarifying nine of the 10 proposed questions and answers (Q&A), revising four existing 

Q&As for consistency, and adopting two new Q&As. The Agencies are not adopting one 

of the proposed revisions to guidance that addressed the availability and effectiveness of 

retail banking services. Finally, the Agencies are making technical corrections to the 

Questions and Answers to update cross-references and remove references related to the 

Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) as obsolete. The Agencies are publishing all of the 

new and revised Q&As, as well as those Q&As that were published in 2010 and 2013 and 

that remain in effect in this final guidance.

EFFECTIVE DATE: [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OCC: Bobbie K. Kennedy, Bank Examiner, Compliance Policy Division, (202) 649-

5470; Vonda Eanes, National Bank Examiner and District Community Affairs Officer, 

Community Affairs, (202) 649-6420; or Margaret Hesse, Senior Counsel, Community 

and Consumer Law Division, (202) 649-6350, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 

400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219.

Board: Catherine M.J. Gates, Senior Project Manager, (202) 452-2099; or Theresa A. 

Stark, Senior Project Manager, (202) 452-2302, Division of Consumer and Community 

Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

FDIC: Patience R. Singleton, Senior Policy Analyst, Supervisory Policy Branch, (202) 

898-6859; Sharon B. Vejvoda, Senior Examination Specialist, Compliance and CRA 
3

Examinations Branch, (202) 898-3881; Surya Sen, Section Chief, Supervisory Policy 

Branch, (202) 898-6699, Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection; or Richard M. 

Schwartz, Counsel (202) 898-7424; or Sherry Ann Betancourt, Counsel, (202) 898-6560, 

Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Agencies implement the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) (12 U.S.C. 

2901 et seq.) through their CRA regulations. See 12 CFR parts 25, 195, 228, and 345. 

The CRA is designed to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit 

needs of their entire communities. The CRA regulations establish the framework and 

criteria by which the Agencies assess an institution’s record of helping to meet the credit 

needs of its community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent 

with safe and sound operations. The regulations provide different evaluation standards

for institutions of different asset sizes and types. 

The Agencies publish the Questions and Answers1 to provide guidance on the 

interpretation and application of the CRA regulations to agency personnel, financial 

institutions, and the public. The Agencies first published the Questions and Answers 

under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) in 

1996 (61 FR 54647). The Questions and Answers were last published in full by the 

Agencies on March 11, 2010 (2010 Questions and Answers) (75 FR 11642). In 2013, the 

 1 Throughout this document, “Questions and Answers” refers to the “Interagency Questions and Answers 

Regarding Community Reinvestment” in its entirety; “Q&A” refers to an individual question and answer 

within the Questions and Answers.
4

Agencies adopted revised guidance on community development topics that amended and 

superseded five Q&As and added two new Q&As (2013 Questions and Answers) (78 FR 

69671), which supplemented the 2010 Questions and Answers. This document 

supplements, revises, republishes, and supersedes the 2010 Questions and Answers and 

the 2013 Questions and Answers.

The Questions and Answers are grouped by the provision of the CRA regulations 

that they discuss, are presented in the same order as the regulatory provisions, and 

employ an abbreviated method of citing to the regulations. For example, for thrifts, the 

small savings association performance standards appear at 12 CFR 195.26; for national 

banks, the small bank performance standards appear at 12 CFR 25.26; for Federal 

Reserve System member banks supervised by the Board, they appear at 12 CFR 228.26; 

and for state nonmember banks, they appear at 12 CFR 345.26. Accordingly, the citation 

would be to 12 CFR __.26. Each Q&A is numbered using a system that consists of the 

regulatory citation and a number, connected by a dash. For example, the first Q&A 

addressing 12 CFR __.26 would be identified as § __.26 – 1.

Although a particular Q&A may provide guidance on one regulatory provision, 

e.g., 12 CFR __.22, which relates to the lending test applicable to large institutions, its 

content may also be applicable to, for example, small institutions, which are evaluated 

pursuant to small institution performance standards found at 12 CFR __.26. Thus, 

readers with a particular interest in small institution issues, for example, should review 

Q&As relevant to other financial institutions as well.

A. The 2014 Proposal and Overview of Comments
5

On September 10, 2014, the Agencies proposed to revise six existing Q&As.

2

 

Two Q&As addressed the availability and effectiveness of retail banking services3 and 

one Q&A addressed innovative or flexible lending practices.4 The other three proposed 

revised Q&As addressed community development-related issues, including economic 

development, community development loans, and activities that are considered to 

revitalize or stabilize an underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geography.5 The 

Agencies also proposed to add four new Q&As, two of which addressed community 

development services,6 and two of which provided general guidance on responsiveness 

and innovativeness.7

Together, the Agencies received 126 different comment letters on the proposed 

Q&As, plus over 900 form letter submissions. The commenters included financial 

institutions and their trade associations (collectively, industry commenters), community 

development advocates and consumer organizations (collectively, community 

organization commenters), state bank supervisors, Federal agencies, and other interested 

parties. 

Most commenters supported the Agencies’ efforts to clarify the CRA guidance. 

Some commenters also suggested revisions to the proposed new and revised Q&As, as 

well as posed questions or stated concerns about the Q&As. Comments received by the 

Agencies on each revised or new proposed Q&A are discussed in further detail below in 

Parts II and III.

 2 75 FR 53838 (Sept. 10, 2014).

3 Q&As § __.24(d) – 1 and § __.24(d)(3) – 1. 4 Q&A § __.22(b)(5) – 1. 5 Q&As § __.12(g)(3) – 1; § __.12(h) –1; and § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4. 6 Q&As § __.24(a) – 1 and § __.24(e) – 2. 7 Q&As § __.21(a) – 3 and § __.21(a) – 4.
6

B. Summary of Final Q&As

The Agencies are adopting nine of the 10 proposed Q&As with clarifications to 

reflect commenters’ suggestions. Parts II and III below discuss the clarifications made to 

these nine Q&As. Further, as discussed more fully below in Part II.C.i., in response to 

comments received, the Agencies are not adopting as final the proposed revisions to 

Q&A § __.24(d) – 1, one of the Q&As that addresses the availability and effectiveness of 

retail banking services.

The Agencies are also revising four additional existing Q&As8 and adopting two

new Q&As9 based on questions and suggestions provided by the commenters. Finally, as 

discussed in Part IV, the Agencies have made technical corrections to 25 Q&As to 

update, for example, regulatory references, addresses, and references related to the 

former OTS.

As has been done in the past, the Agencies intend to provide training on all 

aspects of the new and revised Questions and Answers for examiners, as well as outreach

for bankers and other interested parties.

II. Revisions to Existing Q&As

A. Community Development

Community development is an important component of community reinvestment 

and is considered in the CRA evaluations of financial institutions of all types and sizes. 

Community development activities are considered under the regulations’ large institution, 

intermediate small institution, and wholesale and limited purpose institution performance 

tests. See 12 CFR __.22(b)(4), __.23, __.24(e), __.26(c), and __.25. In addition, small 

 8 Q&As § __.12(g) – 1, § __.12(i) – 3, § __.12(t) – 4, and § __.26(c)(3) – 1. 9 Q&As § __.12(g) – 4 and § __.24(d)(4) – 1.
7

institutions may use community development activities to receive consideration toward 

an outstanding rating. The Agencies believe that community development generally 

improves the circumstances for low- and moderate-income individuals and stabilizes and 

revitalizes the communities in which they live or work.

The Agencies proposed to provide additional clarification of three Q&As 

addressing community development-related topics.

i. Economic Development

The CRA regulations define community development to include “activities that 

promote economic development by financing businesses or farms that meet the size 

eligibility standards of the Small Business Administration’s Development Company

(SBDC) or Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) programs (13 CFR 121.301) or 

have gross annual revenues of $1 million or less.” See 12 CFR __.12(g)(3). The 

Questions and Answers provide additional guidance on activities that promote economic 

development in Q&As § __.12(g)(3) – 1, § __.12(i) – 1, § __.12(i) – 3, and § __.12(t) – 4. 

Existing Q&A § __.12(g)(3) – 1 explained the phrase “promote economic 

development.” This Q&A stated that activities promote economic development by 

financing small businesses or farms if they meet two “tests”: (i) a “size test” (the 

beneficiaries of the activity must meet the size eligibility standards of the SBDC or SBIC

programs or have gross annual revenues of $1 million or less); and (ii) a “purpose test,” 

which is intended to ensure that a financial institution’s activities promote economic 

development consistent with the CRA regulations. Existing Q&A § __.12(g)(3) – 1 

stated that activities promote economic development if they “support permanent job 

creation, retention, and/or improvement for persons who are currently low- or moderate-
8

income, or support permanent job creation, retention, and/or improvement either in lowor moderate-income geographies or in areas targeted for redevelopment by Federal, state, 

local, or tribal governments.” The Q&A further explained, “[t]he Agencies will presume 

that any loan to or investment in a SBDC, SBIC, Rural Business Investment Company, 

New Markets Venture Capital Company, or New Markets Tax Credit-eligible 

Community Development Entity promotes economic development.”

The Agencies proposed to revise existing Q&A § __.12(g)(3) – 1 to clarify what 

is meant by the phrase “promote economic development,” and to better align this Q&A 

with other guidance provided in existing Q&As § __.12(i) – 1 and § __.12(i) – 3 

regarding consideration of economic development activities undertaken by financial 

institutions. Further, the Agencies proposed to revise the guidance to add additional 

examples that would demonstrate a purpose of economic development, such as workforce 

development and technical assistance support for small businesses. In addition, the 

Agencies requested public comment on seven questions regarding the proposed revisions 

to the Q&A. 

The Agencies received 40 comments addressing proposed revised Q&A 

§ __.12(g)(3) – 1. Most commenters provided general comments about the proposed 

revised Q&A, with relatively few responding to the seven specific questions posed by the 

Agencies. Commenters generally supported the Agencies’ efforts to clarify the types of 

activities that promote economic development. One industry commenter mentioned that

changing the format to a bulleted list of activities that demonstrate a purpose of economic 

development is helpful.
9

A few industry commenters suggested eliminating the purpose test altogether, 

asserting that the regulations require only that activities relate to businesses that meet 

Small Business Administration (SBA) size-eligibility requirements. However, the 

Agencies note the intent of the purpose test is to explain what is meant by the phrase 

“promote economic development.” The purpose test ensures that examiners consider 

only activities that promote economic development as activities with a primary purpose 

of community development. Other loans to small businesses and small farms are 

considered as retail loans if they meet certain loan-size standards (see 12 CFR __.12(v) 

and (w)); larger loans to small businesses and small farms that do not meet the purpose 

test would not be considered in a CRA evaluation as small business or small farm loans. 

Furthermore, they would not be considered as community development loans, unless they 

have an alternate community development purpose as defined in 12 CFR __.12(g). 

The Agencies specifically asked what information is available to demonstrate that 

an activity meets the size and purpose tests. One community organization commenter 

suggested that examiners consider the size of the business by revenues or, alternatively, 

the mission statement of the intermediary lender, if the statement provides sufficient 

detail on the types of businesses served, to demonstrate an activity meets the size test. A 

few industry commenters suggested that all activities that support small businesses 

should be presumed to qualify and meet the purpose test. 

As noted above, existing Q&A § __.12(g)(3) – 1 explained that the Agencies will 

presume that any loan to or investment in a SBDC, SBIC, Rural Business Investment 

Company, New Markets Venture Capital Company, or New Markets Tax Credit-eligible 

Community Development Entity promotes economic development. The Agencies 
10

proposed a revision to the Q&A to add the following presumption: for loans to or 

investments in a Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) that finances 

small businesses or small farms. As discussed below, the Agencies are adopting this 

proposed amendment to Q&A § __.12(g)(3) – 1 regarding CDFIs. 

The Agencies also proposed to revise the existing Q&A § __.12(g)(3) – 1 by 

removing the reference to persons who are “currently” low- or moderate-income in order 

to clarify that banks can focus on community development activities that extend beyond 

support for low-wage jobs. The Agencies specifically requested input on whether the 

proposed revision would help to clarify what is meant by job creation, retention, or 

improvement for low- or moderate-income individuals. Commenters generally agreed 

with removing the reference to persons who are “currently” low- or moderate-income. 

However, most commenters indicated that the proposal did not sufficiently clarify what is 

meant by job creation, retention, or improvement for low- or moderate-income persons

beyond the creation of low-wage jobs. Industry commenters reiterated concerns that the 

primary method to demonstrate that activities benefit low- or moderate-income 

individuals is to provide evidence of low-wage jobs, which is not consistent with the 

spirit or intent of the CRA. These commenters also expressed concerns that the proposal 

did not include examples of methods that could be used to demonstrate that the persons 

for whom jobs are created, retained, or improved are low- or moderate-income, and asked 

that the Agencies incorporate examples into the final Q&A. 

The Agencies are adopting revisions to existing Q&A § __.12(g)(3) – 1 largely as 

proposed, but with additional clarifications. 
11

First, the Agencies recognize that financial institutions may rely on a variety of 

methods to demonstrate that activities promote economic development. To make clear 

that financial institutions may provide various types of information to demonstrate that an 

activity meets the purpose test, the Agencies have added a statement in the final Q&A 

clarifying that examiners will employ appropriate flexibility in reviewing any information 

provided by a financial institution that reasonably demonstrates that the purpose, 

mandate, or function of an activity meets the purpose test. 

In addition to the above revisions, the Agencies had proposed to add examples of

types of activities that would meet the purpose test of promoting economic development. 

The Agencies are adopting these examples largely as proposed, but with some 

clarifications and revisions to address commenters’ concerns, as discussed more fully 

below. Accordingly, the Agencies are adopting this final Q&A with reference to 

activities that are considered to promote economic development if they support 

permanent job creation, retention, and/or improvement 

• for low- or moderate-income persons; 

• in low- or moderate-income geographies;

• in areas targeted for redevelopment by Federal, state, local, or tribal governments; 

• by financing intermediaries that lend to, invest in, or provide technical assistance to 

start-ups or recently formed small businesses or small farms; or

• through technical assistance or supportive services for small businesses or farms, such 

as shared space, technology, or administrative assistance.

The final Q&A also recognizes that Federal, state, local, or tribal economic 

development initiatives that include provisions for creating or improving access by low-
12

or moderate-income persons to jobs, or job training or workforce development programs,

promote economic development.

The Agencies note that only one of the examples in the final Q&A explicitly

refers to permanent job creation, retention, and/or improvement for low- or moderateincome persons. The Agencies encourage activities that promote economic development 

through opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals to obtain higher wage 

jobs, such as through private industry collaborations with workforce development 

programs for unemployed persons and are clarifying that examiners will consider the 

qualitative aspects of performance related to all activities that promote economic 

development. In particular, activities will be considered more responsive to community 

needs if a majority of jobs created, retained, and/or improved benefit low- or moderateincome individuals.

The Agencies also note that Q&A § __.12(g)(2) – 1 provides examples of ways in 

which an institution could determine that community services and, therefore, other types 

of community development activities, including economic development, are targeted to 

low- or moderate-income individuals. In particular, the example explaining that an 

institution may use readily available data for the average wage for workers in a particular 

occupation or industry could be useful when determining whether an activity promotes 

economic development.

The Agencies specifically asked whether the proposed examples demonstrating 

that an activity promotes economic development for CRA purposes were appropriate, and 

whether there are other examples the Agencies should include. Most commenters 

generally agreed the proposed examples were appropriate. Several community 
13

organization commenters, as well as a state bank supervisory agency commenter, 

suggested the Q&A should also include a reference to the “quality of jobs” created, 

retained, or improved. Industry commenters, however, opposed a “quality of jobs 

standard,” expressing concerns related to increased subjectivity by examiners and the 

Agencies and documentation burden on institutions, small businesses or small farms, and 

examiners. The Agencies recognize that the term “quality” is subjective, not easily 

defined, and heavily influenced by local economic conditions, needs, and opportunities. 

The amount of time, resources, and expertise needed to fairly evaluate the quality of jobs 

created, retained, and/or improved for low- or moderate-income individuals could be 

overly burdensome for examiners, financial institutions, and small businesses or small 

farms. However, the Agencies note that examiners are not precluded from considering 

qualitative factors relative to a particular financial institution’s performance context, 

including, at the institution’s option, any information provided on the quality of jobs 

created, retained, or improved through any of the types of activities listed in the Q&A’s 

description of the purpose test as promoting economic development.

The Agencies proposed that permanent job creation, retention, and/or 

improvement is supported “through the creation or development of small businesses or 

farms” and, therefore, such activity would be considered to promote economic 

development and meet the “purpose test.” The Agencies proposed this example in an 

effort to recognize the impact small businesses have on job creation in general, and to 

address industry concerns that activities in support of intermediary lenders or other 

service providers, such as business incubators that lend to start-up businesses and help 

businesses become bankable and sustainable, are often not considered under the purpose 
14

test. Industry commenters have previously indicated that such activities are not 

considered because it is not clear under the purpose test that these activities help promote 

economic development since any job creation, retention, or improvement would occur in 

the future – after the businesses are organized or more established. However, there were 

concerns that the proposed guidance stating that permanent job creation, retention, and/or 

improvement “through the creation or development of small business or farms” may be 

overly broad and could result in diffuse potential benefit to low- or moderate-income 

persons or geographies. The Agencies are adopting this example with revisions to clarify

that examiners will consider activities that support permanent job creation, retention, 

and/or improvement by financing intermediaries that lend to, invest in, or provide 

technical assistance to start-up or recently formed small businesses or small farms. This 

example applies to loans to, investments in, or services to intermediaries that, in turn,

lend to, invest in, or provide technical assistance to small businesses or small farms, and 

not to activities provided directly by an institution to small businesses or small farms. A 

loan to a small business or small farm would be considered under the lending test 

applicable to a particular institution – for example, for large institutions, under the retail 

lending evaluation criteria.

The Agencies also proposed to add activities that support permanent job creation, 

retention, and/or improvement “[t]hrough workforce development and/or job or career 

training programs that target unemployed or low- or moderate-income persons” to the list 

of activities that are considered to promote economic development under the purpose test. 

Two government agency commenters expressed concerns that these activities, in and of 

themselves, may not involve financing small businesses or small farms and, therefore,
15

would not meet the size test. To address these concerns, the final Q&A does not 

incorporate this example in the list of those types of activities that promote economic 

development under the purpose test. However, the Agencies are amending existing 

Q&As § __.12(g) – 1 and § __.12(t) – 4 to clarify that activities related to workforce 

development or job training programs for low- or moderate-income or unemployed 

persons are considered qualified community development activities. 

The last example of a type of activity that would be considered to promote 

economic development that the Agencies proposed referred to “Federal, state, local, or 

tribal economic development initiatives that include provisions for creating or improving 

access by low- or moderate-income persons, to jobs, affordable housing, financial 

services, or community services.” Industry and community organization commenters

suggested amending or eliminating this proposed activity altogether because it blurs the 

line between activities that support economic development and those that support other 

types of community development and could create confusion. Although the Agencies’ 

original intention was to recognize all Federal, state, local, or tribal economic 

development initiatives, the Agencies agree with these commenters and have eliminated

references to affordable housing, financial services, and community services, which 

would receive consideration under other prongs of the definition of “community 

development.” However, the Agencies have otherwise retained the example in the final 

Q&A being adopted, and have added a reference to governmental economic development 

initiatives that include job training or workforce development programs, because those 

initiatives are closely related to job creation, retention, and/or improvement.
16

Commenters overwhelmingly supported adding CDFIs that finance small 

businesses or small farms to the list of entities for which loans or investments are

presumed to promote economic development; even so, some questioned limiting the 

presumption to CDFIs that finance small businesses or small farms. The Agencies are 

adopting this revision as proposed. In order for a CDFI to promote economic 

development by financing small businesses and small farms, it follows that any CDFI 

presumed to promote economic development would need to finance small businesses or 

small farms. Additionally, the Agencies are further revising the statement granting 

presumptions for activities related to the specified entities to include services provided to 

these entities, as well loans and investments.

Several commenters representing the Historic Tax Credit (HTC) industry 

suggested changes to the proposed Q&A that would expand and clarify the circumstances 

under which CRA consideration would be available for loans and investments related to 

projects involving HTCs. These commenters suggested the Agencies amend Q&A 

§ __.12(g)(3) – 1 to create a presumption that activities related to HTC projects qualify 

for CRA consideration as promoting economic development by financing small 

businesses and small farms. Because not all HTC projects would meet the requirements 

to qualify for CRA consideration under 12 CFR __.12(g)(3), the Agencies believe it 

would be inappropriate to grant such a presumption. Nonetheless, in instances in which 

loans to, or investments in, projects that receive HTCs do meet the regulatory definition 

of community development, including the geographic restrictions, the Agencies concur 

that CRA consideration should be provided. For example, a loan to, or investment in, an 

HTC project that does, in fact, relate to a facility that will house small businesses that 
17

support permanent job creation, retention, or improvement for low- or moderate-income 

individuals, in low- or moderate-income areas, or in areas targeted for redevelopment by 

Federal, state, local, or tribal governments may receive CRA consideration as promoting 

economic development. Further, a loan to or investment in an HTC project that will 

provide affordable housing or community services for low- or moderate-income 

individuals would meet the definition of community development as affordable housing 

or a community service targeted to low- or moderate-income individuals, respectively. 

Similarly, loans to or investments in HTC projects may also meet the definition of 

community development when the project revitalizes or stabilizes a low- or moderateincome geography, designated disaster area, or a designated distressed or underserved 

nonmetropolitan middle-income geography. Greater weight will be given to those HTCrelated activities that are most responsive to community credit needs, including the needs

of low- or moderate-income individuals or geographies. See Q&As § __.12(g) – 1, 

§ __.12(g)(2) – 1, § __.12(g)(4) – 2, § __.12(g)(4)(i) – 1, and § __.12(g)(4)(ii) – 2 

through – 4.

In response to the Agencies’ request for input on the types of information 

examiners should review when determining the performance context of an institution, 

some community organizations suggested consulting local studies and Federal Reserve 

Bank credit surveys; talking with CDFIs, local municipalities, and community 

organizations that work directly with small businesses; reviewing municipal needs 

assessments; and evaluating business and local demographic data. One industry 

commenter suggested examiners could review financial institution Consolidated Reports 

of Condition and Income (Call Reports) and academic or governmental economic 
18

development reports or adopted plans. Another industry commenter suggested that 

existing Q&As explain that an institution may provide examiners with any relevant 

information and, therefore, provide sufficient guidance without overlaying prescriptive 

changes that could be counter-productive to an institution’s efforts to balance 

innovativeness and responsiveness with its unique business strategy. Also regarding 

performance context, community organization commenters called for examiners to 

conduct “robust” analyses of local needs, including localized data on employment needs 

and opportunities for low- or moderate-income individuals. The Agencies will consider 

commenters’ suggestions going forward.

Finally, one community organization commenter noted that activities that support 

technical assistance may not involve “financing” small businesses or small farms and, 

therefore, may not be consistent with the size test. Providing technical assistance on 

financial matters to small businesses is currently cited as an example of a community 

development service in Q&A § __.12(i) – 3 and involves the provision of financial 

services. The Agencies long ago recognized that many small businesses, particularly 

start-up companies, are not immediately prepared for, or qualified to engage in,

traditional bank financing and, therefore, included providing technical assistance to small 

businesses and small farms as a community development activity. However, the 

Agencies understand that reasoning may not be clear to examiners or financial 

institutions. To address this issue, the Agencies have amended the description of the 

“size test” in the final Q&A to explain that the term “financing” in this context is 

considered broadly and includes technical assistance that readies a business that meets the 

size eligibility standards to obtain financing. The Agencies intend this explanation to 
19

ensure that technical assistance that readies a small business or small farm to obtain 

financing is an activity that promotes economic development and, thus, would receive 

consideration as a community development activity.

ii. Revitalize or Stabilize Underserved Nonmetropolitan Middle-Income 

Geographies

The definition of “community development” includes “activities that revitalize or 

stabilize ... underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies ....” See 12 CFR 

__.12(g)(4)(iii). The CRA regulations further provide that activities revitalize or stabilize 

underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies if they help to meet essential 

community needs, including the needs of low- or moderate-income individuals. See 12 

CFR __.12(g)(4)(iii)(B). Existing Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4 provided further guidance 

by listing examples of activities that would be considered to help to revitalize or stabilize 

underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies. The Agencies proposed to 

revise this guidance by adding a new example describing an activity related to a new or 

rehabilitated communications infrastructure in recognition that the availability of reliable 

communications infrastructure, such as broadband Internet service, is important in 

helping to revitalize or stabilize underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income 

geographies.

The Agencies received 66 comments addressing the proposed addition of the new 

example involving communications infrastructure. Commenters’ views on whether the 

new example should be added to Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4 were mixed. 

A number of commenters expressed concern regarding the addition of a new or 

rehabilitated communications infrastructure as an example of an activity that would be 
20

considered to revitalize or stabilize a nonmetropolitan middle-income geography. These

commenters, primarily representing community organizations, generally expressed the 

view that CRA consideration should be used as a means of encouraging financial 

institutions to find more direct ways to meet the needs of low- or moderate-income 

individuals and geographies. One individual commenter that opposed the addition of the 

example expressed concern that “regulatory creep” was moving the focus of the CRA 

away from its original mission of helping to meet community credit needs.

In contrast, most industry commenters, as well as a few community organization 

commenters, supported the addition of the new example addressing communications 

infrastructure. These commenters stated that such an example would provide further 

clarity regarding what constitutes an activity that could revitalize or stabilize underserved 

nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies. Many commenters who supported the 

addition of the new example noted the importance of communications infrastructure, and 

in particular broadband access, to the economic viability of underserved nonmetropolitan 

middle-income geographies’ residents and businesses in the current marketplace. 

Further, many of these commenters noted that the addition of the new example also may 

help to improve access to alternative systems of delivering retail banking services, which

require reliable access to broadband. 

The Agencies are adopting the new example describing a new or rehabilitated 

communications infrastructure because they continue to believe that, consistent with the 

CRA regulatory definition of “community development,” communications infrastructure 

is an essential community service. Specifically, the definition of “community 

development” provides that activities that help meet “essential community needs” 
21

revitalize and stabilize underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies. 

Further, existing Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4 clarifies that “financing for the construction, 

expansion, improvement, maintenance, or operation of essential infrastructure” may 

qualify for revitalization or stabilization consideration. As noted above, in the Agencies’ 

view, reliable communications infrastructure is increasingly essential to the economic 

viability of all residents of underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies, 

including low- and moderate-income individuals. 

Several industry and community organization commenters, as well as a 

commenter representing a state banking supervisor, sought clarification regarding the 

extent to which the new or rehabilitated communications infrastructure must benefit lowor moderate-income individuals or geographies. The Agencies considered whether to 

provide additional clarification addressing these comments and determined that 

additional guidance was not necessary. First, existing Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4 states 

that, to receive CRA consideration on the basis of revitalizing or stabilizing an 

underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geography, a project must meet essential 

community needs, including the needs of low- or moderate-income individuals. 

Although the geographies (a term defined at 12 CFR __.12(k) as census tracts) addressed 

by Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4 are designated as middle-income, there typically are lowand moderate-income individuals and neighborhoods interspersed throughout these 

nonmetropolitan geographies. 

Second, the CRA regulations10 and Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4 do not require that 

financial institutions demonstrate that projects primarily benefit the low- and moderate-

 10 See 12 CFR __.12(g)(4)(iii).
22

income individuals or neighborhoods in these geographies in order to receive CRA 

consideration for revitalizing or stabilizing the underserved nonmetropolitan middleincome geographies. The Agencies believe that the current explanation in Q&A 

§ __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4 is clear regarding the benefits to an underserved nonmetropolitan 

middle-income geography and the low- and moderate-income individuals within that 

geography. 

Two industry commenters and one community organization commenter requested 

that the proposed new example not be limited to Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4, asserting 

that communications infrastructure should also be considered to be an activity that 

revitalizes or stabilizes distressed nonmetropolitan middle-income, and low- or moderateincome, geographies. One industry commenter stated that it should be made clear that 

investments in new or rehabilitated communications infrastructure, and not just loans 

related to such activities, would receive CRA consideration. In addition, a few 

commenters requested generally that the Agencies clarify that the list of examples 

included in Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4 is not exhaustive. 

In response to these comments, the Agencies are adopting a new Q&A § __.12(g) 

– 4. This new Q&A explains that examples included throughout the Questions and 

Answers are not exhaustive; rather, the Agencies provide examples to illustrate the types 

of activities that may qualify for consideration under a particular provision of the 

regulations. Nonetheless, the Agencies emphasize that the examples that are expressly 

provided are not the only activities that might receive CRA consideration. In addition, 

new Q&A § __.12(g) – 4 explains that financial institutions may receive consideration for 

a community development activity, such as a qualified investment, if it serves a similar 
23

community development purpose as an activity described in an example related to a 

different type of community development activity, such as a community development 

loan. If a financial institution can demonstrate that an activity it has undertaken has a 

primary purpose of community development and meets the relevant geographic 

requirements, that activity should receive CRA consideration.

The Agencies considered whether the example pertaining to a new or rehabilitated 

communications infrastructure should be added to any other Q&As, such as Q&A 

§ __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 3, but declined to add the example to any other Q&As. The Agencies 

believe that new Q&A § __.12(g) – 4, described above, should provide guidance as to 

whether a new or rehabilitated communications infrastructure might receive CRA 

consideration in other contexts. The Agencies do not believe it is necessary to add the 

same example to any other Q&As.

Some industry and community organization commenters, as well as the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requested that the Agencies add additional 

examples of activities that qualify for consideration as activities that revitalize or stabilize 

underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies. For example, the EPA

suggested expanding Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4 to address renewable energy facilities, 

which it posited could be considered “public services.” (As discussed below, loans to 

finance certain renewable energy facilities has been added to the examples of community 

development loans in Q&A § __.12(h) – 1.) Consistent with the explanation in new 

Q&A § __.12(g) – 4, if a financial institution were to submit information demonstrating 

that financing or investing in renewable energy facilities qualifies for CRA consideration 

under, for example, 12 CFR __.12(g)(4)(iii), or any of the other provisions within the 
24

definition of community development, then the financial institution would receive 

consideration for the activity. Therefore, the Agencies are not expressly adding a 

reference to renewable energy facilities to the list of examples in Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) 

– 4.

Other commenters suggested that loans enabling flood control measures should be 

considered as an example of a community development loan. Although these comments 

were offered as a suggestion for an example of a community development loan in

connection with Q&A § __.12(h) – 1, the Agencies believe that the commenters’ 

suggestion of a new or rehabilitated flood control measure is another example of essential 

infrastructure that could qualify as an activity that revitalizes or stabilizes an underserved 

nonmetropolitan middle-income geography. As such, the Agencies have added the 

following new example in Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4: “a new or rehabilitated flood 

control measure, such as a levee or storm drain, that serves the community, including 

low- and moderate-income residents.”

iii. Community Development Loans

The Agencies’ CRA regulations define “community development loan” to mean a 

loan that has community development as its primary purpose. See 12 CFR __.12(h). 

Existing Q&A § __.12(h) – 1 provides examples of community development loans. The 

Agencies proposed to add a new example of loans to finance certain renewable energy or 

energy-efficient technologies. The proposed example was intended to clarify that such 

loans may be considered as community development loans when the renewable energy or 

energy-efficiency improvements help reduce operational costs and maintain the 
25

affordability of single-family or multifamily housing or community facilities that serve 

low- and moderate-income individuals.

The Agencies received 43 distinct comments and 917 form letters addressing the 

proposed example in Q&A § __.12(h) – 1. Industry and community organization 

commenters, as well as commenters representing environmental organizations, generally 

supported adding the proposed example to the Q&A. However, a few community 

organization commenters expressed differing opinions regarding how the Agencies 

proposed to describe that an indirect benefit from renewable energy improvements would 

be considered. A few community organization commenters believed that the benefit to

low- or moderate-income households or geographies should be more clear and direct. 

These commenters asserted that loans financing renewable energy or energy-efficiency 

initiatives should be required to result in a demonstrable reduction in the operating or 

maintenance cost for affordable housing or community facilities serving low- or 

moderate-income individuals in order to qualify for CRA consideration as community 

development loans. In response to these comments, the Agencies agree that there should 

be a discernible benefit to the affordable housing or community facilities serving low- or 

moderate-income individuals. Thus, the Agencies have revised the example in Q&A 

§ __.12(h) – 1 to remove the reference to “indirect benefit.” However, to provide further 

clarification, the Agencies have added an example illustrating how renewable energy 

facilities could benefit low- or moderate-income individuals by reducing a tenant’s utility 

cost or the cost of providing utilities to common areas in an affordable housing 

development. 
26

In addition, a number of commenters representing the renewable energy industry

asked the Agencies to consider renewable energy facilities that are not attached directly 

on the affordable housing or community services facility, explaining that this approach 

could be more efficient, technologically simpler, or less costly if a particular building site 

is not oriented to optimize renewable energy generation. In response to these comments, 

the Agencies have revised the example in the final Q&A to clarify that a renewable 

energy project may be located on-site or off-site. This clarification would apply, for 

example, to a community-scale or micro-grid renewable energy facility or solar panels 

placed on carports instead of being physically mounted on the main building, so long as 

the benefit from the energy generated is provided to an affordable housing project or a 

community facility that has a community development purpose. To demonstrate that 

activities related to a renewable energy facility or project have a primary purpose of

community development, an institution may provide a copy of the contractual agreement, 

such as a lease, power purchase agreement, or energy service contract, that allocates 

energy or otherwise reduces energy cost to benefit affordable housing or a community 

facility that serves low- or moderate-income individuals.

The EPA suggested adding “revitalizing a contaminated property by installing 

renewable energy” to the list of examples of community development loans in the 

revision of Q&A § __.12(h) – 1. A community development loan must have a primary 

purpose of community development (see Q&A § __.12(h) – 8). The Agencies do not 

believe it is clear that revitalizing a contaminated property by installing renewable energy 

facilities would always have a primary purpose of community development, as defined in 

12 CFR __.12(g). Therefore, the Agencies have not added this particular example.
27

Several renewable energy-related industry commenters discussed the job creation 

and job training aspects of installing renewable energy improvements and requested 

greater CRA consideration of the impact of jobs during the construction phase. The 

agencies note that Q&A § __.12(h) – 5, in offering guidance on community development 

activities that revitalize or stabilize a low- or moderate-income geography, states that 

some activities provide only indirect or short-term benefits to low- or moderate-income 

individuals and, as such, do not receive CRA consideration. Construction jobs are used 

as an illustration of this type of short-term benefit. Consistent with this guidance, the 

Agencies do not believe that additional consideration should be given to short-term job 

creation related to the installation of renewable energy improvements benefitting 

affordable housing or a community facility that serves low- or moderate-income 

individuals and are not amending the Q&A as suggested by the commenters.

A few renewable energy-related industry commenters suggested that CRA 

consideration should be given for loans to low- or moderate-income homeowners to 

install renewable energy facilities or energy-efficient improvements. A loan to a 

homeowner for these purposes would be considered as a consumer loan or home 

mortgage loan. Under the existing regulation and guidance, these loans may be

considered in an institution’s CRA evaluation under the lending test relevant to the 

particular institution, so the Agencies have not made any additional revisions to the 

Questions and Answers in response to this comment.

One environmental organization suggested broadening the proposed language in 

Q&A § __.12(h) – 1 to expressly cover energy efficiency improvements in schools. The 

Agencies believe that inclusion of this language in Q&A § __.12(h) – 1 is unnecessary. 
28

A school that primarily serves low- or moderate- income students could be considered as 

a community facility, and a loan for energy efficiency improvements at that school would 

qualify as a community development loan, consistent with the example in the revised 

Q&A.

A number of community organization commenters suggested broadening the 

language in Q&A § __.12(h) – 1 to include water conservation improvements. The

Agencies agree that water conservation improvements can promote sustainable affordable 

housing or community facilities serving low- or moderate-income individuals by 

lowering operating costs and, accordingly, have modified the example to include water 

conservation. In addition, activities related to water conservation improvements may also 

qualify as having a different community development purpose if an institution were to 

maintain information demonstrating that the activity meets the applicable community 

development definition as explained in new Q&A § __.12(g) – 4. 

Although some commenters also suggested adding flood control improvements to 

the example in Q&A § __.12(h) – 1, the Agencies concluded that financing for flood 

control improvements may more appropriately be considered as essential infrastructure 

addressing the need for revitalization and stabilization of underserved nonmetropolitan 

middle-income geographies. See Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4.

The final paragraph of existing Q&A § __.12(h) – 1 stated that the rehabilitation 

and construction of affordable housing or community facilities may include the 

abatement or remediation of environmental hazards, and provided lead-based paint as an 

example. The Agencies received many comments from community and environmental 

organizations suggesting the inclusion of more explicit enumeration of several additional 
29

examples of environmental hazards and have added to the example “asbestos, mold, or 

radon” as other examples of environmental hazards that may be abated or remediated as 

part of a rehabilitation or construction project.

One renewable energy-related industry commenter noted that the discussion in the 

preamble of the September 2014 Federal Register notice addressing the proposed revision 

to Q&A § __.12(h) – 1 may affect certain energy financing programs. The Agencies 

reiterate that all loans considered in an institution’s CRA evaluation, including loans that 

finance renewable energy or energy-efficient technologies, must be consistent with the 

safe and sound operation of the institution and should not include features that could 

compromise any lender’s existing lien position.

The Agencies want to make clear that the addition of this example does not 

expand the definition of community development, but rather clarifies that consideration 

will be given for loans financing renewable energy facilities or energy-efficient 

improvements in affordable housing or community facilities that otherwise meet the 

existing definition of community development.

B. Lending Test – Innovative or Flexible Lending Practices

The CRA regulations provide that a financial institution’s lending performance is 

evaluated by, among other things, an institution’s “use of innovative or flexible lending 

practices in a safe and sound manner to address the credit needs of low- or moderateincome individuals or geographies.” See 12 CFR __.22(b). Existing guidance contained 

in Q&A § __.22(b)(5) – 1 provides two examples that illustrate the range of practices that 

examiners may consider when evaluating the innovativeness or flexibility of an 

institution’s lending practices. The Agencies believed that the current guidance would 
30

benefit from additional examples of innovative or flexible lending practices and 

therefore, proposed to expand the list of examples.

First, the Agencies proposed to revise Q&A § __.22(b)(5) – 1 to emphasize that 

an innovative or flexible lending practice is not required to obtain a specific rating, but 

rather is a qualitative consideration that, when present, can enhance a financial 

institution’s CRA performance. Second, the Agencies proposed to explain that 

examiners will consider whether, and to what extent, the innovative or flexible practices 

augment the success and effectiveness of the institution’s lending program. Third, the 

Agencies proposed two new examples of innovative or flexible lending practices. The 

first example described small dollar loan programs as an innovative or flexible practice 

when such loans are made in a safe and sound manner with reasonable terms, and are 

offered in conjunction with outreach initiatives that include financial literacy or a savings 

component. A small dollar loan program currently receives consideration under the 

lending test and, therefore, the guidance already acknowledges these programs as a type 

of lending activity that is likely to be responsive in helping to meet the credit needs of 

many communities. See Q&A § __.22(a) – 1. However, the Agencies believed that 

outreach initiatives offered in conjunction with small dollar loan programs improve the 

success of those affiliated lending programs in meeting the credit needs of low- and 

moderate-income individuals and communities and, therefore, merit qualitative 

consideration as an example of an innovative or flexible lending practice. 

The second example proposed by the Agencies described mortgage or consumer 

lending programs that utilize alternative credit histories in a manner that would benefit 

low- or moderate-income individuals. The Agencies believed that considering alternative 
31

credit histories to supplement conventional trade line information with additional 

information about the borrower, such as rent and utility payments, could provide some 

additional creditworthy low- or moderate-income individuals an opportunity to gain 

access to credit, consistent with safe and sound underwriting practices. The Agencies 

also solicited comment on whether the proposed guidance was sufficient to encourage 

institutions to design more innovative and flexible lending programs that are responsive 

to community needs; whether the benefits of using alternative credit histories outweighed 

any concerns; and if this additional guidance would better enable examiners and 

institutions to identify those cases in which alternative credit histories benefit low- or 

moderate-income individuals. 

The Agencies received 87 comments addressing the proposed revisions and the 

three related questions the Agencies posed for comment. Because commenters’ more 

general observations also addressed the three questions, their responses to the questions 

are integrated into the broader discussion of the comments received by the Agencies.

Most commenters were supportive of the Agencies’ intent to clarify how 

examiners evaluate an institution’s innovative or flexible lending practices. However, 

several commenters representing both the banking industry and community organizations 

expressed some concerns about the revisions, as discussed more fully below. 

A few industry commenters asked the Agencies to further clarify that innovative 

activities, such as small dollar lending programs and alternative credit histories, are not 

required to obtain a specific CRA rating, and had concerns despite the revision proposed 

by the Agencies intended to address this issue. The Agencies have revised the 

introductory paragraph of the final Q&A to make clearer that innovative or flexible 
32

lending practices are not required to obtain a specific CRA rating. In addition, the final 

Q&A is revised to cross-reference Q&A § __.28 – 1, which explains how innovativeness 

is considered in the rating process. Current Q&A § __.28 – 1 explicitly states, among 

other things, that the lack of innovative lending practices will not result in a “Needs to 

Improve” CRA rating. Rather, the guidance notes that the use of innovative lending 

practices may augment the consideration given to an institution’s performance under the 

quantitative criteria, resulting in a higher performance rating.

One industry commenter addressed the Agencies’ proposed language stating that 

examiners will consider whether, and the extent to which, innovative or flexible practices 

augment the success and effectiveness of an institution’s lending program. This 

commenter questioned whether the proposed guidance would be sufficient to help 

examiners or bankers understand and identify innovative or flexible lending activities 

since examiner discretion determines what is considered “innovative” or “flexible.” The 

Agencies recognize that the terms “innovative” and “flexible” are qualitative in nature 

and, thus, examiner judgment is needed to assess the unique characteristics and 

differences in an institution’s lending programs. However, the Agencies believe 

additional guidance concerning what constitutes an innovative activity would be helpful

to the review process undertaken by examiners. Bankers and examiners may also find 

additional guidance in new Q&A § __.21(a) – 4, discussed in further detail below, which 

explains, among other things, that “innovative activities are especially meaningful when 

they emphasize serving, for example, low- or moderate-income consumers or distressed 

or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies in new or more effective 

ways.” Although examiner judgment and discretion remain in determining what lending 
33

practices are deemed innovative or flexible, the Agencies believe the additional guidance 

in Q&A § __.21(a) – 4 provides further clarification on when an activity should be 

considered innovative or flexible. 

Most commenters addressing proposed Q&A § __.22(b)(5) – 1 commented on the 

two examples proposed by the Agencies. Concerning the small dollar loan example, 

most community organization commenters recognized that such programs could be a

feasible alternative to higher-cost loans offered by payday lenders. Industry commenters 

were also supportive of small dollar lending programs. For example, one industry

commenter stated that small dollar loans are a path for a bank’s clients with thin credit 

files or a lack of credit history to build or establish a credit score. Nevertheless, some 

community organization commenters expressed concern that the proposed example on 

small dollar loans did not make reference to any consumer protection standards. 

In particular, one state agency expressed concern that the small dollar loan 

example did not sufficiently emphasize consumer protection and the safety and 

soundness aspects of individual small dollar loans. This commenter suggested that the 

Agencies consider adding the phrase “based on a borrower’s ability to repay” to the small 

dollar loan example because it would emphasize that small dollar loans made in a safe 

and sound manner are evaluated with respect to individual loans and not the entire 

portfolio. Similarly, several community organization commenters asked that the 

Agencies give CRA consideration for small dollar loan programs only if the loans are 

safe and sound alternatives to high-cost predatory programs.
34

In response to these comments, the Agencies are adopting the small dollar loan 

program example largely as proposed with a revision to ensure consistency with Q&A 

§ __.22(a) – 1.

Finally, one industry commenter requested that the Agencies clarify the term 

“reasonable terms” in the context of small dollar lending programs. This commenter 

expressed concern that “reasonable terms” was undefined and, thus, would add confusion 

as to what would receive CRA consideration. The Agencies note that whether a lending 

program has “reasonable terms” would depend on the facts and circumstances and,

therefore, defining the term would not be practicable. 

Most community organization commenters were supportive of the proposed new 

example addressing consideration of alternative credit histories as an innovative or 

flexible lending practice. Several community organization commenters, however,

expressed concern over the risk of using certain alternative data sources, such as social 

media, checking account history, voter registration records, and criminal convictions, to 

establish credit history. According to these commenters, such data sources provide no 

predictive value, but could have a disproportionately negative impact on low- or 

moderate-income individuals and people of color. These commenters suggested that the 

Agencies clarify the types of data sources that should be used in alternative credit history 

reports that could be considered innovative, but that would not have a negative impact on 

low- or moderate-income individuals. 

Industry commenters were also supportive of the proposed example concerning 

alternative credit histories. A few industry commenters acknowledged that the use of 

alternative credit histories could be effective in expanding access to credit to low- or 
35

moderate-income individuals. However, these industry commenters believed that access 

to credit should be balanced against safety and soundness considerations. These industry 

commenters urged the Agencies to work closely with each other to provide a consistent 

message regarding the activities that could be innovative and flexible while ensuring 

delivery in a safe and sound manner. 

The Agencies are finalizing the example addressing consideration of alternative 

credit histories largely as proposed with clarifying revisions based on comments received. 

The Agencies agree with commenters that certain data sources provide little or no 

predictive value. Hence, the Agencies intend to consider an institution’s use of 

alternative credit histories that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices and 

that would benefit otherwise creditworthy low- or moderate-income individuals who 

would otherwise be denied credit. Individuals that may benefit from such programs are 

those who may not qualify for credit based on the use of conventional credit bureau 

reports because they have little, or no, reportable credit history with the national credit 

bureaus (hence a credit denial due to a low, or no, credit score with the national credit 

bureaus), but have a timely and consistent record of paying obligations (such as rent and 

utility bills). The Agencies believe that the use of alternative credit histories to 

supplement (not substitute for) the institution’s traditional underwriting programs, may 

open opportunities to some creditworthy low- or moderate-income individuals to gain 

access to credit. Accordingly, the Agencies have modified the example to clarify that 

alternative credit histories should be used to evaluate low- or moderate-income 

individuals who lack sufficient conventional credit histories and who would be denied 

credit based on the institution’s traditional underwriting standards. Further, when such a 
36

program is used to demonstrate that consumers have a timely and consistent record of 

paying their obligations, the program may be considered an innovative or flexible 

practice that augments the success and effectiveness of the lending program. The 

Agencies note that, similar to the small dollar loan program example and the other 

examples in this Q&A, the use of alternative credit histories as an innovative or flexible 

lending practice is not required for the financial institution to obtain a specific CRA 

rating. See Q&A § __.28 – 1. 

Finally, the Agencies revised the introductory paragraph of this Q&A to make 

clear that, although many financial institutions have used innovative or flexible lending 

practices, such as a small dollar loan program or consideration of alternative credit 

histories, to customize loans to their customers’ specific needs in a safe and sound 

manner and consistent with statutes, regulations, and guidance, such practices are not 

required to obtain a specific CRA rating. Further, the CRA regulations provide that a 

financial institution is not required to make loans or investments or to provide services 

that are inconsistent with safe and sound operations. Financial institutions are permitted 

and encouraged to develop and apply flexible underwriting standards for loans that 

benefit low- or moderate-income geographies or individuals only if consistent with safe 

and sound operations. See 12 CFR __.21(d).

C. Service Test

i. Availability and Effectiveness of Retail Banking Services

The CRA regulations provide that the Agencies evaluate the availability and 

effectiveness of a financial institution’s systems for delivering retail banking services 

under the service test pursuant to four criteria: (1) the current distribution of the 
37

institution’s branches among low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income geographies; 

(2) the institution’s record of opening and closing branches, particularly those located in 

low- or moderate-income geographies or primarily serving low- or moderate-income 

individuals; (3) the availability and effectiveness of alternative systems for delivering 

retail banking services in low- and moderate-income geographies and to low- and 

moderate-income individuals; and (4) the 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.

The Agencies proposed to revise current Q&A § __.24(d) – 1, which addresses

how examiners should evaluate the availability and effectiveness of an institution’s 

systems for delivering retail banking services. Specifically, the Agencies proposed to 

delete the statements that “performance standards place primary emphasis on full-service 

branches” and that alternative delivery systems are considered “only to the extent” that 

they are effective alternatives in providing needed services to low- or moderate-income 

geographies and individuals. The proposal was intended to encourage broader 

availability of alternative delivery systems to low- or moderate-income geographies and 

individuals without diminishing the value full-service branches offer to communities. 

The Agencies received 41 comments on proposed revisions to Q&A § __.24(d) –

1. Nearly all of the industry commenters supported the revision, including commenters 

that stressed the continued importance of branches to the communities they serve. Some 

industry commenters, however, voiced concern about how the Agencies would 

implement the revision and asked for further clarification on how examiners would weigh 

branches and alternative delivery systems and utilize performance context considerations 
38

in rating the different delivery systems’ performance under the service test. In contrast, 

almost all community organization commenters opposed the proposed revisions, asserting 

that branches continue to be uniquely important to low- and moderate-income 

neighborhoods and individuals, elderly customers, and local businesses. Many of these

community organization commenters highlighted the importance of face-to-face contact 

in order to overcome language barriers and effectively provide essential financial 

services, such as opening accounts, applying for loans, and explaining terms and 

conditions. These commenters believed the proposed changes regarding how examiners 

should weigh branches and alternative delivery systems would result in more branches 

being closed. Moreover, these commenters stated that the proposed revisions to Q&A 

§ __.24(d) – 1 would not resolve the CRA regulations’ outdated definition of assessment 

area.

In consideration of the comments received, the Agencies are withdrawing the 

proposed revisions to Q&A § __.24(d) – 1 to avoid the unintended inference that 

branches are less important in providing financial services to low- and moderate-income 

geographies. However, the Agencies are making a minor revision to the Q&A to remove 

references to automated teller machines (“ATMs”) as the only example of alternative 

delivery systems to acknowledge that many other alternative delivery channels are 

utilized by financial institutions. The Agencies note that other Q&As being finalized in 

this document provide additional guidance on how examiners will evaluate criteria under 

the retail service test to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to branches, 

alternative delivery systems, and financial services tailored to meet the needs of low- and 
39

moderate-income individuals or geographies. See Q&As § __.24(d)(3) – 1 and 

§ __.24(d)(4) – 1. 

ii. Alternative Systems for Delivering Retail Banking Services

The Agencies proposed to revise Q&A § __.24(d)(3) – 1, which addresses how 

examiners evaluate the availability and effectiveness of alternative delivery systems in 

the context of the retail service test. The proposed revisions were responsive to 

suggestions that the Agencies update the guidance to reflect technological advances used 

to deliver retail banking services by: (1) adding examples of such technologically 

advanced systems, even though the examples were not, and are not, intended to limit 

consideration of new methods as technology evolves; and (2) providing additional 

guidance on how examiners will evaluate the availability and effectiveness of alternative 

delivery systems.

Proposed Q&A § __.24(d)(3) – 1 identified additional factors that examiners may 

consider when evaluating whether a financial institution’s alternative delivery systems

are available and effective in delivering retail banking services in low- and moderateincome geographies and to low- and moderate-income individuals. These proposed 

factors included: (1) ease of access, whether physical or virtual; (2) cost to consumers, as 

compared to other delivery systems; (3) range of services delivered; (4) ease of use; (5) 

rate of adoption; and (6) reliability of the system. The proposed Q&A further explained 

that examiners will consider any information an institution maintains and provides to 

examiners to demonstrate that the institution’s alternative delivery systems are available 

to, and used by, low- and moderate-income individuals, such as data on customer usage 

or transactions. 
40

The Agencies received 41 comments on the proposed Q&A § __.24(d)(3) – 1. 

Commenters generally believed the proposed factors were reasonable and sufficiently 

flexible. Community organization commenters emphasized the importance of 

determining whether alternative services and products were not just offered, but adopted 

and used consistently by consumers. These commenters suggested that the cost of 

products is most relevant in the consideration of whether an alternative delivery system is 

available to, and used by, low- and moderate-income individuals. 

Some community organization commenters suggested that the Agencies refrain 

from placing too much emphasis on alternative delivery systems until usage data can be 

accessed and used by the public to independently monitor the industry’s performance. 

Furthermore, these commenters suggested that the Agencies clarify that financial 

institutions will not receive CRA consideration for serving low- or moderate-income 

individuals or areas outside of their assessment areas using online or mobile technology. 

Conversely, industry commenters focused on the difficulty of evaluating the availability 

and effectiveness of services based on the income of the recipient because such 

information is collected only in the context of a loan application.

The Agencies specifically sought comment on whether the factors proposed were 

sufficiently flexible to be used by examiners as the financial services marketplace 

evolves, and if other factors should be included. Commenters that addressed this 

question were largely supportive. Industry commenters indicated that the factors were 

sufficiently flexible, but noted that additional guidance was needed regarding the use of 

proxies for income and how the criteria would be weighted. Community organization 
41

commenters were also generally supportive of the proposed factors but offered 

suggestions on how to implement them.

One industry commenter opposed the proposed factor that would evaluate the 

comparative cost of alternative delivery systems to the consumer because it would give

examiners broad discretion when evaluating the pricing of banking services. Other 

industry commenters suggested that the Agencies provide more clarity regarding how the 

factors would be weighted. Yet another industry commenter suggested that the Agencies 

clearly specify that the list of factors is not intended to be exhaustive and requested that 

the guidance clearly state that there is no regulatory requirement to provide banking 

services at a reduced cost. Finally, another industry commenter suggested that 

consideration should be given to the continuum of access channels that an institution 

provides, rather than comparing services within delivery channels. This commenter

further stated that financial institutions providing a full range of access channels should 

receive greater consideration than mono-line or limited-channel institutions. 

Community organization commenters focused on the importance of evaluating the 

actual impact of financial services on low- and moderate-income communities. These 

commenters suggested evaluating the sustainability of accounts opened, the range of 

services offered through alternative delivery systems, and the degree to which they are 

tailored to meet the needs of low- or moderate-income individuals. In addition, some 

community organization commenters suggested that the Agencies provide additional 

explanation on the “ease of access” factor to include consideration of language access, 

disability accommodation, and ability to use a system with alternative forms of 

identification.
42

One commenter, a public policy organization, supported the proposed factors, but 

suggested that they be applied to determine the effectiveness of branches as well as 

alternative delivery systems. This commenter stated that high-cost or inconvenient 

branches are no more beneficial than poorly utilized alternative delivery platforms, and 

asserted that the Agencies’ objective should be to encourage high-quality service delivery 

through both branches and alternative channels. This commenter also stated that the use 

of intermediaries, such as community-based organizations that provide face-to-face 

interaction with customers, should be considered as an effective substitute for branch 

activity.

In general, the commenters agreed that the factors proposed are reasonable and 

sufficiently flexible. The Agencies are finalizing the proposed factors in final Q&A 

§ __.24(d)(3) – 1 largely as proposed, but with two modifications. First, to address

commenters’ concern that availability of alternative delivery systems alone does not 

demonstrate a system’s responsiveness to community needs, the Agencies have revised 

the factor regarding the rate of adoption to read “the rate of adoption and use” (emphasis 

added). Second, the Agencies clarified the language regarding the cost to consumers as 

compared with the bank’s other delivery systems, as discussed more fully below.

The Agencies did not include additional explanation to the “ease of access” 

factor, as suggested by some commenters, but note that evaluation of “ease of access” 

could include consideration of language access, disability accommodation, and the ability 

to use a system with alternative forms of identification. Similarly, the Agencies did not 

revise the final Q&A to address how the various factors will be weighted since the 

availability and applicability of information regarding each factor will vary depending on 
43

the type of delivery system under consideration and the performance context of the 

institution. The factors cited in the final Q&A are examples of information that is 

relevant to the evaluation of whether alternative delivery systems are available and 

effective, and they are meant to be flexible. 

The Agencies did not revise the guidance to address the comment suggesting that 

the proposed measures of availability and effectiveness of alternative delivery systems 

should be made applicable to branches and third-party service providers. The Agencies 

share the commenter’s view that financial institutions should provide high-quality service 

delivery overall; however, the measures of availability and effectiveness in Q&A 

§ __.24(d)(3) – 1 were designed to evaluate alternative delivery systems. As provided in 

the Interagency CRA Examination Procedures, examiners assess the quantity, quality, 

and accessibility of the financial institution’s service delivery systems provided in low-, 

moderate-, middle-, and upper-income geographies. Examiners also consider the degree 

to which services are tailored to the convenience and needs of each geography (e.g., 

extended business hours, including weekends, evenings, or by appointment, providing 

bilingual services in specific geographies, etc.).

The second question on which the Agencies requested comment asked about the 

types of information routinely maintained by financial institutions that would be useful to 

demonstrate the availability and effectiveness of its alternative delivery systems to lowor moderate-income individuals. One industry commenter described the data that it has 

begun to collect and retain to comprehensively assess all delivery systems, including 

customer complaint metrics, cost of delivery (including third-party costs), new 

account/product volume, account/product closure volume, current accounts/product 
44

volume, and Service Level Agreements metrics (uptime/downtime). Other industry 

commenters stated that financial institutions do not collect income information from 

customers and most suggested that the income level of the census tract where the 

customer resides is the best available proxy for income. Another industry commenter 

counseled against any effort to collect income information when opening deposit 

accounts, asserting that opening a bank account needs to be as simple as possible to 

increase access to banking services. This commenter believed that the more questions a 

financial institution asks, the fewer people would finish the process and, more 

importantly, that income information collected in this way would quickly become stale 

and statistically invalid. 

One industry commenter suggested that some financial institutions may maintain 

information, such as internal operations reports, industry rankings, and customer surveys, 

that would be helpful in understanding their performance context, but, since the types of 

information that institutions maintain vary widely, such information would be difficult to 

use for anything other than context. A community organization commenter suggested 

that examiners evaluate the frequency of transactions, adoption and attrition rates, as well 

as any geographic and income data available. 

Two commenters addressed the information available regarding the reliability of 

alternative delivery systems. The first, representing a community organization, suggested 

that examiners evaluate the alternative delivery systems’ ability to handle peak 

transaction volumes, the frequency of system crashes, the number of service shut downs 

for system maintenance, and the information security of systems. The other comment, 

from a financial institution, suggested that the Agencies provide specific guidance on, 
45

and examples of, the types of information that might be relevant to the evaluation of a 

system’s reliability.

The comment letters indicated that the types of information collected and 

maintained by financial institutions that would be relevant to an evaluation of the 

availability and effectiveness of alternative delivery systems vary widely. The Agencies, 

therefore, are retaining the proposed language stating that examiners will consider any 

information that an institution maintains and provides to demonstrate the availability and 

effectiveness of its alternative delivery systems to low- or moderate-income individuals.

Third, the Agencies asked what other sources of data and quantitative information 

examiners could use to evaluate the proposed factors and whether financial institutions 

have such data readily available for examiners to review. One industry trade association 

commenter suggested that market studies be used to determine alternative delivery 

systems’ usage because income data is not available. Another industry commenter 

suggested that the interagency examination procedures be modified to require that 

examiners gather cost data from advertisements, brochures, online product lists, and 

similar sources to compare service costs across banks and within broad geographic areas. 

This commenter also suggested that examiners should gather information from the 

community regarding the cost of services locally in the course of examinations.

A community organization commenter noted the lack of useful data regarding the 

actual geographic location of a person or business holding deposits and suggested that the 

Summary of Deposits11 information collected by the FDIC be improved to provide better 

 11 The Summary of Deposits (SOD) is the annual survey of branch office deposits as of June 30 for all 

FDIC-insured institutions, including insured U.S. branches of foreign banks. This survey has been 

conducted since 1934. Instructions, survey results, market share reports, contact information, and survey 

facsimiles are available through the FDIC’s Summary of Deposits Web site at https://www2.fdic.gov/sod/.
46

data regarding depositor location. Another community organization commenter 

suggested that examiners evaluate punitive fees, prohibitive minimum balances, and 

narrow risk assessments associated with bank products. A third community organization 

commenter suggested that examiners refer to online sources to provide cost comparisons 

of products across providers. This commenter also suggested that examiners consider a 

comparison of costs relative to other banks in the assessment area and the industry 

overall. Still another community commenter focused on how prepaid cards could be 

evaluated for effectiveness, suggesting that examiners evaluate whether the cardholder’s 

credit score had improved as a measure of whether the card helped accountholders save 

money, build credit, and improve financial literacy. This commenter also suggested that 

income could be estimated from direct deposits of employment checks. 

The Agencies found these comments helpful in thinking about the types of 

information that may be useful in evaluating the availability and effectiveness of 

alternative delivery systems. Moreover, the Agencies noted that the comments, 

particularly those related to determining the relative cost of alternative delivery systems, 

suggest that the distinction between delivery systems and financial products is not clear. 

For example, many commenters focused on how the costs of financial products tailored 

to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income customers, such as prepaid cards and 

low-cost checking accounts, should be evaluated, rather than addressing information that 

could be used to determine the relative costs of delivery systems, such as usage or access 

fees for online accounts and mobile banking platforms.

In order to more clearly distinguish between delivery systems and financial 

products tailored to meet the needs of low- or moderate-income individuals, the Agencies 
47

have revised Q&A § __.12(i) – 3, which lists examples of community development 

services, to remove from that list any examples of retail banking services that are tailored 

to meet the needs of low- or moderate-income individuals. This revised Q&A is 

discussed more fully below under III.A.i. However, these examples of retail services will 

continue to be given consideration under the service test as provided pursuant to 12 CFR 

__.24(d)(4). 

The Agencies have also added a new Q&A § __.24(d)(4) – 1 addressing how 

examiners evaluate whether retail services are tailored to meet the needs of geographies 

of different income levels. The Agencies are adopting Q&A § __.24(d)(4) – 1 in 

response to the many comments received regarding how examiners evaluate alternative 

delivery systems. Many of these commenters indicated that some confusion exists in 

distinguishing alternative delivery systems from financial products that are tailored to 

meet the needs of low- or moderate-income geographies and individuals. The Agencies 

believe that this new guidance makes clear that, in addition to evaluating the range of 

services provided in geographies of different incomes, examiners will also review any 

other information provided by the institution to demonstrate that its services are tailored 

to meet the needs of its customers in the various geographies of its assessment area(s). 

The final guidance further explains that this information may include data regarding the 

costs and features of loan and deposit products, account usage and retention, geographic 

location of accountholders, the availability of information in languages other than 

English, and any other relevant information maintained by the institution.

Fourth, the Agencies asked whether examiners should evaluate the cost of 

alternative delivery systems to consumers as compared with other delivery systems, as 
48

well as the range of services delivered relative to other delivery systems, (i) offered by 

the institution, (ii) offered by institutions within the institution’s assessment area(s), or 

(iii) offered by the banking industry generally. Two industry commenters stated that an 

evaluation of the cost to consumers compared to other delivery systems is best evaluated 

within the specific context of each financial institution. One of these commenters 

suggested that it would be unreasonably burdensome to expect an institution to survey 

and monitor costs related to other institutions’ delivery systems. One industry 

commenter suggested that it would be preferable to evaluate the cost to consumers within 

each assessment area, recognizing that examiners are required to reach a conclusion on a 

financial institution’s performance in each of its assessment areas. One community 

organization commenter stated that the cost to consumers of a particular delivery system 

should not be considered along with other factors, such as the rate of adoption and 

sustained use. Another community organization commenter asserted that examiners 

should consider the total cost of products because fees are a primary factor preventing 

households from obtaining bank products and retaining banking relationships.

After reviewing the comments received in response to this question, the Agencies 

agree that it would be most appropriate to compare the costs of a financial institution’s

alternative delivery systems with its other delivery systems because of significant 

differences in size, capacity, and business strategy among institutions. As a result, the 

Agencies have revised the final Q&A to clarify that costs of alternative delivery systems 

will be compared to the financial institution’s other delivery systems.

Lastly, the Agencies asked whether the proposed revisions adequately address 

changes in the way financial institutions deliver products in the context of assessment 
49

area(s) based on the location of a financial institution’s branches and deposit-taking 

ATMs. While most commenters noted that the proposed Q&A offered helpful guidance 

on how examiners would evaluate the availability and effectiveness of alternative 

delivery systems, they also observed that the proposed guidance did not adequately 

address the trend in the financial services industry toward non-branch delivery systems 

and its impact on financial institutions’ performance within their branch-based 

assessment areas. Similarly, one industry commenter and one community organization 

commenter noted that the Agencies should clarify that the evaluation of alternative 

delivery systems is conducted strictly within the assessment areas defined by branches 

and emphasize that CRA evaluations do not consider alternative delivery systems outside 

of an institution’s assessment area. Currently, the regulations provide for consideration 

of alternative delivery systems to the extent that they meet the needs of low- and 

moderate-income individuals within an institution’s assessment area.

III. New Questions and Answers Proposed in 2014

A. Community Development Services

i. Evaluating Retail Banking and Community Development Services

The Agencies proposed a new Q&A § __.24(a) – 1 to clarify how examiners 

evaluate retail and community development services under the large institution service 

test to improve consistency and reduce uncertainty regarding the performance criteria in 

the service test, and to encourage additional community development services.

For retail banking services, the proposed new Q&A stated that “examiners 

consider the availability and effectiveness of an institution’s systems for delivering 

banking services, particularly in low- and moderate-income geographies and to low- and
50

moderate-income individuals; the 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.” With regard to community development services, the 

proposed Q&A stated that examiners would consider the extent of community 

development services offered.

The proposed Q&A sought to differentiate retail services that are also considered 

community development services under existing Q&A § __.12(i) – 3 (such as low-cost 

banking accounts targeted to low- or moderate-income individuals) from other retail 

banking services by stating that examiners would consider whether these retail banking 

services are responsive and effective in that they “improve or increase access to financial 

services by low- and moderate-income individuals or in low- or moderate-income 

geographies.” In addition, the proposed Q&A stated that examiners will consider any 

information provided by the institution that demonstrates community development 

services are responsive to those needs in order to address concerns that examiners have 

refused to consider certain types of documentation.

The Agencies solicited comment on all aspects of this proposed new Q&A and 

specifically requested commenters’ views on two questions, as discussed below. The 

Agencies received 26 comments that were generally supportive of the intent of the Q&A; 

however, most of these commenters did not believe that the proposed Q&A would 

achieve its stated purpose. A number of commenters asserted that the proposal did not 

elevate the relative importance of community development services compared to retail 

banking services as the Agencies had intended. 
51

The Agencies specifically requested comment on whether the proposed guidance 

provided sufficient clarity regarding how examiners evaluate retail and community 

development services under the large institution service test and if not, suggestions that 

would make the Q&A clearer. Community organization and industry commenters

responded generally that the proposed Q&A did not clarify how retail services that 

benefit low- and moderate-income individuals or geographies and that are described as 

community development services under existing Q&A § __.12(i) – 3 (such as low-cost 

transaction accounts and electronic benefit transfer accounts) are evaluated. Rather, at 

least one commenter believed the proposed Q&A exacerbated the confusion that 

currently exists. One community organization commenter contended that the Agencies 

incorrectly labelled low-cost transaction and savings accounts as community 

development services, rather than as retail banking services. This sentiment was shared 

by a few other commenters who asserted that basic transaction savings and checking 

accounts should be considered retail banking services. Commenters noted that, under

existing guidance, these services could be classified as either retail banking or 

community development services. 

These commenters and others urged the Agencies to more clearly demarcate the 

boundaries between retail banking services and community development services in the 

Questions and Answers. They requested that the Agencies provide specific examples or 

additional explanation that more clearly identifies which products and services will be 

evaluated under the retail banking services criteria and which will be considered as 

community development services. 
52

In reviewing the comments, the Agencies noted that much of the confusion 

surrounding the distinction between retail banking services and community development 

services can be traced to the inclusion of retail services or products that are tailored to 

meet the needs of low- or moderate-income individuals in existing Q&A § __.12(i) – 3, 

which lists examples of community development services. Of the 11 examples of 

community development services listed in Q&A § __.12(i) – 3, five are related to branch 

delivery systems and retail products or services. They involve: (i) providing financial 

services to low- or moderate-income individuals through branches and other facilities 

located in low- or moderate-income geographies; (ii) increasing access to financial 

services by opening or maintaining branches or other facilities that help to revitalize or 

stabilize a low- or moderate-income geography, a designated disaster area, or a distressed 

or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geography; (iii) providing electronic 

benefits transfer and point of sale terminal systems; (iv) providing international 

remittance services; and (v) providing other financial services with the primary purpose 

of community development, such as low-cost savings or checking accounts, including 

electronic transfer accounts, individual development accounts, or free or low-cost 

government, payroll, or other check cashing services. 

The Agencies have revised Q&A § __.24(a) – 1 in response to these comments. 

The final Q&A incorporates, as examples, most of the retail banking services currently 

listed as community development services under Q&A § __.12(i) – 3. These examples 

demonstrate retail banking services that improve access to financial services, or decrease 

costs, for low- or moderate-income individuals. The examples include: low-cost deposit 

accounts; electronic benefit transfer accounts and point of sale systems; individual 
53

development accounts; free or low-cost government, payroll, or other check cashing 

services; and reasonably priced international remittance services. 

In turn, as mentioned above, the Agencies have deleted all of the retail banking 

services from the list of examples of community development services in Q&A § __.12(i) 

– 3. This conforming change is intended to address commenters’ concerns that including 

examples of retail banking services, even when such services increase access by, or 

reduce costs for, low- or moderate-income individuals or geographies, in the list of 

examples for community development services leads to confusion and inconsistencies

regarding how retail services are considered during the evaluation process.

The Agencies are also adopting conforming revisions to existing Q&A 

§ __.26(c)(3) – 1 to ensure these activities are appropriately evaluated in intermediate 

small institutions. This Q&A addresses what activities examiners consider when 

evaluating the provision of community development services by an intermediate small 

institution. To ensure that intermediate small institutions continue to receive 

consideration under their community development test for retail banking services that 

increase access by, or reduce costs for, low- or moderate-income individuals, the 

Agencies are revising existing Q&A § __.26(c)(3) – 1. Although the revised Q&A labels 

services such as electronic benefit transfer accounts, individual development accounts, 

and free or low-cost government, payroll, or other check cashing services as retail 

services, examiners will continue to consider these services when evaluating the 

provision of community development services for an intermediate small institution when 

the services increase access by, or reduce costs for, low- or moderate-income individuals. 

This Q&A is revised to clarify also that branches and other facilities in low- or moderate-
54

income geographies, designated disaster areas, or distressed or underserved 

nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies are considered as providing community 

development services under the community development test applicable to intermediate 

small institutions.

The Agencies made one additional revision based on these comments. Because 

all of the examples of community development services that now remain in revised Q&A 

§ __.12(i) – 3 are more direct examples of community development services, the 

Agencies added a cross-reference to Q&A § __.12(i) – 3 in the discussion of community 

development services in new Q&A § __.24(a) – 1.

In addition to addressing the confusion between retail and community 

development services, some commenters asserted that proposed Q&A § __.24(a) – 1 did 

not adequately emphasize the importance of community development services or address 

concerns that community development services are not given sufficient consideration in 

the service test relative to retail banking services. A few commenters contended that it 

remained unclear how the Agencies planned to weigh the relative importance of retail 

banking and community development services under the service test pursuant to the 

proposed Q&A. For instance, one industry commenter urged the Agencies to state that 

community development services will be reflected in the total “score” that is attributed to 

the service test. Other commenters noted that the Agencies appear to give more

consideration to branches than other services when evaluating a large institution’s service 

test performance. 

In response to these comments, the Agencies have revised Q&A § __.24(a) – 1 to 

stress that both retail banking and community development services are important factors 
55

under the large institution service test. The revision to the Q&A now states: “Retail 

banking services and community development services are two components of the 

service test and are both important in evaluating a large institution’s performance.” The 

Agencies note that, as with other aspects of the CRA evaluation process, the relative 

weighting of retail banking and community development services will depend on the 

financial institution’s performance context. 

Several commenters asserted that the proposed Q&A did not sufficiently explain 

how qualitative factors, such as “effectiveness” and “availability,” would be evaluated in 

the context of retail banking and community development services. These commenters 

urged the Agencies to provide more specificity by defining key terms or providing 

concrete examples of the metrics for the key concepts of “availability and effectiveness” 

and “responsiveness.” The Agencies did not revise Q&A § __.24(a) – 1 to address the 

qualitative factors associated with retail banking and community development services 

because the Agencies believe other Q&As adequately discuss what is meant by 

“availability and effectiveness” and “responsiveness.” See Q&As § __.24(d) – 1 and 

§ __.21(a) – 3, respectively. 

The proposed Q&A stated that examiners will consider any information provided 

by the institution that demonstrates its community development services are responsive to 

the needs of low- or moderate-income individuals and low- or moderate-income 

geographies. Industry commenters were particularly supportive of this proposal. These 

commenters opined that examiners often impose excessive and unreasonable 

documentation requirements on institutions to demonstrate that particular products and 

services offered are responsive to community needs. A few industry and community 
56

organization commenters, however, sought further clarification regarding the types of 

information that would be considered to ensure consistency. 

The Agencies specifically requested comment on what types of information 

financial institutions are likely to maintain that may demonstrate that an institution’s 

community development services are responsive to the needs of low- or moderate-income 

individuals or in low- or moderate-income geographies. In response to this question, 

both community organization and industry commenters provided several examples of the 

types of information that are or should be maintained to demonstrate such 

responsiveness, including: (i) documentation evidencing attendance at and involvement 

in applicable community events; (ii) surveys completed by the financial institution to 

ascertain community needs; (iii) an institution’s records of discussions with community 

contacts; and (iv) publicly available market research data that support the importance to 

low- or moderate-income families for a particular type of service, such as financial 

literacy education services or Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) tax preparation. 

Some commenters suggested that the examples would be useful and effective additions to 

the final Q&A.

The examples offered by commenters are practical suggestions of the types of 

information institutions could collect or maintain to demonstrate the responsiveness of a 

community development service. However, the Agencies have chosen not to include the 

above suggested examples in the final Q&A because some examiners and bankers may 

view examples as requirements, which could lead to unintended burden on financial 

institutions. The Agencies remind institutions that they can provide any information to 

examiners that demonstrates responsiveness. 
57

One community organization commenter opined that community development 

services are currently defined too narrowly and urged the Agencies to broaden the 

definition of community development services to include access for small businesses. 

This commenter contended that financial institutions should receive CRA consideration 

when loan officers refer a small business applicant to an intermediary when the applicant 

does not qualify for a bank loan. The Agencies note that Q&A § __.12(i) – 3 already 

addresses bank referral programs for small businesses and provides that they may qualify 

for community development service consideration when the financial institution

“[provides] technical assistance on financial matters to small businesses or community 

development organizations, including organizations and individuals who apply for loans 

or grants under the Federal Home Loan Banks’ Affordable Housing Program.”

Finally, to reflect more closely the regulatory factors used to evaluate community 

development services, the Agencies have revised final Q&A § __.24(a) – 1 to state 

clearly that examiners evaluate the extent of community development services and their 

innovativeness and responsiveness to community needs.

ii. Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Community Development Services

The Agencies proposed new Q&A § __.24(e) – 2 to clarify how community 

development services are quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated. The new Q&A is 

meant to address inconsistencies in how community development services have been 

evaluated quantitatively and to respond to concerns that qualitative factors, such as 

whether community development services are effective or responsive to community 

needs, receive inadequate consideration. Thus, the proposed Q&A noted that both 
58

quantitative and qualitative aspects of community development services are considered 

during an institution’s evaluation.

With regard to quantitative factors, the proposed Q&A stated that examiners 

assess the extent to which community development services are offered and used by the 

community. This review is not limited to a single quantitative factor, such as the number 

of hours that financial institution staff devotes to a particular community development 

service. Rather, an evaluation of community development services assesses the degree to 

which those services are responsive to community needs. Finally, the proposed Q&A 

stated that examiners would consider any relevant information provided by the institution 

and from third parties to quantify the extent and responsiveness of community 

development services. 

Overall, the Agencies received 19 comments addressing this proposed Q&A. 

Commenters unanimously supported the Agencies’ intent to clarify the quantitative and 

qualitative factors that examiners review when evaluating community development 

services to determine whether these services are effective and responsive. However, 

commenters disagreed on whether the proposed Q&A fully achieved its stated goal of 

clarifying the assessment of qualitative and quantitative factors or explaining the 

importance of qualitative factors. 

The Agencies specifically requested feedback on whether the proposed guidance 

sufficiently explained the importance of the qualitative factors related to community 

development services. Commenters addressing this question were divided, with a slight

majority stating the proposed Q&A sufficiently explained the importance of the 

qualitative factors related to community development services. For example, one 
59

community organization commenter found the guidance on examiners taking into 

consideration the degree to which community development services are responsive to 

community needs helpful. Other commenters, representing both the industry and 

community organizations, noted that clarifying that examiners should not rely solely on 

quantitative factors, such as hours spent by employees conducting financial literacy 

workshops, was adequate guidance and would help give examiners needed direction to 

consider other factors besides hours worked when making evaluations of community 

development services. Other commenters viewed that statement as inadequate. These 

commenters noted the proposed Q&A mentioned only that the review “is not limited to a 

single quantitative factor” rather than listing examples of the qualitative factors that 

examiners could consider. Commenters further noted that the proposed Q&A did not 

adequately explain qualitative factors, such as responsiveness, and asserted that the 

proposal could benefit from the inclusion of specific examples of how examiners assess 

the degree to which services are responsive to community needs. 

The Agencies have revised Q&A § __.24(e) – 2 to address some of these 

comments. The final Q&A incorporates language that, consistent with regulatory factors,

more explicitly states that examiners will consider community development services 

qualitatively by assessing the degree to which those services are innovative or responsive 

to community needs. The proposed Q&A did not include a reference to 

“innovativeness,” although it is a qualitative factor included in the regulation. See 12 

CFR __.24(e). In addition, the Agencies added cross-references to Q&As § __.21(a) – 4 

and § __.21(a) – 3, which discuss the qualitative factors “innovativeness” and 
60

“responsiveness,” respectively, to direct readers to additional guidance regarding these 

criteria.

Further, the final Q&A discusses how qualitative performance criteria augment 

the consideration given to community development services by recognizing that 

community development services sometimes require special expertise and effort on the 

part of the financial institution and provide benefit to the community that would not 

otherwise be possible. The final Q&A states that these assessments will depend on the 

impact of a particular activity on community needs and the benefits received by a 

community and illustrates this point with an example of a community development

service that would be considered responsive to credit and community needs.

In addition, some commenters, representing both the industry and community 

organizations, asserted that the proposed Q&A did not provide sufficient guidance

regarding how the quantitative and qualitative factors would be comparatively weighted 

under the service test. Some commenters expressed support for a balanced approach to 

how qualitative and quantitative factors are evaluated in assessing community 

development service performance, while others indicated a preference for weighting one 

factor over the other. For instance, one industry commenter preferred using the hours 

spent by employees performing community development services as the baseline 

measure, augmented with a review of responsiveness, innovation, leadership, complexity,

and flexibility, to the extent that the institution chooses to provide such information.

State financial regulator commenters took an opposing position, suggesting that 

qualitative aspects of community development services should serve as the primary 

driver in determining whether services are effective and responsive. 
61

The Agencies do not believe it is necessary to revise the Q&A to address these 

comments. First, the Agencies note that examiners do not use a specific formula when 

quantitatively and qualitatively evaluating community development services. As with all 

aspects of an institution’s CRA performance evaluation, the performance context of the

institution will affect how the qualitative and quantitative factors are considered under the 

service test. Similarly, some industry commenters asserted that the Q&A should specify 

how many community development services would be needed in order to obtain a rating 

of “outstanding” or “satisfactory.” However, examiners do not utilize specific 

benchmarks. Instead, the nature of each community development service and the 

performance context of the institution are considered. 

The proposed Q&A stated that examiners will consider any relevant information 

provided by the institution or from a third party to quantify the extent and responsiveness 

of community development services. Industry commenters were particularly supportive 

of this aspect of the proposal because they viewed it as a flexible policy. 

With regard to relevant information, the Agencies specifically asked what types of 

information financial institutions and third parties would be likely to maintain that may 

be used to demonstrate the extent to which community development services are offered 

and used. In response, commenters provided several examples of relevant information 

that may be available, including: (i) data on the number of low- and moderate-income 

individuals attending counseling sessions; (ii) demographic information on clients or 

customers benefitting from a service; (iii) records of the number and types of community 

development service provided; and (iv) attestations collected via a survey of employees, 
62

directors, and officers that tracks hourly involvement in community development 

services.

Rather than referring to only a single quantitative factor as an example, final

Q&A § __.24(e) – 2 includes a list of examples of quantitative factors that examiners 

may assess to determine the extent to which community development services are offered 

and used. The expanded list should provide additional clarity and address concerns that 

examiners and institutions may default to “the number of hours financial institution staff 

devotes to a particular community development service” as the only quantitative measure 

of community development services. The final Q&A includes the following additional 

examples of quantitative factors: (i) the number of low- and moderate-income individuals 

participating in a community development activity; (ii) the number of organizations 

served by a community development activity; and (iii) the number of sessions of a 

community development service activity.

Finally, a community organization commenter suggested that the Agencies revise 

the proposed Q&A to explicitly state that institutions’ funding of community 

organizations to enable them to collect quantitative data will receive favorable CRA 

consideration. The commenter asserted that, while quantitative information is necessary 

in assessing whether a community development service is effective in assisting low- or 

moderate-income individuals and families to access the financial system, obtaining this 

information can be very expensive and resource intensive. The commenter maintained 

that providing an incentive to finance data collection systems in nonprofit organizations 

would increase the availability and quality of this much needed information. The 

Agencies note that the CRA regulations allow for the consideration of grants or other 
63

funding to nonprofit organizations with a community development purpose as qualified 

investments or community development loans. Such funding could be used by these

recipients for a variety of purposes, including data collection. 

B. Responsiveness and Innovativeness

i. Responsiveness

The term “responsiveness” is found throughout the CRA regulations and the 

Questions and Answers. Generally, the Agencies’ regulations and guidance promote an 

institution’s responsiveness to credit and community development needs by providing 

that the greater an institution’s responsiveness to credit and community development 

needs in its assessment area(s), the higher the CRA rating that is assigned to that 

institution. See, e.g., 12 CFR __ app. A(b)(2)(i). Responsiveness is generally a 

consideration in all of the ratings that the Agencies assign.

The Agencies’ Questions and Answers address responsiveness in various 

contexts. For example, Q&A § __.21(a) – 2 explains that responsiveness is meant to lend 

a qualitative element to the rating system. Other Q&As state that examiners should give 

greater weight to those activities that are most responsive to community needs, including 

the needs of low- or moderate-income individuals and geographies. See, e.g., Q&A 

§ __.12(g)(4)(ii) – 2. 

Because the concept of “responsiveness” is utilized in the CRA regulations and 

Questions and Answers applicable to all covered institutions, the Agencies proposed a 

new Q&A § __.21(a) – 3 to set forth general guidance on how examiners evaluate 

whether a financial institution has been responsive to credit and community development 

needs. The Agencies intended the proposed Q&A to encourage institutions to think 
64

strategically about how to best meet the needs of their communities based on their 

performance context. The proposed new Q&A indicated that examiners would look at

not only the volume and types of an institution’s activities, but also how effective those 

activities have been. The proposed Q&A noted that examiners always evaluate 

responsiveness in light of an institution’s performance context. The proposed new Q&A 

also suggested several information sources that could inform examiners’ evaluations of 

performance context and responsiveness.

The Agencies received 28 public comments addressing the proposed new Q&A. 

With few exceptions, the commenters were supportive of the Agencies’ intent to clarify 

how examiners evaluate an institution’s responsiveness to credit and community 

development needs. However, a number of commenters, representing both the industry

and community organizations, questioned whether the proposed new Q&A would help 

examiners or bankers understand that a project or program has been responsive to credit 

and community development needs. 

The Agencies requested comment on three questions relating to proposed new 

Q&A § __.21(a) – 3. First, the Agencies asked whether the proposed new Q&A 

appropriately highlighted the importance of responsiveness to credit and community 

development needs and provided a flexible, yet clear, standard for determining how 

financial institutions would receive consideration. An industry commenter and a

community organization commenter agreed that the importance of responsiveness to 

credit and community development needs was highlighted, but that there was also an 

increase in subjectivity in the evaluation process and burden to institutions, as well as a 

shortage of detail. To help clarify how the Agencies review responsiveness and the 
65

flexible approach taken, a new sentence was added at the beginning of the answer to 

provide a road map of the three factors that examiners consider when evaluating 

responsiveness: quantity, quality, and performance context. The answer then describes 

each of the three factors.

The Agencies also asked whether there were other sources of information that 

examiners should consider when evaluating an institution’s responsiveness to credit and 

community development needs. Commenters representing both the industry and 

community organizations suggested a number of information sources, including targeted 

outreach to local organizations; local, state, and Federal information compilations; reports 

and studies by academic institutions; and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s

(CFPB) complaint database. Two community organization commenters asserted that 

examiners should be required to review information from all of the sources cited in the 

proposed Q&A. An industry commenter stated that, although the Agencies should accept 

information from financial institutions, care must be taken not to require institutions to 

perform needs assessments or evaluate the institutions on the quality of information they 

provide, consistent with Q&A § __.21(b)(2) – 1. Another industry commenter suggested 

that the Agencies should ensure that regulatory requirements, guidelines, and actions by 

examiners are flexible and do not create unnecessary burden. Two other commenters, 

one representing the industry and the other a community organization, stated that they 

appreciated the clarification that examiners should not rely so heavily on quantitative 

factors. They noted that the unique needs and opportunities in an institution’s local 

community should be the basis for evaluating the institution’s performance.
66

In response to these comments, the Agencies expanded the list of sources of 

information about credit and community development needs and opportunities that 

examiners may consider by adding “consumer complaint information.” To address 

commenters’ concern that a formal needs assessment will be expected from financial 

institutions, the Agencies have deleted the reference to an assessment prepared by the 

institution and have clarified that examiners will consider any relevant information 

provided to examiners by the financial institution that is maintained by the institution in 

its ordinary course of business.

Finally, the Agencies asked whether the new Q&A would help a financial 

institution in making decisions about the community development activities in which it 

will participate, particularly if those activities benefit individuals or geographies located 

somewhere in the broader statewide or regional area that includes the institution’s 

assessment area(s), but that may not benefit the institution’s assessment area(s). See

Q&A § __.12(h) – 6. Of the six commenters who addressed this question, five

commenters (two representing the industry and three representing community 

development funds) believed that proposed Q&A § __.21(a) – 3 would not help bankers 

to determine which community development activities to support. In support of their 

views, commenters asserted that (i) the requirement to first demonstrate responsiveness to 

assessment area needs is too vague to cause a change in institutions’ investment 

strategies; (ii) due to increased subjectivity and additional burden of proof in the 

evaluation process, institutions will likely maintain their focus on assessment area 

activities; (iii) the proposed Q&A does not provide insight to help institutions make 

determinations on which community development activities to support; and (iv) a bright 
67

line test would be preferable to an evaluation of whether the financial institution has been 

responsive to credit and community development needs and opportunities. On the other 

hand, the sixth commenter, representing the industry, stated that the proposed Q&A may 

encourage financial institutions to focus on community development activities that 

benefit low- and moderate-income individuals or geographies, disaster areas, and 

distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies. This commenter 

believed that recognizing responsiveness rather than placing all the emphasis on 

quantitative benchmarks will encourage financial institutions to engage in various 

community development activities.

To respond to commenters’ assertion that new Q&A § __.21(a) – 3, as proposed, 

would not assist a financial institution in determining whether a community development 

activity in the broader statewide or regional area that includes the institution’s assessment 

area(s) would receive CRA consideration, the Agencies have added to the final Q&A a 

new paragraph discussing how examiners will determine whether an institution has been 

responsive to the credit and community development needs of its assessment area(s). 

First, examiners will consider as responsive all of the institution’s community 

development activities in its assessment area(s). Examiners will also consider as 

responsive to assessment area needs any community development activities that support 

an organization or activity that covers an area that is larger than, but includes, the 

institution’s assessment area(s). If the purpose, mandate, or function of the organization 

or activity includes serving the institution’s assessment area(s), it will be considered 

responsive to assessment area needs even if the institution’s assessment area(s) did not 

receive an immediate or direct benefit from the institution’s participation in the 
68

organization or activity. New Q&A § __.21(a) – 3, as adopted, also includes an example 

of such an investment.

Finally, several industry commenters noted that the proposed new Q&A stated 

that “activities are particularly responsive to community development needs if they 

benefit low- or moderate-income individuals, low- or moderate-income geographies, 

designated disaster areas, or distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income 

geographies.” They asked whether any activity that has a community development 

purpose, as defined in the CRA regulations, would be “particularly” responsive. If so, 

they noted that financing for small businesses or small farms should also be included. 

And, if not, the Agencies should clarify what is meant by that statement. In addition, two 

community organization commenters addressed the importance of the “impact” of 

responsive activities. These commenters asserted that responsiveness must be 

demonstrated through impact and outcomes in meeting a documented community need. 

To address these related comments, the Agencies have deleted the statement addressing 

activities that would be “particularly responsive” that caused the confusion. In its place, 

the final Q&A explains that, when evaluated qualitatively, some activities are more 

responsive than others, and that activities are more responsive if they are successful in 

meeting identified credit and community development needs. The final Q&A also 

includes an example of two community development activities, one of which would be 

considered more responsive than the other, to describe this concept.

ii. Innovativeness

The Agencies proposed a new Q&A § __.21(a) – 4 in response to reports about 

inconsistencies in the types of activities considered innovative and requests from 
69

financial institutions that the Agencies provide clarification of the “innovativeness” 

standard found throughout the CRA regulations. For example, the large institution 

lending test evaluates the complexity and innovativeness of community development 

lending and the institution’s use of innovative or flexible lending practices in a safe and 

sound manner to address the credit needs of low- or moderate-income individuals or 

geographies. See 12 CFR __.22(b)(4) and (b)(5). The large institution investment test 

evaluates the innovativeness or complexity of qualified investments. See 12 CFR 

___.23(e)(2). Similarly, the large institution service test evaluates the innovativeness and 

responsiveness of community development services. See 12 CFR ___.24(e)(2). The 

performance criteria in the community development test for wholesale or limited purpose 

banks include an evaluation of the use of innovative or complex qualified investments, 

community development loans, or community development services. See 12 CFR 

___.25(c)(2). Finally, when evaluating a strategic plan, the Agencies evaluate a plan's 

measurable goals according to the regulatory criteria, all of which mention 

innovativeness. See 12 CFR ___.27(g)(3).

The proposed new Q&A stated that an innovative practice or activity will be 

considered when an institution implements meaningful improvements to products, 

services, or delivery systems that respond more effectively to customer and community 

needs, particularly to the needs of those segments enumerated in the definition of 

community development. Then, the proposed Q&A addressed innovativeness in terms of 

an institution’s market and customers, specifically stating that innovation includes the 

introduction of products, services, or delivery systems by institutions, which do not have
70

the capacity to be market leaders in innovation, to their low- or moderate-income 

customers or segments of consumers or markets not previously served. 

The Agencies’ proposal stressed that institutions should not innovate simply to 

meet this criterion of the applicable test, particularly if, for example, existing products, 

services, or delivery systems effectively address the needs of all segments of the 

community. The proposed Q&A also indicated that practices that cease to be innovative 

may still receive qualitative consideration for being flexible, complex, or responsive. 

The majority of commenters addressing Q&A § __.21(a) – 4 were largely 

supportive of the Agencies’ intent to clarify how examiners evaluate an institution’s 

innovativeness. Nevertheless, several of the commenters posed questions about the 

import of “innovativeness” generally, notwithstanding the specific references to that term 

in the various CRA performance tests. 

Rather than focusing on innovativeness, several of the community organization 

commenters urged the Agencies to address strengthening performance context when 

evaluating whether the subject CRA activities were responsive to local needs and had a 

positive demonstrable impact on the communities they were meant to serve. Industry 

commenters sought language stating that innovativeness is not required, lack of it will not 

have a negative impact, and, when present, innovativeness will result in positive 

consideration. These commenters also sought language specifically tying 

“innovativeness” to the requirement that CRA activities must be consistent with safe and 

sound banking practices. 

With regard to the proposed Q&A statement addressing consideration for entities 

that do not have the “capacity to be market leaders,” commenters had differing points of 
71

view. One industry commenter found that statement to be overly broad, open to wide 

interpretation, and contrary to the intent of the Q&A. This general view was also shared 

by two other commenters. On the other hand, one community organization commenter 

was expressly in favor of that statement, although another community organization 

commenter stated that a financial institution should not receive consideration for 

innovativeness when bringing another institution’s innovative product to its assessment 

area(s) unless it is doing so in a way that could not have been, or was not otherwise, 

done. 

In response to comments, the Agencies are adopting Q&A § __.21(a) – 4 with 

revisions to provide additional clarification. As stated above, the Agencies note that 

“innovativeness” is a regulatory consideration in a variety of performance tests. The 

Agencies continue to believe that there is a benefit in clarifying the term, while not 

overemphasizing its importance. The final Q&A continues to make the point that 

“innovative” practices need to be responsive to community needs but are not required if 

existing products, services, or delivery systems effectively address the needs of all 

segments of the community. The final Q&A also adds a cross-reference to Q&A § __.28 

– 1, which explains how innovativeness is considered in the rating process and states, in 

part: “the lack of innovative lending practices, innovative or complex qualified 

investments, or innovative community development services alone will not result in a 

‘needs to improve’ CRA rating. However, under these tests, the use of innovative 

lending practices, innovative or complex qualified investments, and innovative 

community development services may augment the consideration given to an institution’s 
72

performance under the quantitative criteria of the regulations, resulting in a higher 

performance rating.”

With regard to comments we received about innovative products and services 

already in the market, the Agencies continue to believe that innovativeness could include 

a financial institution’s adoption of products, services, or delivery systems already in the 

market under certain circumstances. This is especially true for smaller institutions and 

institutions that have, to date, offered only traditional products, services, or delivery 

systems. For sake of clarity, the Agencies amended the final Q&A by removing the 

potentially ambiguous terms “capacity” and “market leader.” Specifically, the Agencies 

replaced the reference to “market leader” with “leaders in innovation” and explained that 

some financial institutions may not be leaders in innovation “due to, for example, 

available financial resources or technological expertise.”

IV. Technical Corrections

The Agencies also have revised the Questions and Answers to address a number 

of events that have occurred since the 2010 Questions and Answers were published, 

including, for example, the elimination of the OTS and the Thrift Financial Report (TFR), 

changes in data sources for income-level information, and the transfer to the CFPB of

rulemaking authority for certain consumer financial laws. The Agencies have made

technical changes to a number of Q&As to provide this updated information.

A. Elimination of the OTS

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Pub. 

L. 111-203 (July 21, 2010) (Dodd-Frank Act), transferred powers of the OTS to the OCC, 

the FDIC, and the Board, and eliminated the OTS. Specifically, among other changes, 
73

the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking and supervisory authority over savings and 

loan holding companies and supervisory authority over their non-depository subsidiaries 

to the Board; transferred rulemaking authority over Federal savings associations and state 

savings associations, and supervisory authority over Federal savings associations, to the 

OCC; and transferred supervisory authority over state savings associations to the FDIC. 

See 12 U.S.C. 5412-5413; see also 12 U.S.C. 2905. The OCC transferred the CRA rules 

applicable to savings associations from 12 CFR 563e to 12 CFR 195. The Agencies’ 

rules are substantially similar throughout so that a general reference to the section and 

paragraph of the rule (e.g., 12 CFR __.12(a)) continues to describe the same provision in 

all four of the rules. However, 12 CFR 195.11(c), which is applicable to savings 

associations, includes one less paragraph than the rules applicable to national and state 

banks. As a result, the citation to section 11 of the rule in the related Q&As must 

separately mention the rule applicable to savings associations. Therefore, the Agencies 

have changed the references in the two Q&As addressing §§ __.11(c)(3) & 563e.11(c)(2) 

to §§ __.11(c)(3) & 195.11(c)(2), respectively.

B. Elimination of the Thrift Financial Report

In 2010, when the Questions and Answers were last updated, banks filed Call 

Reports and savings associations filed TFRs. Beginning with the first quarterly filing in 

2012, all savings associations began filing Call Reports. The Agencies are removing the 

references to the TFR in 12 Q&As. One additional Q&A refers to the Uniform Thrift 

Performance Report (UTPR), which was phased out when savings associations began 

filing Call Reports. Uniform Bank Performance Reports are now produced for savings 

associations, so the Agencies have removed the reference to the UTPR in Q&A 
74

§ __.26(b)(1) – 1. The Agencies have also adopted a consistent citation to the relevant 

sections of the Call Report and have made revisions to effect those changes where 

necessary throughout the Questions and Answers.

C. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Regulation

The Dodd-Frank Act transferred exclusive rulemaking authority to the CFPB for 

certain consumer financial laws, including the HMDA. The CFPB subsequently 

published its own rule to implement HMDA, 12 CFR part 1003.

12 Four Q&As referred 

to home mortgage data collected under the HMDA and provided a citation to the Board’s 

HMDA rule at 12 CFR part 203. The Agencies have updated those citations to refer to

the CFPB’s HMDA rule at 12 CFR part 1003.

D. Income Level Data Sources

Q&A § __.12(m) – 1 discusses the sources of income level data for geographies 

and individuals. Beginning with the FFIEC’s geographic income data published in 2012, 

the FFIEC discontinued using decennial census data to calculate geographic income 

levels and began using the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 

five-year estimate data. At the same time, the FFIEC announced that it would begin 

using ACS data to update geographic incomes every five years. Q&A § __.12(m) – 1 has 

been revised to reflect the current data sources used to calculate income level data for 

geographies and individuals.

E. Data Reporting

Q&As § __.42 – 1, § __.42 – 2, and § __.42 – 6 address data submission, 

validation, and software, respectively. The Agencies have revised these Q&As to include 

 12 See 80 FR 66127 (Oct. 28, 2015).
75

updated data submission instructions and the correct Board contact information for 

submitting questions about CRA data submission, validation, and software.

F. Outdated Reference

Q&A § __.12(g)(4) – 1 advises that the revised definition of “community 

development,” which became effective in 2005 for banks and 2006 for savings 

associations, is applicable to all institutions. Because this revised definition has been in 

effect for around 10 years, it has been shortened to omit the historical information about 

its effective dates. The revised version merely affirms that the definition of “community 

development” is applicable to all institutions.

G. OCC Address Changes

Q&A APPENDIX B to Part __ – 1 includes OCC-specific contact information. 

The OCC’s headquarters moved in December 2012; thus, the Q&A has been revised to 

reflect the OCC’s new street address, which is to be included in national banks’ and 

Federal savings associations’ public notices. In addition, a Web site URL has been added 

that national banks and Federal savings associations may include in their public notices 

that will allow interested parties to find information about planned OCC CRA evaluations 

in upcoming quarters. Similarly, an e-mail address has been added that national banks 

and Federal savings associations may include in their public notices to which commenters 

may submit electronic comments about institutions’ performance in helping to meet 

community credit needs.

The text of the final Interagency Questions and Answers follows:
76

Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment

§ __.11--Authority, purposes, and scope

§ __.11(c) Scope

§§ __.11(c)(3) & 195.11(c)(2) Certain special purpose institutions

§§ __.11(c)(3) & 195.11(c)(2) – 1: Is the list of special purpose institutions 

exclusive?

A1. No, there may be other examples of special purpose institutions. These 

institutions engage in specialized activities that do not involve granting credit to the 

public in the ordinary course of business. Special purpose institutions typically serve as 

correspondent banks, trust companies, or clearing agents or engage only in specialized 

services, such as cash management controlled disbursement services. A financial 

institution, however, does not become a special purpose institution merely by ceasing to 

make loans and, instead, making investments and providing other retail banking services.

§§ __.11(c)(3) & 195.11(c)(2) – 2: To be a special purpose institution, must an 

institution limit its activities in its charter?

A2. No. A special purpose institution may, but is not required to, limit the scope 

of its activities in its charter, articles of association, or other corporate organizational 

documents. An institution that does not have legal limitations on its activities, but has 

voluntarily limited its activities, however, would no longer be exempt from Community 

Reinvestment Act (CRA) requirements if it subsequently engaged in activities that 

involve granting credit to the public in the ordinary course of business. An institution 
77

that believes it is exempt from CRA as a special purpose institution should seek 

confirmation of this status from its supervisory Agency.

§ __.12--Definitions

§ __.12(a) Affiliate

§ __.12(a) – 1: Does the definition of “affiliate” include subsidiaries of an 

institution?

A1. Yes, “affiliate” includes any company that controls, is controlled by, or is 

under common control with another company. An institution’s subsidiary is controlled 

by the institution and is, therefore, an affiliate.

§ __.12(f) Branch

§ __.12(f) – 1: Do the definitions of “branch,” “automated teller machine 

(ATM),” and “remote service facility (RSF)” include mobile branches, ATMs, and RSFs?

A1. Yes. Staffed mobile offices that are authorized as branches are considered 

“branches,” and mobile ATMs and RSFs are considered “ATMs” and “RSFs.”

§ __.12(f) – 2: Are loan production offices (LPO) branches for purposes of the 

CRA?

A2. LPOs and other offices are not “branches” unless they are authorized as 

branches of the institution through the regulatory approval process of the institution’s 

supervisory Agency.
78

§ __.12(g) Community development

§ __.12(g) – 1: Are community development activities limited to those that 

promote economic development?

A1. No. Although the definition of “community development” includes activities 

that promote economic development by financing small businesses or farms, the rule 

does not limit community development loans and services and qualified investments to 

those activities. Community development also includes community- or tribal-based child 

care, educational, health, social services, or workforce development or job training 

programs targeted to low- or moderate-income persons, affordable housing for low- or 

moderate-income individuals, and activities that revitalize or stabilize low- or moderateincome areas, designated disaster areas, or underserved or distressed nonmetropolitan 

middle-income geographies.

§ __.12(g) – 2: Must a community development activity occur inside a low- or 

moderate-income area, designated disaster area, or underserved or distressed 

nonmetropolitan middle-income area in order for an institution to receive CRA 

consideration for the activity?

A2. No. Community development includes activities, regardless of their

location, that provide affordable housing for, or community services targeted to, low- or 

moderate-income individuals and activities that promote economic development by 

financing small businesses and farms. Activities that stabilize or revitalize particular 

low- or moderate-income areas, designated disaster areas, or underserved or distressed 
79

nonmetropolitan middle-income areas (including by creating, retaining, or improving 

jobs for low- or moderate-income persons) also qualify as community development, even 

if the activities are not located in these areas. One example is financing a supermarket 

that serves as an anchor store in a small strip mall located at the edge of a middle-income 

area, if the mall stabilizes the adjacent low-income community by providing needed 

shopping services that are not otherwise available in the low-income community.

§ __.12(g) – 3: Does the regulation provide flexibility in considering performance 

in high-cost areas?

A3. Yes, the flexibility of the performance standards allows examiners to account 

in their evaluations for conditions in high-cost areas. Examiners consider lending and 

services to individuals and geographies of all income levels and businesses of all sizes 

and revenues. In addition, the flexibility in the requirement that community development 

loans, community development services, and qualified investments have as their 

“primary” purpose community development allows examiners to account for conditions 

in high-cost areas. For example, examiners could take into account the fact that activities 

address a credit shortage among middle-income people or areas caused by the 

disproportionately high cost of building, maintaining or acquiring a house when 

determining whether an institution’s loan to or investment in an organization that funds 

affordable housing for middle-income people or areas, as well as low- and moderateincome people or areas, has as its primary purpose community development. See also 

Q&A § __.12(h) – 8 for more information on “primary purpose.”

§ ___.12(g) – 4: Can examples of community development activities discussed in 

a particular Q&A also apply to other types of community development activities not 
80

specifically discussed in that Q&A if they have a similar community development 

purpose?

A4. Yes. The Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community 

Reinvestment (Questions and Answers) provide examples of particular activities that may 

receive consideration as community development activities. Because a particular Q&A 

often describes a single type of community development activity, such as a community 

development loan, the corresponding examples are of community development loans. 

However, because community development loans, qualified investments, and community 

development services all must have a primary purpose of community development, a 

qualified investment or community development service that supports a community 

development purpose similar to the activity described in the context of the community 

development loan would likely receive consideration under the applicable test. The same 

would be true if the community development activity described in a particular Q&A were 

a qualified investment or community development service. For example, Q&A 

§ __.12(h) – 1 provides an example of a community development loan to a not-for-profit 

organization supporting primarily low- or moderate-income housing needs. Similarly, a 

grant to the same not-for-profit organization would be considered a qualified investment 

or technical assistance, such as writing a grant proposal for the not-for-profit 

organization, would be considered as a community development service. Further if a 

financial institution engaged in all of these activities, each would be considered under the 

applicable test. See Q&A § __.23(b) – 1.

Moreover, lists of examples included throughout the Questions and Answers are 

not exhaustive. A Q&A may include examples to demonstrate activities that may qualify 
81

under that Q&A, but the examples are not the only activities that might qualify. 

Financial institutions may submit information about activities they believe meet the 

definition of community development loan, qualified investment, or community 

development service to examiners for consideration.

§ __.12(g)(1) Affordable housing (including multifamily rental housing) for low- or 

moderate-income individuals

§ __.12(g)(1) – 1: When determining whether a project is “affordable housing for 

low- or moderate-income individuals,” thereby meeting the definition of “community 

development,” will it be sufficient to use a formula that relates the cost of ownership, 

rental, or borrowing to the income levels in the area as the only factor, regardless of 

whether the users, likely users, or beneficiaries of that affordable housing are low- or 

moderate-income individuals?

A1. The concept of “affordable housing” for low- or moderate-income 

individuals does hinge on whether low- or moderate-income individuals benefit, or are 

likely to benefit, from the housing. It would be inappropriate to give consideration to a 

project that exclusively or predominately houses families that are not low- or moderateincome simply because the rents or housing prices are set according to a particular 

formula.

For projects that do not yet have occupants, and for which the income of the 

potential occupants cannot be determined in advance, or in other projects where the 

income of occupants cannot be verified, examiners will review factors such as 
82

demographic, economic, and market data to determine the likelihood that the housing will 

“primarily” accommodate low- or moderate-income individuals. For example, examiners 

may look at median rents of the assessment area and the project; the median home value 

of either the assessment area, low- or moderate-income geographies or the project; the 

low- or moderate-income population in the area of the project; or the past performance 

record of the organization(s) undertaking the project. Further, such a project could 

receive consideration if its express, bona fide intent, as stated, for example, in a 

prospectus, loan proposal, or community action plan, is community development.

§ __.12(g)(2) Community services targeted to low- or moderate-income individuals

§ __.12(g)(2) – 1: Community development includes community services targeted 

to low- or moderate-income individuals. What are examples of ways that an institution 

could determine that community services are offered to low- or moderate-income 

individuals?

A1. Examples of ways in which an institution could determine that community 

services are targeted to low- or moderate-income persons include, but are not limited to:

• The community service is targeted to the clients of a nonprofit organization that has a 

defined mission of serving low- and moderate-income persons, or, because of 

government grants, for example, is limited to offering services only to low- or moderateincome persons.

• The community service is offered by a nonprofit organization that is located in and 

serves a low- or moderate-income geography.
83

• The community service is conducted in a low- or moderate-income area and targeted 

to the residents of the area.

• The community service is a clearly defined program that benefits primarily low- or 

moderate-income persons, even if it is provided by an entity that offers other programs 

that serve individuals of all income levels.

• The community service is offered at a workplace to workers who are low- and 

moderate-income, based on readily available data for the average wage for workers in 

that particular occupation or industry (see, e.g., http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics)).

• The community service is provided to students or their families from a school at 

which the majority of students qualify for free or reduced-price meals under the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch Program. 

• The community service is targeted to individuals who receive or are eligible to 

receive Medicaid.

• The community service is provided to recipients of government assistance programs 

that have income qualifications equivalent to, or stricter than, the definitions of low- and 

moderate-income as defined by the CRA Regulations. Examples include U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development’s section 8, 202, 515, and 811 programs 

or U.S. Department of Agriculture’s section 514, 516, and Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance programs.

§ __.12(g)(3) Activities that promote economic development by financing businesses or 

farms that meet certain size eligibility standards
84

§ __.12(g)(3) – 1: “Community development” includes activities that promote 

economic development by financing businesses or farms that meet certain size eligibility 

standards. Are all activities that finance businesses and farms that meet the size 

eligibility standards considered to be community development?

A1. No. The concept of ‘‘community development’’ under 12 CFR __.12(g)(3) 

involves both a ‘‘size’’ test and a ‘‘purpose’’ test that clarify what economic 

development activities are considered under CRA. An institution’s loan, investment, or 

service meets the ‘‘size’’ test if it finances, either directly, or through an intermediary, 

businesses or farms that either meet the size eligibility standards of the Small Business 

Administration’s Development Company (SBDC) or Small Business Investment 

Company (SBIC) programs, or have gross annual revenues of $1 million or less. For 

consideration under the “size test,” the term financing is considered broadly and includes 

technical assistance that readies a business that meets the size eligibility standards to 

obtain financing. To meet the ‘‘purpose test,’’ the institution’s loan, investment, or 

service must promote economic development. These activities are considered to promote 

economic development if they support 

• permanent job creation, retention, and/or improvement 

o for low- or moderate-income persons; 

o in low- or moderate-income geographies;

o in areas targeted for redevelopment by Federal, state, local, or tribal governments; 

o by financing intermediaries that lend to, invest in, or provide technical assistance 

to start-ups or recently formed small businesses or small farms; or
85

o through technical assistance or supportive services for small businesses or farms, 

such as shared space, technology, or administrative assistance; or

• Federal, state, local, or tribal economic development initiatives that include 

provisions for creating or improving access by low- or moderate-income persons to jobs 

or to job training or workforce development programs.

The agencies will presume that any loan or service to or investment in a SBDC, 

SBIC, Rural Business Investment Company, New Markets Venture Capital Company, 

New Markets Tax Credit-eligible Community Development Entity, or Community 

Development Financial Institution that finances small businesses or small farms,

promotes economic development. (See also Q&As § __.42(b)(2) – 2, § __.12(h) – 2, and 

§ __.12(h) – 3 for more information about which loans may be considered community 

development loans.)

Examiners will employ appropriate flexibility in reviewing any information 

provided by a financial institution that reasonably demonstrates that the purpose, 

mandate, or function of the activity meets the “purpose test.” Examiners will also 

consider the qualitative aspects of performance. For example, activities will be 

considered more responsive to community needs if a majority of jobs created, retained, 

and/or improved benefit low- or moderate-income individuals.

§ __.12(g)(4) Activities that revitalize or stabilize certain geographies

§ __.12(g)(4) – 1: Is the definition of “community development” applicable to all 

institutions?
86

A1. The definition of “community development” is applicable to all institutions, 

regardless of a particular institution’s size or the performance criteria under which it is 

evaluated.

§ __.12(g)(4) – 2: Will activities that provide housing for middle-income and 

upper-income persons qualify for favorable consideration as community development 

activities when they help to revitalize or stabilize a distressed or underserved 

nonmetropolitan middle-income geography or designated disaster areas?

A2. An activity that provides housing for middle- or upper-income individuals 

qualifies as an activity that revitalizes or stabilizes a distressed nonmetropolitan middleincome geography or a designated disaster area if the housing directly helps to revitalize 

or stabilize the community by attracting new, or retaining existing, businesses or 

residents and, in the case of a designated disaster area, is related to disaster recovery. 

The Agencies generally will consider all activities that revitalize or stabilize a distressed

nonmetropolitan middle-income geography or designated disaster area, but will give 

greater weight to those activities that are most responsive to community needs, including 

needs of low- or moderate-income individuals or neighborhoods. Thus, for example, a 

loan solely to develop middle- or upper-income housing in a community in need of lowand moderate-income housing would be given very little weight if there is only a shortterm benefit to low- and moderate-income individuals in the community through the 

creation of temporary construction jobs. (Except in connection with intermediate small 

institutions, a housing-related loan is not evaluated as a “community development loan” 

if it has been reported or collected by the institution or its affiliate as a home mortgage 

loan, unless it is a multifamily dwelling loan. See 12 CFR __.12(h)(2)(i) and Q&As
87

§ __.12(h) – 2 and § __.12(h) – 3.) An activity will be presumed to revitalize or stabilize 

such a geography or area if the activity is consistent with a bona fide government 

revitalization or stabilization plan or disaster recovery plan. See Q&As § __.12(g)(4)(i) –

1 and § __.12(h) – 5.

In underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies, activities that 

provide housing for middle- and upper-income individuals may qualify as activities that 

revitalize or stabilize such underserved areas if the activities also provide housing for 

low- or moderate-income individuals. For example, a loan to build a mixed-income 

housing development that provides housing for middle- and upper-income individuals in 

an underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geography would receive positive 

consideration if it also provides housing for low- or moderate-income individuals.

§ __.12(g)(4)(i) Activities that revitalize or stabilize low- or moderate-income 

geographies

§ __.12(g)(4)(i) – 1: What activities are considered to “revitalize or stabilize” a 

low- or moderate-income geography, and how are those activities considered?

A1. Activities that revitalize or stabilize a low- or moderate-income geography 

are activities that help to attract new, or retain existing, businesses or residents. 

Examiners will presume that an activity revitalizes or stabilizes a low- or moderateincome geography if the activity has been approved by the governing board of an 

Enterprise Community or Empowerment Zone (designated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 1391) 

and is consistent with the board’s strategic plan. They will make the same presumption if 
88

the activity has received similar official designation as consistent with a Federal, state, 

local, or tribal government plan for the revitalization or stabilization of the low- or 

moderate-income geography. For example, foreclosure prevention programs with the 

objective of providing affordable, sustainable, long-term loan restructurings or 

modifications to homeowners in low- or moderate-income geographies, consistent with 

safe and sound banking practices, may help to revitalize or stabilize those geographies.

To determine whether other activities revitalize or stabilize a low- or moderateincome geography, examiners will evaluate the activity’s actual impact on the geography, 

if information about this is available. If not, examiners will determine whether the 

activity is consistent with the community’s formal or informal plans for the revitalization 

and stabilization of the low- or moderate-income geography. For more information on 

what activities revitalize or stabilize a low- or moderate-income geography, see Q&As 

§ __.12(g) – 2 and § __.12(h) – 5.

§ __.12(g)(4)(ii) Activities that revitalize or stabilize designated disaster areas

§ __.12(g)(4)(ii) – 1: What is a “designated disaster area” and how long does it 

last?

A1. A “designated disaster area” is a major disaster area designated by the 

Federal government. Such disaster designations include, in particular, Major Disaster 

Declarations administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

(http://www.fema.gov), but excludes counties designated to receive only FEMA Public 
89

Assistance Emergency Work Category A (Debris Removal) and/or Category B 

(Emergency Protective Measures).

Examiners will consider institution activities related to disaster recovery that 

revitalize or stabilize a designated disaster area for 36 months following the date of 

designation. Where there is a demonstrable community need to extend the period for 

recognizing revitalization or stabilization activities in a particular disaster area to assist in 

long-term recovery efforts, this time period may be extended.

§ __.12(g)(4)(ii) – 2: What activities are considered to “revitalize or stabilize” a 

designated disaster area, and how are those activities considered?

A2. The Agencies generally will consider an activity to revitalize or stabilize a 

designated disaster area if it helps to attract new, or retain existing, businesses or 

residents and is related to disaster recovery. An activity will be presumed to revitalize or 

stabilize the area if the activity is consistent with a bona fide government revitalization or 

stabilization plan or disaster recovery plan. The Agencies generally will consider all 

activities relating to disaster recovery that revitalize or stabilize a designated disaster 

area, but will give greater weight to those activities that are most responsive to 

community needs, including the needs of low- or moderate-income individuals or 

neighborhoods. Qualifying activities may include, for example, providing financing to 

help retain businesses in the area that employ local residents, including low- and 

moderate-income individuals; providing financing to attract a major new employer that 

will create long-term job opportunities, including for low- and moderate-income 

individuals; providing financing or other assistance for essential community-wide 

infrastructure, community services, and rebuilding needs; and activities that provide 
90

housing, financial assistance, and services to individuals in designated disaster areas and 

to individuals who have been displaced from those areas, including low- and moderateincome individuals (see, e.g., Q&As § __.12(i) – 3; § __.12(t) – 4; § __.22(b)(2) & (3) –

4; § __.22(b)(2) & (3) – 5; and § __.24(d)(3) – 1).

§ __.12(g)(4)(iii) Activities that revitalize or stabilize distressed or underserved 

nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies

§ __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 1: What criteria are used to identify distressed or underserved 

nonmetropolitan, middle-income geographies?

A1. Eligible nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies are those designated by 

the Agencies as being in distress or that could have difficulty meeting essential 

community needs (underserved). A particular geography could be designated as both 

distressed and underserved. As defined in 12 CFR __.12(k), a geography is a census tract 

delineated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

A nonmetropolitan middle-income geography will be designated as distressed if it 

is in a county that meets one or more of the following triggers: (1) an unemployment rate 

of at least 1.5 times the national average, (2) a poverty rate of 20 percent or more, or (3) a 

population loss of 10 percent or more between the previous and most recent decennial 

census or a net migration loss of five percent or more over the five-year period preceding 

the most recent census.
91

A nonmetropolitan middle-income geography will be designated as underserved if 

it meets criteria for population size, density, and dispersion that indicate the area’s 

population is sufficiently small, thin, and distant from a population center that the tract is 

likely to have difficulty financing the fixed costs of meeting essential community needs. 

The Agencies will use as the basis for these designations the “urban influence codes,” 

numbered “7,” “10,” “11,” and “12,” maintained by the Economic Research Service of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

The Agencies publish data source information along with the list of eligible 

nonmetropolitan census tracts on the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

(FFIEC) Web site (http://www.ffiec.gov).

§ __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 2: How often will the Agencies update the list of designated 

distressed and underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies?

A2. The Agencies will review and update the list annually. The list is published 

on the FFIEC Web site (http://www.ffiec.gov).

To the extent that changes to the designated census tracts occur, the Agencies 

have determined to adopt a one-year “lag period.” This lag period will be in effect for the 

12 months immediately following the date when a census tract that was designated as 

distressed or underserved is removed from the designated list. Revitalization or 

stabilization activities undertaken during the lag period will receive consideration as 

community development activities if they would have been considered to have a primary 

purpose of community development if the census tract in which they were located were 

still designated as distressed or underserved.
92

§ __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 3: What activities are considered to “revitalize or stabilize” a 

distressed nonmetropolitan middle-income geography, and how are those activities 

evaluated?

A3. An activity revitalizes or stabilizes a distressed nonmetropolitan middleincome geography if it helps to attract new, or retain existing, businesses or residents. An 

activity will be presumed to revitalize or stabilize the area if the activity is consistent with 

a bona fide government revitalization or stabilization plan. The Agencies generally will 

consider all activities that revitalize or stabilize a distressed nonmetropolitan middleincome geography, but will give greater weight to those activities that are most 

responsive to community needs, including needs of low- or moderate-income individuals 

or neighborhoods. Qualifying activities may include, for example, providing financing to 

attract a major new employer that will create long-term job opportunities, including for 

low- and moderate-income individuals, and activities that provide financing or other 

assistance for essential infrastructure or facilities necessary to attract or retain businesses 

or residents. See Q&As § __.12(g)(4)(i) – 1 and § __.12(h) – 5.

§ __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4: What activities are considered to “revitalize or stabilize” an 

underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geography, and how are those activities 

evaluated?

A4. The regulation provides that activities revitalize or stabilize an underserved 

nonmetropolitan middle-income geography if they help to meet essential community 

needs, including needs of low- or moderate-income individuals. Activities, such as 

financing for the construction, expansion, improvement, maintenance, or operation of 

essential infrastructure or facilities for health services, education, public safety, public 
93

services, industrial parks, affordable housing, or communication services, will be 

evaluated under these criteria to determine if they qualify for revitalization or 

stabilization consideration. Examples of the types of projects that qualify as meeting 

essential community needs, including needs of low- or moderate-income individuals, 

would be

• a new or expanded hospital that serves the entire county, including low- and 

moderate-income residents;

• an industrial park for businesses whose employees include low- or moderate-income 

individuals;

• a new or rehabilitated sewer line that serves community residents, including low- or 

moderate-income residents;

• a mixed-income housing development that includes affordable housing for low- and 

moderate-income families;

• a renovated elementary school that serves children from the community, including 

children from low- and moderate-income families;

• a new or rehabilitated communications infrastructure, such as broadband internet 

service, that serves the community, including low- and moderate-income residents; or

• a new or rehabilitated flood control measure, such as a levee or storm drain, that 

serves the community, including low- and moderate-income residents.

Other activities in the area, such as financing a project to build a sewer line spur 

that connects services to a middle- or upper-income housing development while 

bypassing a low- or moderate-income development that also needs the sewer services, 

generally would not qualify for revitalization or stabilization consideration in geographies 
94

designated as underserved. If an underserved geography is also designated as a distressed 

or a disaster area, additional activities may be considered to revitalize or stabilize the 

geography, as explained in Q&As § __.12(g)(4)(ii) – 2 and § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 3.

§ __.12(h) Community development loan

§ __.12(h) – 1: What are examples of community development loans?

A1. Examples of community development loans include, but are not limited to, 

loans to

• borrowers for affordable housing rehabilitation and construction, including 

construction and permanent financing of multifamily rental property serving low- and 

moderate-income persons; 

• not-for-profit organizations serving primarily low- and moderate-income housing or 

other community development needs; 

• borrowers to construct or rehabilitate community facilities that are located in low- and 

moderate-income areas or that serve primarily low- and moderate-income individuals;

• financial intermediaries including Community Development Financial Institutions 

(CDFI), New Markets Tax Credit-eligible Community Development Entities, Community 

Development Corporations (CDC), minority- and women-owned financial institutions, 

community loan funds or pools, and low-income or community development credit 

unions that primarily lend or facilitate lending to promote community development;

• local, state, and tribal governments for community development activities;

• borrowers to finance environmental clean-up or redevelopment of an industrial site as 
95

part of an effort to revitalize the low- or moderate-income community in which the 

property is located;

• businesses, in an amount greater than $1 million, when made as part of the Small 

Business Administration’s 504 Certified Development Company program; and

• borrowers to finance renewable energy, energy-efficient, or water conservation 

equipment or projects that support the development, rehabilitation, improvement, or 

maintenance of affordable housing or community facilities, such as a health clinic that 

provides services for low- or moderate-income individuals. For example, the benefit to 

low- or moderate-income individuals may result in either a reduction in a tenant’s utility 

cost or the cost of providing utilities to common areas in an affordable housing 

development. Further, a renewable energy facility may be located on-site or off-site, so 

long as the benefit from the energy generated is provided to an affordable housing project 

or a community facility that has a community development purpose. 

The rehabilitation and construction of affordable housing or community facilities, 

referred to above, may include the abatement or remediation of, or other actions to 

correct, environmental hazards, such as lead-based paint, asbestos, mold, or radon that 

are present in the housing, facilities, or site.

§ __.12(h) – 2: If a retail institution that is not required to report under the Home 

Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) makes affordable home mortgage loans that would be 

HMDA-reportable home mortgage loans if it were a reporting institution, or if a small 

institution that is not required to collect and report loan data under the CRA makes small 

business and small farm loans and consumer loans that would be collected and/or 

reported if the institution were a large institution, may the institution have these loans 
96

considered as community development loans?

A2. No. Although small institutions are not required to report or collect 

information on small business and small farm loans and consumer loans, and some 

institutions are not required to report information about their home mortgage loans under 

HMDA, if these institutions are retail institutions, the Agencies will consider in their 

CRA evaluations the institutions’ originations and purchases of loans that would have 

been collected or reported as small business, small farm, consumer or home mortgage 

loans, had the institution been a collecting and reporting institution under the CRA or the 

HMDA. Therefore, these loans will not be considered as community development loans, 

unless the small institution is an intermediate small institution (see Q&A § __.12(h) – 3). 

Multifamily dwelling loans, however, may be considered as community development 

loans as well as home mortgage loans. See also Q&A § __.42(b)(2) –2.

§ __.12(h) – 3: May an intermediate small institution that is not subject to HMDA 

reporting have home mortgage loans considered as community development loans? 

Similarly, may an intermediate small institution have small business and small farm loans 

and consumer loans considered as community development loans?

A3. Yes. In instances where intermediate small institutions are not required to 

report HMDA or small business or small farm loans, these loans may be considered, at 

the institution’s option, as community development loans, provided they meet the 

regulatory definition of “community development.” If small business or small farm loan 

data have been reported to the Agencies to preserve the option to be evaluated as a large 

institution, but the institution ultimately chooses to be evaluated under the intermediate 

small institution examination standards, then the institution would continue to have the 
97

option to have such loans considered as community development loans. However, if the 

institution opts to be evaluated under the lending, investment, and service tests applicable 

to large institutions, it may not choose to have home mortgage, small business, small 

farm, or consumer loans considered as community development loans.

Loans other than multifamily dwelling loans may not be considered under both 

the lending test and the community development test for intermediate small institutions. 

Thus, if an institution elects to have certain loans considered under the community 

development test, those loans may not also be considered under the lending test, and 

would be excluded from the lending test analysis.

Intermediate small institutions may choose individual loans within their portfolio 

for community development consideration. Examiners will evaluate an intermediate 

small institution’s community development activities within the context of the 

responsiveness of the activity to the community development needs of the institution’s 

assessment area(s).

§ __.12(h) – 4: Do secured credit cards or other credit card programs targeted to 

low- or moderate-income individuals qualify as community development loans?

A4. No. Credit cards issued to low- or moderate-income individuals for 

household, family, or other personal expenditures, whether as part of a program targeted 

to such individuals or otherwise, do not qualify as community development loans because 

they do not have as their primary purpose any of the activities included in the definition 

of “community development.”
98

§ __.12(h) – 5: The regulation indicates that community development includes 

“activities that revitalize or stabilize low- or moderate-income geographies.” Do all loans 

in a low- to moderate-income geography have a stabilizing effect?

A5. No. Some loans may provide only indirect or short-term benefits to low- or 

moderate-income individuals in a low- or moderate-income geography. These loans are 

not considered to have a community development purpose. For example, a loan for 

upper-income housing in a low- or moderate-income area is not considered to have a 

community development purpose simply because of the indirect benefit to low- or 

moderate-income persons from construction jobs or the increase in the local tax base that 

supports enhanced services to low- and moderate-income area residents. On the other 

hand, a loan for an anchor business in a low- or moderate-income area (or a nearby area)

that employs or serves residents of the area and, thus, stabilizes the area, may be 

considered to have a community development purpose. For example, in a low-income 

area, a loan for a pharmacy that employs and serves residents of the area promotes 

community development.

§ __.12(h) – 6: Must there be some immediate or direct benefit to the institution’s 

assessment area(s) to satisfy the regulations’ requirement that qualified investments and 

community development loans or services benefit an institution’s assessment area(s) or a 

broader statewide or regional area that includes the institution’s assessment area(s)?

A6. No. The regulations recognize that community development organizations 

and programs are efficient and effective ways for institutions to promote community 

development. These organizations and programs often operate on a statewide or even 

multistate basis. Therefore, an institution’s activity is considered a community 
99

development loan or service or a qualified investment if it supports an organization or 

activity that covers an area that is larger than, but includes, the institution’s assessment 

area(s). The institution’s assessment area(s) need not receive an immediate or direct 

benefit from the institution’s participation in the organization or activity, provided that 

the purpose, mandate, or function of the organization or activity includes serving 

geographies or individuals located within the institution’s assessment area(s).

In addition, a retail institution will receive consideration for certain other 

community development activities. These activities must benefit geographies or 

individuals located somewhere within a broader statewide or regional area that includes 

the institution’s assessment area(s). Examiners will consider these activities even if they 

will not benefit the institution’s assessment area(s), as long as the institution has been 

responsive to community development needs and opportunities in its assessment area(s).

§ __.12(h) – 7: What is meant by the term “regional area”?

A7. A “regional area” may be an intrastate area or a multistate area that includes 

the financial institution’s assessment area(s). Regional areas typically have some 

geographic, demographic, and/or economic interdependencies and may conform to 

commonly accepted delineations, such as “the tri-county area” or the “mid-Atlantic 

states.” Regions are often defined by the geographic scope and specific purpose of a 

community development organization or initiative.

§ __.12(h) – 8: What is meant by the term “primary purpose” as that term is used 

to define what constitutes a community development loan, a qualified investment, or a 

community development service?
100

A8. A loan, investment, or service has as its primary purpose community 

development when it is designed for the express purpose of revitalizing or stabilizing 

low- or moderate-income areas, designated disaster areas, or underserved or distressed 

nonmetropolitan middle-income areas, providing affordable housing for, or community 

services targeted to, low- or moderate-income persons, or promoting economic 

development by financing small businesses or farms that meet the requirements set forth 

in 12 CFR __.12(g). To determine whether an activity is designed for an express 

community development purpose, the agencies apply one of two approaches. First, if a 

majority of the dollars or beneficiaries of the activity are identifiable to one or more of 

the enumerated community development purposes, then the activity will be considered to 

possess the requisite primary purpose. Alternatively, where the measurable portion of 

any benefit bestowed or dollars applied to the community development purpose is less 

than a majority of the entire activity’s benefits or dollar value, then the activity may still 

be considered to possess the requisite primary purpose, and the institution may receive 

CRA consideration for the entire activity, if (1) the express, bona fide intent of the 

activity, as stated, for example, in a prospectus, loan proposal, or community action plan, 

is primarily one or more of the enumerated community development purposes; (2) the 

activity is specifically structured (given any relevant market or legal constraints or 

performance context factors) to achieve the expressed community development purpose; 

and (3) the activity accomplishes, or is reasonably certain to accomplish, the community 

development purpose involved.

Generally, a loan, investment, or service will be determined to have a “primary 

purpose” of community development only if it meets the criteria described above. 
101

However, an activity involving the provision of affordable housing also may be deemed 

to have a “primary purpose” of community development in certain other limited 

circumstances in which these criteria have not been met. Specifically, activities related to 

the provision of mixed-income housing, such as in connection with a development that 

has a mixed-income housing component or an affordable housing set-aside required by 

Federal, state, or local government, also would be eligible for consideration as an activity 

that has a “primary purpose” of community development at the election of the institution. 

In such cases, an institution may receive pro rata consideration for the portion of such 

activities that helps to provide affordable housing to low- or moderate-income 

individuals. For example, if an institution makes a $10 million loan to finance a mixedincome housing development in which 10 percent of the units will be set aside as 

affordable housing for low- and moderate-income individuals, the institution may elect to 

treat $1 million of such loan as a community development loan. In other words, the pro 

rata dollar amount of the total activity will be based on the percentage of units set-aside 

for affordable housing for low- or moderate-income individuals.

The fact that an activity provides indirect or short-term benefits to low- or 

moderate-income persons does not make the activity community development, nor does 

the mere presence of such indirect or short-term benefits constitute a primary purpose of 

community development. Financial institutions that want examiners to consider certain 

activities should be prepared to demonstrate the activities’ qualifications.

§ __.12(i) Community development service
102

§ __.12(i) – 1: In addition to meeting the definition of “community development” 

in the regulation, community development services must also be related to the provision 

of financial services. What is meant by “provision of financial services”?

A1. Providing financial services means providing services of the type generally 

provided by the financial services industry. Providing financial services often involves 

informing community members about how to get or use credit or otherwise providing 

credit services or information to the community. For example, service on the board of 

directors of an organization that promotes credit availability or finances affordable 

housing is related to the provision of financial services. Providing technical assistance 

about financial services to community-based groups, local or tribal government agencies, 

or intermediaries that help to meet the credit needs of low- and moderate-income 

individuals or small businesses and farms is also providing financial services. By 

contrast, activities that do not take advantage of the employees’ financial expertise, such 

as neighborhood cleanups, do not involve the provision of financial services.

§ __.12(i) – 2: Are personal charitable activities provided by an institution’s 

employees or directors outside the ordinary course of their employment considered 

community development services?

A2. No. Services must be provided as a representative of the institution. For 

example, if a financial institution’s director, on her own time and not as a representative 

of the institution, volunteers one evening a week at a local community development 

corporation’s financial counseling program, the institution may not consider this activity 

a community development service.

§ __.12(i) – 3: What are examples of community development services?
103

A3. Examples of community development services include, but are not limited 

to, the following:

• Providing technical assistance on financial matters to nonprofit, tribal, or government 

organizations serving low- and moderate-income housing or economic revitalization and 

development needs;

• Providing technical assistance on financial matters to small businesses or community 

development organizations, including organizations and individuals who apply for loans 

or grants under the Federal Home Loan Banks’ (FHLB) Affordable Housing Program;

• Lending employees to provide financial services for organizations facilitating 

affordable housing construction and rehabilitation or development of affordable housing;

• Providing credit counseling, home-buyer and home maintenance counseling, financial 

planning or other financial services education to promote community development and 

affordable housing, including credit counseling to assist low- or moderate-income 

borrowers in avoiding foreclosure on their homes;

• Establishing school savings programs or developing or teaching financial education 

or literacy curricula for low- or moderate-income individuals; and

• Providing foreclosure prevention programs to low- or moderate-income homeowners 

who are facing foreclosure on their primary residence with the objective of providing 

affordable, sustainable, long-term loan modifications and restructurings.

Examples of technical assistance activities that are related to the provision of 

financial services and that might be provided to community development organizations 

include

• serving on the board of directors;
104

• serving on a loan review committee;

• developing loan application and underwriting standards;

• developing loan-processing systems;

• developing secondary market vehicles or programs;

• assisting in marketing financial services, including development of advertising and 

promotions, publications, workshops and conferences; 

• furnishing financial services training for staff and management;

• contributing accounting/bookkeeping services;

• assisting in fund raising, including soliciting or arranging investments; and

• providing services reflecting a financial institution’s employees’ areas of expertise at 

the institution, such as human resources, information technology, and legal services.

Refer to Q&A § __.24(a) – 1 for information about how retail services are 

evaluated under the large institution service test.

§ __.12(j) Consumer loan

§ __.12(j) – 1: Are home equity loans considered “consumer loans”?

A1. Home equity loans made for purposes other than home purchase, home 

improvement, or refinancing home purchase or home improvement loans are consumer 

loans if they are extended to one or more individuals for household, family, or other 

personal expenditures.

§ __.12(j) – 2: May a home equity line of credit be considered a “consumer loan” 

even if part of the line is for home improvement purposes?
105

A2. If the predominant purpose of the line is home improvement, the line may 

only be reported under HMDA and may not be considered a consumer loan. However, 

the full amount of the line may be considered a “consumer loan” if its predominant 

purpose is for household, family, or other personal expenditures, and to a lesser extent 

home improvement, and the full amount of the line has not been reported under HMDA. 

This is the case even though there may be “double counting” because part of the line may 

also have been reported under HMDA.

§ __.12(j) – 3: How should an institution collect or report information on loans 

the proceeds of which will be used for multiple purposes?

A3. If an institution makes a single loan or provides a line of credit to a customer 

to be used for both consumer and small business purposes, consistent with the 

instructions for the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report), the 

institution should determine the major (predominant) component of the loan or the credit 

line and collect or report the entire loan or credit line in accordance with the regulation’s 

specifications for that loan type.

§ __.12(l) Home mortgage loan

§ __.12(l) – 1: Does the term “home mortgage loan” include loans other than 

“home purchase loans”?

A1. Yes. “Home mortgage loan” includes “home improvement loan,” “home 

purchase loan,” and “refinancing,” as defined in the HMDA regulation, Regulation C, 12 

CFR part 1003. This definition also includes multifamily (five-or-more families) 
106

dwelling loans, and loans for the purchase of manufactured homes. See also Q&A 

§ __.22(a)(2) – 7.

§ __.12(l) – 2: Some financial institutions broker home mortgage loans. They 

typically take the borrower’s application and perform other settlement activities; 

however, they do not make the credit decision. The broker institutions may also initially 

fund these mortgage loans, then immediately assign them to another lender. Because the 

broker institution does not make the credit decision, under Regulation C (HMDA), they 

do not record the loans on their HMDA loan application registers (HMDA-LAR), even if 

they fund the loans. May an institution receive any consideration under CRA for its 

home mortgage loan brokerage activities?

A2. Yes. A financial institution that funds home mortgage loans but immediately 

assigns the loans to the lender that made the credit decisions may present information 

about these loans to examiners for consideration under the lending test as “other loan 

data.” Under Regulation C, the broker institution does not record the loans on its 

HMDA-LAR because it does not make the credit decisions, even if it funds the loans. An 

institution electing to have these home mortgage loans considered must maintain 

information about all of the home mortgage loans that it has funded in this way. 

Examiners will consider these other loan data using the same criteria by which home 

mortgage loans originated or purchased by an institution are evaluated.

Institutions that do not provide funding but merely take applications and provide 

settlement services for another lender that makes the credit decisions will receive 

consideration for this service as a retail banking service. Examiners will consider an 

institution’s mortgage brokerage services when evaluating the range of services provided 
107

to low-, moderate-, middle- and upper-income geographies and the degree to which the 

services are tailored to meet the needs of those geographies. Alternatively, an 

institution’s mortgage brokerage service may be considered a community development

service if the primary purpose of the service is community development. An institution 

wishing to have its mortgage brokerage service considered as a community development 

service must provide sufficient information to substantiate that its primary purpose is 

community development and to establish the extent of the services provided.

§ __.12(m) Income level

§ __.12(m) – 1: Where do institutions find income level data for geographies and 

individuals?

A1. The median family income (MFI) levels for geographies, i.e., census tracts, 

are calculated using income data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community 

Survey (ACS) and geographic definitions from the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), and are updated approximately every five years. Geographic income data, along 

with detailed information about the FFIEC’s calculation of geographic MFI data, are 

available on the FFIEC Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/cra.htm.

The income levels for individuals are calculated annually by the FFIEC using 

geographic definitions from the OMB, income data from the ACS, and the Consumer 

Price Index from the Congressional Budget Office. Individual MFI data for metropolitan 

statistical areas (MSA) and statewide nonmetropolitan areas, along with detailed 
108

information about the FFIEC’s calculation of individual MFI data, are available on the 

FFIEC Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/cra.htm.

§ __.12(n) Limited purpose institution

§ __.12(n) – 1: What constitutes a “narrow product line” in the definition of 

“limited purpose institution”?

A1. An institution offers a narrow product line by limiting its lending activities to 

a product line other than a traditional retail product line required to be evaluated under 

the lending test (i.e., home mortgage, small business, and small farm loans). Thus, an 

institution engaged only in making credit card or motor vehicle loans offers a narrow 

product line, while an institution limiting its lending activities to home mortgages is not 

offering a narrow product line.

§ __.12(n) – 2: What factors will the Agencies consider to determine whether an 

institution that, if limited purpose, makes loans outside a narrow product line, or, if 

wholesale, engages in retail lending, will lose its limited purpose or wholesale 

designation because of too much other lending?

A2. Wholesale institutions may engage in some retail lending without losing their 

designation if this activity is incidental and done on an accommodation basis. Similarly, 

limited purpose institutions continue to meet the narrow product line requirement if they 

provide other types of loans on an infrequent basis. In reviewing other lending activities 

by these institutions, the Agencies will consider the following factors:

• Is the retail lending provided as an incident to the institution’s wholesale lending?
109

• Are the retail loans provided as an accommodation to the institution’s wholesale 

customers?

• Are the other types of loans made only infrequently to the limited purpose 

institution’s customers?

• Does only an insignificant portion of the institution’s total assets and income result 

from the other lending?

• How significant a role does the institution play in providing that type(s) of loan(s) in 

the institution’s assessment area(s)?

• Does the institution hold itself out as offering that type(s) of loan(s)?

• Does the lending test or the community development test present a more accurate 

picture of the institution’s CRA performance?

§ __.12(n) – 3: Do “niche institutions” qualify as limited purpose (or wholesale) 

institutions?

A3. Generally, no. Institutions that are in the business of lending to the public, 

but specialize in certain types of retail loans (for example, home mortgage or small 

business loans) to certain types of borrowers (for example, to high-end income level 

customers or to corporations or partnerships of licensed professional practitioners) 

(“niche institutions”) generally would not qualify as limited purpose (or wholesale) 

institutions.

§ __.12(t) Qualified investment
110

§ __.12(t) – 1: Does the CRA regulation provide authority for institutions to make 

investments?

A1. No. The CRA regulation does not provide authority for institutions to make 

investments that are not otherwise allowed by Federal law.

§ __.12(t) – 2: Are mortgage-backed securities or municipal bonds “qualified 

investments”?

A2. As a general rule, mortgage-backed securities and municipal bonds are not 

qualified investments because they do not have as their primary purpose community 

development, as defined in the CRA regulations. Nonetheless, mortgage-backed 

securities or municipal bonds designed primarily to finance community development 

generally are qualified investments. Municipal bonds or other securities with a primary 

purpose of community development need not be housing-related. For example, a bond to 

fund a community facility or park or to provide sewage services as part of a plan to 

redevelop a low-income neighborhood is a qualified investment. Certain municipal 

bonds in underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies may also be qualified 

investments. See Q&A § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4. Housing-related bonds or securities must 

primarily address affordable housing (including multifamily rental housing) needs of 

low- or moderate-income individuals in order to qualify. See also Q&A § __.23(b) – 2.

§ __.12(t) – 3: Are FHLB stocks or unpaid dividends and membership reserves 

with the Federal Reserve Banks “qualified investments”?

A3. No. FHLB stocks or unpaid dividends, and membership reserves with the 

Federal Reserve Banks do not have a sufficient connection to community development to 

be qualified investments. However, FHLB member institutions may receive CRA 
111

consideration as a community development service for technical assistance they provide 

on behalf of applicants and recipients of funding from the FHLB’s Affordable Housing 

Program. See Q&A § __.12(i) – 3.

§ __.12(t) – 4: What are examples of qualified investments?

A4. Examples of qualified investments include, but are not limited to, 

investments, grants, deposits, or shares in or to:

• Financial intermediaries (including CDFIs, New Markets Tax Credit-eligible 

Community Development Entities, CDCs, minority- and women-owned financial 

institutions, community loan funds, and low-income or community development credit 

unions) that primarily lend or facilitate lending in low- and moderate-income areas or to 

low- and moderate-income individuals in order to promote community development, 

such as a CDFI that promotes economic development on an Indian reservation;

• Organizations engaged in affordable housing rehabilitation and construction, 

including multifamily rental housing; 

• Organizations, including, for example, SBICs, specialized SBICs, and Rural Business 

Investment Companies (RBIC) that promote economic development by financing small 

businesses;

• Community development venture capital companies that promote economic 

development by financing small businesses;

• Facilities that promote community development by providing community services for 

low- and moderate-income individuals, such as youth programs, homeless centers, soup 

kitchens, health care facilities, battered women’s centers, and alcohol and drug recovery 

centers; 
112

• Projects eligible for low-income housing tax credits;

• State and municipal obligations, such as revenue bonds, that specifically support 

affordable housing or other community development;

• Not-for-profit organizations serving low- and moderate-income housing or other 

community development needs, such as counseling for credit, home-ownership, home 

maintenance, and other financial literacy programs; and 

• Organizations supporting activities essential to the capacity of low- and moderateincome individuals or geographies to utilize credit or to sustain economic development, 

such as, for example, day care operations and job training programs or workforce 

development programs that enable low- or moderate-income individuals to work.

See also Q&As § __.12(g)(4)(ii) – 2; § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 3; § __.12(g)(4)(iii) – 4.

§ __.12(t) – 5: Will an institution receive consideration for charitable 

contributions as “qualified investments”?

A5. Yes, provided they have as their primary purpose community development as 

defined in the regulations. A charitable contribution, whether in cash or an in-kind 

contribution of property, is included in the term “grant.” A qualified investment is not 

disqualified because an institution receives favorable treatment for it (for example, as a 

tax deduction or credit) under the Internal Revenue Code.

§ __.12(t) – 6: An institution makes or participates in a community development 

loan. The institution provided the loan at below-market interest rates or “bought down” 

the interest rate to the borrower. Is the lost income resulting from the lower interest rate 

or buy-down a qualified investment?
113

A6. No. The Agencies will, however, consider the responsiveness, 

innovativeness, and complexity of the community development loan within the bounds of 

safe and sound banking practices.

§ __.12(t) – 7: Will the Agencies consider as a qualified investment the wages or 

other compensation of an employee or director who provides assistance to a community 

development organization on behalf of the institution?

A7. No. However, the Agencies will consider donated labor of employees or 

directors of a financial institution as a community development service if the activity 

meets the regulatory definition of “community development service.”

§ __.12(t) – 8: When evaluating a qualified investment, what consideration will be 

given for prior-period investments?

A8. When evaluating an institution’s qualified investment record, examiners will 

consider investments that were made prior to the current examination, but that are still 

outstanding. Qualitative factors will affect the weight given to both current period and 

outstanding prior-period qualified investments. For example, a prior-period outstanding 

investment with a multi-year impact that addresses assessment area community 

development needs may receive more consideration than a current period investment of a 

comparable amount that is less responsive to area community development needs.

§ __.12(t) – 9: How do examiners evaluate loans or investments to organizations 

that, in turn, invest in instruments that do not have a community development purpose, 

and use only the income, or a portion of the income, from those investments to support 

their community development purpose?
114

A9. Examiners will give quantitative consideration for the dollar amount of funds 

that benefit an organization or activity that has a primary purpose of community 

development. If an institution invests in (or lends to) an organization that, in turn, invests 

those funds in instruments that do not have as their primary purpose community 

development, such as Treasury securities, and uses only the income, or a portion of the 

income, from those investments to support the organization’s community development 

purposes, the Agencies will consider only the amount of the investment income used to 

benefit the organization or activity that has a community development purpose for CRA 

purposes. Examiners will, however, provide consideration for such instruments when the 

organization invests solely as a means of securing capital for leveraging purposes, 

securing additional financing, or in order to generate a return with minimal risk until 

funds can be deployed toward the originally intended community development activity. 

The organization must express a bona fide intent to deploy the funds from investments 

and loans in a manner that primarily serves a community development purpose in order 

for the institution to receive consideration under the applicable test.

§ __.12(u) Small institution

§ __.12(u) – 1: How are Federal and state branch assets of a foreign bank 

calculated for purposes of the CRA?

A1. A Federal or state branch of a foreign bank is considered a small institution if 

the Federal or state branch has assets less than the asset threshold delineated in 12 CFR 

__.12(u)(1) for small institutions.
115

§ __.12(u)(2) Small institution adjustment

§ __.12(u)(2) – 1: How often will the asset size thresholds for small institutions

and intermediate small institutions be changed, and how will these adjustments be 

communicated?

A1. The asset size thresholds for “small institutions” and “intermediate small 

institutions” will be adjusted annually based on changes to the Consumer Price Index. 

More specifically, the dollar thresholds will be adjusted annually based on the year-toyear change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and 

Clerical Workers, not seasonally adjusted for each 12-month period ending in November, 

with rounding to the nearest million. Any changes in the asset size thresholds will be 

published in the Federal Register. Historical and current asset-size threshold information 

may be found on the FFIEC’s Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/cra.

§ __.12(v) Small business loan

§ __.12(v) – 1: Are loans to nonprofit organizations considered small business 

loans or are they considered community development loans?

A1. To be considered a small business loan, a loan must meet the definition of 

“loans to small businesses” in the instructions in the Call Report. In general, a loan to a 

nonprofit organization, for business or farm purposes, where the loan is secured by 

nonfarm nonresidential property and the original amount of the loan is $1 million or less, 
116

if a business loan, or $500,000 or less, if a farm loan, would be reported in the Call 

Report as a small business or small farm loan. If a loan to a nonprofit organization is 

reportable as a small business or small farm loan, it cannot also be considered as a 

community development loan, except by a wholesale or limited purpose institution. 

Loans to nonprofit organizations that are not small business or small farm loans for Call 

Report purposes may be considered as community development loans if they meet the 

regulatory definition of “community development.”

§ __.12(v) – 2: Are loans secured by commercial real estate considered small 

business loans?

A2. Yes, depending on their principal amount. Small business loans include 

loans secured by “nonfarm nonresidential properties,” as defined in the Call Report, in 

amounts of $1 million or less.

§ __.12(v) – 3: Are loans secured by nonfarm residential real estate to finance 

small businesses “small business loans”?

A3. Typically not. Loans secured by nonfarm residential real estate that are used 

to finance small businesses are not included as “small business” loans for Call Report 

purposes unless the security interest in the nonfarm residential real estate is taken only as 

an abundance of caution. (See Call Report Glossary definition of “Loan Secured by Real 

Estate.”) The Agencies recognize that many small businesses are financed by loans that 

would not have been made or would have been made on less favorable terms had they not 

been secured by residential real estate. If these loans promote community development, 

as defined in the regulation, they may be considered as community development loans. 

Otherwise, at an institution’s option, the institution may collect and maintain data 
117

separately concerning these loans and request that the data be considered in its CRA 

evaluation as “Other Secured Lines/Loans for Purposes of Small Business.” See also

Q&A § __.22(a)(2) – 7.

§ __.12(v) – 4: Are credit cards issued to small businesses considered “small 

business loans”?

A4. Credit cards issued to a small business or to individuals to be used, with the 

institution’s knowledge, as business accounts are small business loans if they meet the 

definitional requirements in the Call Report instructions.

§ __.12(x) Wholesale institution

§ __.12(x) – 1: What factors will the Agencies consider in determining whether an 

institution is in the business of extending home mortgage, small business, small farm, or 

consumer loans to retail customers?

A1. The Agencies will consider whether

• the institution holds itself out to the retail public as providing such loans.

• the institution’s revenues from extending such loans are significant when compared to 

its overall operations, including off-balance sheet activities.

A wholesale institution may make some retail loans without losing its wholesale 

designation as described above in Q&A § __.12(n) – 2.

§ __.21--Performance tests, standards, and ratings, in general
118

§ __.21(a) Performance tests and standards

§ __.21(a) – 1: How will examiners apply the performance criteria?

A1. Examiners will apply the performance criteria reasonably and fairly, in 

accord with the regulations, the examination procedures, and this guidance. In doing so, 

examiners will disregard efforts by an institution to manipulate business operations or 

present information in an artificial light that does not accurately reflect an institution’s 

overall record of lending performance.

§ __.21(a) – 2: Are all community development activities weighted equally by 

examiners?

A2. No. Examiners will consider the responsiveness to credit and community 

development needs, as well as the innovativeness and complexity, if applicable, of an 

institution’s community development lending, qualified investments, and community 

development services. These criteria include consideration of the degree to which they 

serve as a catalyst for other community development activities. The criteria are designed 

to add a qualitative element to the evaluation of an institution’s performance. 

(“Innovativeness” and “complexity” are not factors in the community development test 

applicable to intermediate small institutions.)

§ __.21(a) – 3: “Responsiveness” to credit and community development needs is 

either a criterion or otherwise a consideration in all of the performance tests. How do 

examiners evaluate whether a financial institution has been “responsive” to credit and 

community development needs?
119

A3. There are three important factors that examiners consider when evaluating 

responsiveness: quantity, quality, and performance context. Examiners evaluate the 

volume and type of an institution’s activities, i.e., retail and community development 

loans and services and qualified investments, as a first step in evaluating the institution’s 

responsiveness to credit and community development needs. In addition, an assessment 

of “responsiveness” encompasses the qualitative aspects of performance, including the 

effectiveness of the activities. For example, some community development activities 

require specialized expertise or effort on the part of the institution or provide a benefit to 

the community that would not otherwise be made available. In some cases, a smaller 

loan may have more benefit to a community than a larger loan. In other words, when 

evaluated qualitatively, some activities are more responsive than others. Activities are 

more responsive if they are successful in meeting identified credit and community 

development needs. For example, investing in a community development organization 

that specializes in originating home mortgage loans to low- or moderate-income 

individuals would be considered more responsive than an investment of the same amount 

in a single-family mortgage-backed security in which the majority of the loans are to lowor moderate-income borrowers. Although both of these activities may receive 

consideration as a qualified investment, the former example would be considered to be 

more responsive than the latter. 

Examiners evaluate the responsiveness of an institution’s activities to credit and 

community development needs in light of the institution’s performance context. That is, 

examiners consider the institution’s capacity, its business strategy, the needs of the 

community, and the opportunities for lending, investments, and services in the 
120

community. To inform their assessment, examiners may consider information about 

credit and community development needs and opportunities from many sources, 

including

• demographic and other information compiled by local, state, and Federal government 

entities;

• public comments received by the Agency, for example, in response to its publication 

of its planned examination schedule;

• information from community leaders or organizations; 

• studies and reports from academic institutions and other research bodies;

• consumer complaint information; and

• any relevant information provided to examiners by the financial institution that is 

maintained by the institution in its ordinary course of business. 

Responsiveness to community development needs and opportunities in an 

institution’s assessment area(s) is also a key consideration when an institution plans to 

engage in community development activities that benefit areas outside of its assessment 

area(s). Q&A § __.12(h) – 6 states that an institution will receive consideration for 

activities that benefit geographies or individuals located somewhere within a broader 

statewide or regional area that includes the institution’s assessment area(s) even if they 

will not benefit the institution’s assessment area(s), as long as the institution has been 

responsive to community development needs and opportunities in its assessment area(s). 

When considering whether an institution has been responsive to community development 

needs and opportunities in its assessment area(s), examiners will consider all of the 

institution’s community development activities in its assessment area(s). Examiners will 
121

also consider as responsive to assessment area needs community development activities 

that support an organization or activity that covers an area that is larger than, but 

includes, the institution’s assessment area(s). This is true if the purpose, mandate, or 

function of the organization or activity includes serving geographies or individuals 

located within the institution’s assessment area(s), even though the institution’s 

assessment area(s) did not receive an immediate or direct benefit from the institution’s 

participation in the organization or activity. For example, suppose an institution were to 

invest in a statewide community development fund that was organized with the purpose 

of providing community development loans throughout the state in which the institution 

is located. Examiners would consider this investment when evaluating the institution’s 

responsiveness to community development needs and opportunities in its assessment 

area(s) even if the fund had not provided a loan within the institution’s assessment 

area(s).

§ __.21(a) – 4: What is meant by “innovativeness”?

A4. “Innovativeness” is one of several qualitative considerations under the 

lending, investment, and service tests. The community development test for wholesale 

and limited purpose institutions similarly considers “innovative” loans, investments, and 

services in the evaluation of performance. Under the CRA regulations, all innovative 

practices or activities will be considered when an institution implements meaningful 

improvements to products, services, or delivery systems that respond more effectively to 

customer and community needs, particularly those segments enumerated in the definition 

of community development. 
122

Institutions should not innovate simply to meet this criterion of the applicable test, 

particularly if, for example, existing products, services, or delivery systems effectively 

address the needs of all segments of the community. See Q&A § __.28 – 1. Innovative 

activities are especially meaningful when they emphasize serving, for example, low- or 

moderate-income consumers or distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middleincome geographies in new or more effective ways. Innovativeness may also include 

products, services, or delivery systems already present in the assessment area by 

institutions that are not leaders in innovation—due, for example, to the lack of available 

financial resources or technological expertise—when they subsequently introduce those 

products, services, or delivery systems to their low- or moderate-income customers or 

segments of consumers or markets not previously served. Practices that cease to be 

innovative may still receive qualitative consideration for being flexible, complex, or 

responsive.

§ __.21(b) Performance context

§ __.21(b) – 1: What is the performance context?

A1. The performance context is a broad range of economic, demographic, and 

institution- and community-specific information that an examiner reviews to understand 

the context in which an institution’s record of performance should be evaluated. The 

Agencies will provide examiners with some of this information. The performance 

context is not a formal assessment of community credit needs.
123

§ __.21(b)(2) Information maintained by the institution or obtained from community 

contacts

§ __.21(b)(2) – 1: Will examiners consider performance context information 

provided by institutions?

A1. Yes. An institution may provide examiners with any information it deems 

relevant, including information on the lending, investment, and service opportunities in 

its assessment area(s). This information may include data on the business opportunities 

addressed by lenders not subject to the CRA. Institutions are not required, however, to 

prepare a formal needs assessment. If an institution provides information to examiners, 

the Agencies will not expect information other than what the institution normally would 

develop to prepare a business plan or to identify potential markets and customers, 

including low- and moderate-income persons and geographies in its assessment area(s). 

The Agencies will not evaluate an institution’s efforts to ascertain community credit 

needs or rate an institution on the quality of any information it provides.

§ __.21(b)(2) – 2: Will examiners conduct community contact interviews as part 

of the examination process?

A2. Yes. Examiners will consider information obtained from interviews with 

local community, civic, and government leaders. These interviews provide examiners 

with knowledge regarding the local community, its economic base, and community 

development initiatives. To ensure that information from local leaders is considered –

particularly in areas where the number of potential contacts may be limited – examiners 

may use information obtained through an interview with a single community contact for 
124

examinations of more than one institution in a given market. In addition, the Agencies 

may consider information obtained from interviews conducted by other Agency staff and 

by the other Agencies. In order to augment contacts previously used by the Agencies and 

foster a wider array of contacts, the Agencies may share community contact information.

§ __.21(b)(4) Institutional capacity and constraints

§ __.21(b)(4) – 1: Will examiners consider factors outside of an institution’s 

control that prevent it from engaging in certain activities?

A1. Yes. Examiners will take into account statutory and supervisory limitations 

on an institution’s ability to engage in any lending, investment, and service activities. 

For example, a savings association that has made few or no qualified investments due to 

its limited investment authority may still receive a low satisfactory rating under the 

investment test if it has a strong lending record.

§ __.21(b)(5) Institution’s past performance and the performance of similarly situated 

lenders

§ __.21(b)(5) – 1: Can an institution’s assigned rating be adversely affected by 

poor past performance?

A1. Yes. The Agencies will consider an institution’s past performance in its 

overall evaluation. For example, an institution that received a rating of “needs to 
125

improve” in the past may receive a rating of “substantial noncompliance” if its 

performance has not improved.

§ __.21(b)(5) – 2: How will examiners consider the performance of similarly 

situated lenders?

A2. The performance context section of the regulation permits the performance 

of similarly situated lenders to be considered, for example, as one of a number of 

considerations in evaluating the geographic distribution of an institution’s loans to low-, 

moderate-, middle-, and upper-income geographies. This analysis, as well as other 

analyses, may be used, for example, where groups of contiguous geographies within an 

institution’s assessment area(s) exhibit abnormally low penetration. In this regard, the 

performance of similarly situated lenders may be analyzed if such an analysis would 

provide accurate insight into the institution’s lack of performance in those areas. The 

regulation does not require the use of a specific type of analysis under these 

circumstances. Moreover, no ratio developed from any type of analysis is linked to any 

lending test rating.

§ __.21(f) Activities in cooperation with minority- or women-owned financial institutions 

and low-income credit unions

§ __.21(f) – 1: The CRA provides that, in assessing the CRA performance of 

nonminority- and non-women-owned (majority-owned) financial institutions, examiners 

may consider as a factor capital investments, loan participations, and other ventures 

undertaken by the institutions in cooperation with minority- or women-owned financial 
126

institutions and low-income credit unions (MWLI), provided that these activities help 

meet the credit needs of local communities in which the MWLIs are chartered. Must 

such activities also benefit the majority-owned financial institution’s assessment area(s)?

A1. No. Although the regulations generally provide that an institution’s CRA 

activities will be evaluated for the extent to which they benefit the institution’s 

assessment area(s) or a broader statewide or regional area that includes the institution’s 

assessment area(s), the Agencies apply a broader geographic criterion when evaluating 

capital investments, loan participations, and other ventures undertaken by that institution 

in cooperation with MWLIs, as provided by the CRA. Thus, such activities will be 

favorably considered in the CRA performance evaluation of the institution (as loans, 

investments, or services, as appropriate), even if the MWLIs are not located in, or such 

activities do not benefit, the assessment area(s) of the majority-owned institution or the 

broader statewide or regional area that includes its assessment area(s). The activities 

must, however, help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which the MWLIs 

are chartered. The impact of a majority-owned institution’s activities in cooperation with 

MWLIs on the majority-owned institution’s CRA rating will be determined in 

conjunction with its overall performance in its assessment area(s).

Examples of activities undertaken by a majority-owned financial institution in 

cooperation with MWLIs that would receive CRA consideration may include

• making a deposit or capital investment;

• purchasing a participation in a loan;

• loaning an officer or providing other technical expertise to assist an MWLI in 

improving its lending policies and practices;
127

• providing financial support to enable an MWLI to partner with schools or universities 

to offer financial literacy education to members of its local community; or

• providing free or discounted data processing systems, or office facilities to aid an 

MWLI in serving its customers.

§ __.22--Lending test

§ __.22(a) Scope of test

§ __.22(a) – 1: Are there any types of lending activities that help meet the credit 

needs of an institution’s assessment area(s) and that may warrant favorable consideration 

as activities that are responsive to the needs of the institution’s assessment area(s)?

A1. Credit needs vary from community to community. However, there are some 

lending activities that are likely to be responsive in helping to meet the credit needs of 

many communities. These activities include

• providing loan programs that include a financial education component about how to 

avoid lending activities that may be abusive or otherwise unsuitable;

• establishing loan programs that provide small, unsecured consumer loans in a safe 

and sound manner (i.e., based on the borrower’s ability to repay) and with reasonable 

terms;

• offering lending programs, which feature reporting to consumer reporting agencies, 

that transition borrowers from loans with higher interest rates and fees (based on credit 

risk) to lower-cost loans, consistent with safe and sound lending practices. Reporting to 
128

consumer reporting agencies allows borrowers accessing these programs the opportunity 

to improve their credit histories and thereby improve their access to competitive credit 

products; and

• establishing loan programs with the objective of providing affordable, sustainable, 

long-term relief, for example, through loan refinancings, restructures, or modifications, to 

homeowners who are facing foreclosure on their primary residences.

Examiners may consider favorably such lending activities, which have features 

augmenting the success and effectiveness of the small, intermediate small, or large 

institution’s lending programs.

§ __.22(a)(1) Types of loans considered

§ __.22(a)(1) – 1: If a large retail institution is not required to collect and report 

home mortgage data under the HMDA, will the Agencies still evaluate the institution’s 

home mortgage lending performance?

A1. Yes. The Agencies will sample the institution’s home mortgage loan files in 

order to assess its performance under the lending test criteria.

§ __.22(a)(1) – 2: When will examiners consider consumer loans as part of an 

institution’s CRA evaluation?

A2. Consumer loans will be evaluated if the institution so elects and has collected 

and maintained the data; an institution that elects not to have its consumer loans 

evaluated will not be viewed less favorably by examiners than one that does. However, if 

consumer loans constitute a substantial majority of the institution’s business, the 
129

Agencies will evaluate them even if the institution does not so elect. The Agencies 

interpret “substantial majority” to be so significant a portion of the institution’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.

§ __.22(a)(2) Loan originations and purchases/other loan data

§ __.22(a)(2) – 1: How are lending commitments (such as letters of credit) 

evaluated under the regulation?

A1. The Agencies consider lending commitments (such as letters of credit) only 

at the option of the institution, regardless of examination type. Commitments must be 

legally binding between an institution and a borrower in order to be considered. 

Information about lending commitments will be used by examiners to enhance their 

understanding of an institution’s performance, but will be evaluated separately from the 

loans.

§ __.22(a)(2) – 2: Will examiners review application data as part of the lending 

test?

A2. Application activity is not a performance criterion of the lending test. 

However, examiners may consider this information in the performance context analysis 

because this information may give examiners insight on, for example, the demand for 

loans.

§ __.22(a)(2) – 3: May a financial institution receive consideration under CRA for 

home mortgage loan modification, extension, and consolidation agreements (MECA), in 
130

which it obtains home mortgage loans from other institutions without actually purchasing 

or refinancing the home mortgage loans, as those terms have been interpreted under CRA 

and HMDA, as implemented by 12 CFR part 1003?

A3. Yes. In some states, MECAs, which are not considered loan refinancings 

because the existing loan obligations are not satisfied and replaced, are common. 

Although these transactions are not considered to be purchases or refinancings, as those 

terms have been interpreted under CRA, they do achieve the same results. A small, 

intermediate small, or large institution may present information about its MECA 

activities with respect to home mortgages to examiners for consideration under the 

lending test as “other loan data.”

§ __.22(a)(2) – 4: In addition to MECAs, what are other examples of “other loan 

data”?

A4. Other loan data include, for example,

• loans funded for sale to the secondary markets that an institution has not reported 

under HMDA;

• unfunded loan commitments and letters of credit;

• commercial and consumer leases;

• loans secured by nonfarm residential real estate, not taken as an abundance of 

caution, that are used to finance small businesses or small farms and that are not reported 

as small business/small farm loans or reported under HMDA; and
131

• an increase to a small business or small farm line of credit if the increase would cause 

the total line of credit to exceed $1 million, in the case of a small business line; or 

$500,000, in the case of a small farm line.

§ __.22(a)(2) – 5: Do institutions receive consideration for originating or 

purchasing loans that are fully guaranteed?

A5. Yes. For all examination types, examiners evaluate an institution’s record of 

helping to meet the credit needs of its assessment area(s) through the origination or 

purchase of specified types of loans. Examiners do not take into account whether or not 

such loans are guaranteed.

§ __.22(a)(2) – 6: Do institutions receive consideration for purchasing loan 

participations?

A6. Yes. Examiners will consider the amount of loan participations purchased 

when evaluating an institution’s record of helping to meet the credit needs of its 

assessment area(s) through the origination or purchase of specified types of loans, 

regardless of examination type. As with other loan purchases, examiners will evaluate 

whether loan participations purchased by an institution, which have been sold and 

purchased a number of times, artificially inflate CRA performance. See, e.g., Q&A 

§ __.21(a) – 1.

§ __.22(a)(2) – 7: How are refinancings of small business loans, which are 

secured by a one-to-four family residence and that have been reported under HMDA as a 

refinancing, evaluated under CRA?

A7. A loan of $1 million or less with a business purpose that is secured by a oneto-four family residence is considered a small business loan for CRA purposes only if the 
132

security interest in the residential property was taken as an abundance of caution and 

where the terms have not been made more favorable than they would have been in the 

absence of the lien. (See Call Report Glossary definition of “Loan Secured by Real 

Estate.”) If this same loan is refinanced and the new loan is also secured by a one-to-four 

family residence, but only through an abundance of caution, this loan is reported not only 

as a refinancing under HMDA, but also as a small business loan under CRA. (Note that 

small farm loans are similarly treated.)

It is not anticipated that “double-reported” loans will be so numerous as to affect 

the typical institution’s CRA rating. In the event that an institution reports a significant 

number or amount of loans as both home mortgage and small business loans, examiners 

will consider that overlap in evaluating the institution’s performance and generally will 

consider the “double-reported” loans as small business loans for CRA consideration.

The origination of a small business or small farm loan that is secured by a one-tofour family residence is not reportable under HMDA, unless the purpose of the loan is 

home purchase or home improvement. Nor is the loan reported as a small business or 

small farm loan if the security interest is not taken merely as an abundance of caution. 

Any such loan may be provided to examiners as “other loan data” (“Other Secured 

Lines/Loans for Purposes of Small Business”) for consideration during a CRA 

evaluation. See Q&A § __.12(v) – 3. The refinancings of such loans would be reported 

under HMDA.

§ __.22(b) Performance criteria

§ __.22(b)(1) Lending activity
133

§ __.22(b)(1) – 1: How will the Agencies apply the lending activity criterion to 

discourage an institution from originating loans that are viewed favorably under CRA in 

the institution itself and referring other loans, which are not viewed as favorably, for 

origination by an affiliate?

A1. Examiners will review closely institutions with (1) a small number and 

amount of home mortgage loans with an unusually good distribution among low- and 

moderate-income areas and low- and moderate-income borrowers and (2) a policy of 

referring most, but not all, of their home mortgage loans to affiliated institutions. If an 

institution is making loans mostly to low- and moderate-income individuals and areas and 

referring the rest of the loan applicants to an affiliate for the purpose of receiving a 

favorable CRA rating, examiners may conclude that the institution’s lending activity is 

not satisfactory because it has inappropriately attempted to influence the rating. In 

evaluating an institution’s lending, examiners will consider legitimate business reasons 

for the allocation of the lending activity.

§ __.22(b)(2) & (3) Geographic distribution and borrower characteristics

§ __.22(b)(2) & (3) – 1: How do the geographic distribution of loans and the 

distribution of lending by borrower characteristics interact in the lending test applicable 

to either large or small institutions?

A1. Examiners generally will consider both the distribution of an institution’s 

loans among geographies of different income levels, and among borrowers of different 
134

income levels and businesses and farms of different sizes. The importance of the 

borrower distribution criterion, particularly in relation to the geographic distribution 

criterion, will depend on the performance context. For example, distribution among 

borrowers with different income levels may be more important in areas without 

identifiable geographies of different income categories. On the other hand, geographic 

distribution may be more important in areas with the full range of geographies of 

different income categories.

§ __.22(b)(2) & (3) – 2: Must an institution lend to all portions of its assessment 

area?

A2. The term “assessment area” describes the geographic area within which the 

agencies assess how well an institution, regardless of examination type, has met the 

specific performance tests and standards in the rule. The Agencies do not expect that 

simply because a census tract is within an institution’s assessment area(s), the institution 

must lend to that census tract. Rather the Agencies will be concerned with conspicuous 

gaps in loan distribution that are not explained by the performance context. Similarly, if 

an institution delineated the entire county in which it is located as its assessment area, but 

could have delineated its assessment area as only a portion of the county, it will not be 

penalized for lending only in that portion of the county, so long as that portion does not 

reflect illegal discrimination or arbitrarily exclude low- or moderate-income geographies. 

The capacity and constraints of an institution, its business decisions about how it can best 

help to meet the needs of its assessment area(s), including those of low- and moderateincome neighborhoods, and other aspects of the performance context, are all relevant to 

explain why the institution is serving or not serving portions of its assessment area(s).
135

§ __.22(b)(2) & (3) – 3: Will examiners take into account loans made by affiliates 

when evaluating the proportion of an institution’s lending in its assessment area(s)?

A3. Examiners will not take into account loans made by affiliates when 

determining the proportion of an institution’s lending in its assessment area(s), even if the 

institution elects to have its affiliate lending considered in the remainder of the lending 

test evaluation. However, examiners may consider an institution’s business strategy of 

conducting lending through an affiliate in order to determine whether a low proportion of 

lending in the assessment area(s) should adversely affect the institution’s lending test 

rating.

§ __.22(b)(2) & (3) – 4: When will examiners consider loans (other than 

community development loans) made outside an institution’s assessment area(s)?

A4. Consideration will be given for loans to low- and moderate-income persons 

and small business and farm loans outside of an institution’s assessment area(s), provided 

the institution has adequately addressed the needs of borrowers within its assessment 

area(s). The Agencies will apply this consideration not only to loans made by large retail 

institutions being evaluated under the lending test, but also to loans made by small and 

intermediate small institutions being evaluated under their respective performance 

standards. Loans to low- and moderate-income persons and small businesses and farms 

outside of an institution’s assessment area(s), however, will not compensate for poor 

lending performance within the institution’s assessment area(s).

§ __.22(b)(2) & (3) – 5: Under the lending test applicable to small, intermediate 

small, or large institutions, how will examiners evaluate home mortgage loans to middleor upper-income individuals in a low- or moderate-income geography?
136

A5. Examiners will consider these home mortgage loans under the performance 

criteria of the lending test, i.e., by number and amount of home mortgage loans, whether 

they are inside or outside the financial institution’s assessment area(s), their geographic 

distribution, and the income levels of the borrowers. Examiners will use information 

regarding the financial institution’s performance context to determine how to evaluate the 

loans under these performance criteria. Depending on the performance context, 

examiners could view home mortgage loans to middle-income individuals in a lowincome geography very differently. For example, if the loans are for homes or 

multifamily housing located in an area for which the local, state, tribal, or Federal 

government or a community-based development organization has developed a 

revitalization or stabilization plan (such as a Federal enterprise community or 

empowerment zone) that includes attracting mixed-income residents to establish a 

stabilized, economically diverse neighborhood, examiners may give more consideration 

to such loans, which may be viewed as serving the low- or moderate-income 

community’s needs as well as serving those of the middle- or upper-income borrowers. 

If, on the other hand, no such plan exists and there is no other evidence of governmental 

support for a revitalization or stabilization project in the area and the loans to middle- or 

upper-income borrowers significantly disadvantage or primarily have the effect of 

displacing low- or moderate-income residents, examiners may view these loans simply as 

home mortgage loans to middle- or upper-income borrowers who happen to reside in a 

low- or moderate-income geography and weigh them accordingly in their evaluation of 

the institution.
137

§ __.22(b)(4) Community development lending 

§ __.22(b)(4) – 1: When evaluating an institution’s record of community 

development lending under the lending test applicable to large institutions, may an 

examiner distinguish among community development loans on the basis of the actual 

amount of the loan that advances the community development purpose?

A1. Yes. When evaluating the institution’s record of community development 

lending under 12 CFR __.22(b)(4), it is appropriate to give greater weight to the amount 

of the loan that is targeted to the intended community development purpose. For 

example, consider two $10 million projects (with a total of 100 units each) that have as 

their express primary purpose affordable housing and are located in the same community. 

One of these projects sets aside 40 percent of its units for low-income residents and the 

other project allocates 65 percent of its units for low-income residents. An institution 

would report both loans as $10 million community development loans under the 12 CFR 

__.42(b)(2) aggregate reporting obligation. However, transaction complexity, innovation 

and all other relevant considerations being equal, an examiner should also take into 

account that the 65 percent project provides more affordable housing for more people per 

dollar expended.

Under 12 CFR __.22(b)(4), the extent of CRA consideration an institution 

receives for its community development loans should bear a direct relation to the benefits 

received by the community and the innovation or complexity of the loans required to 

accomplish the activity, not simply to the dollar amount expended on a particular 

transaction. By applying all lending test performance criteria, a community development 
138

loan of a lower dollar amount could meet the credit needs of the institution’s community 

to a greater extent than a community development loan with a higher dollar amount, but 

with less innovation, complexity, or impact on the community.

§ __.22(b)(4) – 2: How do examiners consider community development loans in 

the evaluation of an institution’s record of lending under the lending test applicable to 

large institutions?

A2. An institution’s record of making community development loans may have a 

positive, neutral, or negative impact on the lending test rating. Community development 

lending is one of five performance criteria in the lending test criteria and, as such, it is 

considered at every examination. As with all lending test criteria, examiners evaluate an 

institution’s record of making community development loans in the context of an 

institution’s business model, the needs of its community, and the availability of 

community development opportunities in its assessment area(s) or the broader statewide 

or regional area(s) that includes the assessment area(s). For example, in some cases 

community development lending could have either a neutral or negative impact when the 

volume and number of community development loans are not adequate, depending on the 

performance context, while in other cases, it would have a positive impact when the 

institution is a leader in community development lending. Additionally, strong 

performance in retail lending may compensate for weak performance in community 

development lending, and conversely, strong community development lending may 

compensate for weak retail lending performance.

§ __.22(b)(5) Innovative or flexible lending practices
139

§ __.22(b)(5) – 1: What do examiners consider in evaluating the innovativeness or 

flexibility of an institution’s lending under the lending test applicable to large 

institutions?

A1. In evaluating the innovativeness or flexibility of an institution’s lending 

practices (and the complexity and innovativeness of its community development 

lending), examiners will not be limited to reviewing the overall variety and specific terms 

and conditions of the credit product themselves. Examiners also consider whether, and 

the extent to which, innovative or flexible terms or products augment the success and 

effectiveness of the institution’s community development loan programs or, more 

generally, of its loan programs that address the credit needs of low- or moderate-income 

geographies or individuals. Historically, many institutions have used innovative and 

flexible lending practices to customize loans to their customers’ specific needs in a safe 

and sound manner. However, an innovative or flexible lending practice is not required in 

order to obtain a specific CRA rating. See Q&A § __.28 – 1. Examples of lending 

practices that are considered innovative or flexible include:

• In connection with a community development loan program, an institution may 

establish a technical assistance program under which the institution, directly or through 

third parties, provides affordable housing developers and other loan recipients with 

financial consulting services. Such a technical assistance program may, by itself, 

constitute a community development service eligible for consideration under the service 

test of the CRA regulations. In addition, the technical assistance may be considered as an 
140

innovative or flexible practice that augments the success and effectiveness of the related 

community development loan program. 

• In connection with a small business lending program in a low- or moderate-income 

area and consistent with safe and sound lending practices, an institution may implement a 

program under which, in addition to providing financing, the institution also contracts 

with the small business borrowers. Such a contracting arrangement would not, itself, 

qualify for CRA consideration. However, it may be considered as an innovative or 

flexible practice that augments the loan program’s success and effectiveness, and 

improves the program’s ability to serve community development needs by helping to 

promote economic development through support of small business activities and 

revitalization or stabilization of low- or moderate-income geographies. 

• In connection with a small dollar loan program with reasonable terms and offered in a 

safe and sound manner, which includes evaluating an individual’s ability to repay, an 

institution may establish outreach initiatives or financial counseling targeted to low- or 

moderate-income individuals or communities. The institution’s efforts to encourage the 

availability, awareness, and use of the small dollar loan program to meet the credit needs 

of low- and moderate-income individuals, in lieu of higher-cost credit, should augment 

the success and effectiveness of the lending program. Such loans may be considered 

responsive under Q&A § __.22(a) – 1, and the use of such outreach initiatives in 

conjunction with financial literacy education or linked savings programs also may be 

considered as an innovative or flexible practice to the extent that they augment the 

success and effectiveness of the related loan program. Such initiatives may receive 

consideration under other performance criteria as well. For example, an initiative to 
141

partner with a nonprofit organization to provide financial counseling that encourages 

responsible use of credit may, by itself, constitute a community development service 

eligible for consideration under the service test.

• In connection with a mortgage or consumer lending program targeted to low- or 

moderate-income geographies or individuals, consistent with safe and sound lending 

practices, an institution may establish underwriting standards that utilize alternative credit 

histories, such as utility or rent payments, in an effort to evaluate low- or moderateincome individuals who lack sufficient conventional credit histories and who would be 

denied credit under the institution’s traditional underwriting standards. The use of 

alternative credit histories in this manner to demonstrate that consumers have a timely 

and consistent record of paying their obligations may be considered as an innovative or 

flexible practice that augments the success and effectiveness of the lending program.

§ __.22(c) Affiliate lending

§ __.22(c)(1) In general

§ __.22(c)(1) – 1: If an institution, regardless of examination type, elects to have 

loans by its affiliate(s) considered, may it elect to have only certain categories of loans 

considered?

A1. Yes. An institution may elect to have only a particular category of its 

affiliate’s lending considered. The basic categories of loans are home mortgage loans, 

small business loans, small farm loans, community development loans, and the five 
142

categories of consumer loans (motor vehicle loans, credit card loans, home equity loans, 

other secured loans, and other unsecured loans).

§ __.22(c)(2) Constraints on affiliate lending

§ __.22(c)(2)(i) No affiliate may claim a loan origination or loan purchase if another 

institution claims the same loan origination or purchase

§ __.22(c)(2)(i) – 1: Regardless of examination type, how is this constraint on 

affiliate lending applied?

A1. This constraint prohibits one affiliate from claiming a loan origination or 

purchase claimed by another affiliate. However, an institution can count as a purchase a 

loan originated by an affiliate that the institution subsequently purchases, or count as an 

origination a loan later sold to an affiliate, provided the same loans are not sold several 

times to inflate their value for CRA purposes. For example, assume that two institutions

are affiliated. Institution A originates a loan and claims it as a loan origination. 

Institution B later purchases the loan. Institution B may count the loan as a purchased 

loan.

The same institution may not count both the origination and purchase. Thus, for 

example, if an institution claims loans made by an affiliated mortgage company as loan 

originations, the institution may not also count the loans as purchased loans if it later 

purchases the loans from its affiliate. See also Q&As § __.22(c)(2)(ii) – 1 and 

§ __.22(c)(2)(ii) – 2.
143

§ __.22(c)(2)(ii) If an institution elects to have its supervisory Agency consider loans 

within a particular lending category made by one or more of the institution’s affiliates in 

a particular assessment area, the institution shall elect to have the Agency consider all 

loans within that lending category in that particular assessment area made by all of the 

institution’s affiliates

§ __.22(c)(2)(ii) – 1: Regardless of examination type, how is this constraint on 

affiliate lending applied?

A1. This constraint prohibits “cherry-picking” affiliate loans within any one 

category of loans. The constraint requires an institution that elects to have a particular 

category of affiliate lending in a particular assessment area considered to include all loans 

of that type made by all of its affiliates in that particular assessment area. For example, 

assume that an institution has several affiliates, including a mortgage company that 

makes loans in the institution’s assessment area. If the institution elects to include the 

mortgage company’s home mortgage loans, it must include all of its affiliates’ home 

mortgage loans made in its assessment area. In addition, the institution cannot elect to 

include only those low- and moderate-income home mortgage loans made by its affiliates 

and not home mortgage loans to middle- and upper-income individuals or areas.

§ __.22(c)(2)(ii) – 2: Regardless of examination type, how is this constraint 

applied if an institution’s affiliates are also insured depository institutions subject to the 

CRA?

A2. Strict application of this constraint against “cherry-picking” to loans of an 

affiliate that is also an insured depository institution covered by the CRA would produce 
144

the anomalous result that the other institution would, without its consent, not be able to 

count its own loans. Because the Agencies did not intend to deprive an institution subject 

to the CRA of receiving consideration for its own lending, the Agencies read this 

constraint slightly differently in cases involving a group of affiliated institutions, some of 

which are subject to the CRA and share the same assessment area(s). In those 

circumstances, an institution that elects to include all of its mortgage affiliate’s home 

mortgage loans in its assessment area would not automatically be required to include all 

home mortgage loans in its assessment area of another affiliate institution subject to the 

CRA. However, all loans of a particular type made by any affiliate in the institution’s 

assessment area(s) must either be counted by the lending institution or by another affiliate 

institution that is subject to the CRA. This reading reflects the fact that a holding 

company may, for business reasons, choose to transact different aspects of its business in 

different subsidiary institutions. However, the method by which loans are allocated 

among the institutions for CRA purposes must reflect actual business decisions about the 

allocation of banking activities among the institutions and should not be designed solely 

to enhance their CRA evaluations.

§ __.22(d) Lending by a consortium or a third party

§ __.22(d) – 1: Will equity and equity-type investments in a third party receive 

consideration under the lending test?

A1. If an institution has made an equity or equity-type investment in a third 

party, community development loans made by the third party may be considered under 
145

the lending test. On the other hand, asset-backed and debt securities that do not represent 

an equity-type interest in a third party will not be considered under the lending test unless 

the securities are booked by the purchasing institution as a loan. For example, if an 

institution purchases stock in a CDC that primarily lends in low- and moderate-income 

areas or to low- and moderate-income individuals in order to promote community 

development, the institution may claim a pro rata share of the CDC’s loans as community 

development loans. The institution’s pro rata share is based on its percentage of equity 

ownership in the CDC. Q&A § __.23(b) – 1 provides information concerning 

consideration of an equity or equity-type investment under the investment test and both 

the lending and investment tests. (Note that in connection with an intermediate small 

institution’s CRA performance evaluation, community development loans, including pro

rata shares of community development loans, are considered only in the community 

development test.)

§ __.22(d) – 2: Regardless of examination type, how will examiners evaluate 

loans made by consortia or third parties?

A2. Loans originated or purchased by consortia in which an institution 

participates or by third parties in which an institution invests will be considered only if 

they qualify as community development loans and will be considered only under the 

community development criterion. However, loans originated directly on the books of an 

institution or purchased by the institution are considered to have been made or purchased 

directly by the institution, even if the institution originated or purchased the loans as a 

result of its participation in a loan consortium. These loans would be considered under
146

the lending test or community development test criteria appropriate to them depending on 

the type of loan and type of examination.

§ __.22(d) – 3: In some circumstances, an institution may invest in a third party, 

such as a community development bank, that is also an insured depository institution and 

is thus subject to CRA requirements. If the investing institution requests its supervisory 

Agency to consider its pro rata share of community development loans made by the third 

party, as allowed under 12 CFR __.22(d), may the third party also receive consideration 

for these loans?

A3. Yes, regardless of examination type, as long as the financial institution and 

the third party are not affiliates. The regulations state, at 12 CFR __.22(c)(2)(i), that two 

affiliates may not both claim the same loan origination or loan purchase. However, if the 

financial institution and the third party are not affiliates, the third party may receive 

consideration for the community development loans it originates, and the financial 

institution that invested in the third party may also receive consideration for its pro rata 

share of the same community development loans under 12 CFR __.22(d).

§ __.23--Investment test

§ __.23(a) Scope of test

§ __.23(a) – 1: May an institution, regardless of examination type, receive 

consideration under the CRA regulations if it invests indirectly through a fund, the 

purpose of which is community development, as that is defined in the CRA regulations?
147

A1. Yes, the direct or indirect nature of the qualified investment does not affect 

whether an institution will receive consideration under the CRA regulations because the 

regulations do not distinguish between “direct” and “indirect” investments. Thus, an 

institution’s investment in an equity fund that, in turn, invests in projects that, for 

example, provide affordable housing to low- and moderate-income individuals, would 

receive consideration as a qualified investment under the CRA regulations, provided the 

investment benefits one or more of the institution’s assessment area(s) or a broader 

statewide or regional area(s) that includes one or more of the institution’s assessment 

area(s). Similarly, an institution may receive consideration for a direct qualified 

investment in a nonprofit organization that, for example, supports affordable housing for 

low- and moderate-income individuals in the institution’s assessment area(s) or a broader 

statewide or regional area(s) that includes the institution’s assessment area(s).

§ __.23(a) – 2: In order to receive CRA consideration, what information may an 

institution provide that would demonstrate that an investment in a nationwide fund with a 

primary purpose of community development will directly or indirectly benefit one or 

more of the institution’s assessment area(s) or a broader statewide or regional area that 

includes the institution’s assessment area(s)?

A2. There may be several ways to demonstrate that the institution’s investment in 

a nationwide fund meets the geographic requirements, and the Agencies will employ 

appropriate flexibility in this regard in reviewing information the institution provides that 

reasonably supports this determination.

In making this determination, the Agencies will consider any information 

provided by a financial institution that reasonably demonstrates that the purpose, 
148

mandate, or function of the fund includes serving geographies or individuals located 

within the institution’s assessment area(s) or a broader statewide or regional area that 

includes the institution’s assessment area(s). Typically, information about where a fund’s 

investments are expected to be made or targeted will be found in the fund’s prospectus, or 

other documents provided by the fund prior to or at the time of the institution’s 

investment, and the institution, at its option, may provide such documentation in 

connection with its CRA evaluation.

Nationwide funds are important sources of investments in low- and moderateincome and underserved communities throughout the country and can be an efficient 

vehicle for institutions in making qualified investments that help meet community 

development needs. Nationwide funds may be suitable investment opportunities, 

particularly for large financial institutions with a nationwide branch footprint. Other 

financial institutions, including those with a nationwide business focus, may find such 

funds to be efficient investment vehicles to help meet community development needs in 

their assessment area(s) or the broader statewide or regional area that includes their 

assessment area(s). Prior to investing in such a fund, an institution should consider 

reviewing the fund’s investment record to see if it is generally consistent with the 

institution’s investment goals and the geographic considerations in the regulations. 

Examiners will consider investments in nationwide funds that benefit the institution’s 

assessment area(s). Examiners will also consider investments in nationwide funds that 

benefit the broader statewide or regional area that includes the institution’s assessment 

area(s) consistent with the treatment detailed in Q&A § __.12(h) – 6.
149

§ __.23(b) Exclusion

§ __.23(b) – 1: Even though the regulations state that an activity that is considered 

under the lending or service tests cannot also be considered under the investment test, 

may parts of an activity be considered under one test and other parts be considered under 

another test?

A1. Yes, in some instances the nature of an activity may make it eligible for 

consideration under more than one of the performance tests. For example, certain 

investments and related support provided by a large retail institution to a CDC may be 

evaluated under the lending, investment, and service tests. Under the service test, the 

institution may receive consideration for any community development services that it 

provides to the CDC, such as service by an executive of the institution on the CDC’s 

board of directors. If the institution makes an investment in the CDC that the CDC uses 

to make community development loans, the institution may receive consideration under 

the lending test for its pro rata share of community development loans made by the CDC. 

Alternatively, the institution’s investment may be considered under the investment test, 

assuming it is a qualified investment. In addition, an institution may elect to have a part 

of its investment considered under the lending test and the remaining part considered 

under the investment test. If the investing institution opts to have a portion of its 

investment evaluated under the lending test by claiming its pro rata share of the CDC’s 

community development loans, the amount of investment considered under the 

investment test will be offset by that portion. Thus, the institution would receive 
150

consideration under the investment test for only the amount of its investment multiplied 

by the percentage of the CDC’s assets that meet the definition of a qualified investment.

§ __.23(b) – 2: If home mortgage loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers 

have been considered under an institution’s lending test, may the institution that 

originated or purchased them also receive consideration under the investment test if it 

subsequently purchases mortgage-backed securities that are primarily or exclusively 

backed by such loans?

A2. No. Because the institution received lending test consideration for the loans 

that underlie the securities, the institution may not also receive consideration under the 

investment test for its purchase of the securities. Of course, an institution may receive 

investment test consideration for purchases of mortgage-backed securities that are backed 

by loans to low- and moderate-income individuals as long as the securities are not backed 

primarily or exclusively by loans that the same institution originated or purchased.

§ __.23(e) Performance criteria

§ __.23(e) – 1: When applying the four performance criteria of 12 CFR __.23(e), 

may an examiner distinguish among qualified investments based on how much of the 

investment actually supports the underlying community development purpose?

A1. Yes. By applying all the criteria, a qualified investment of a lower dollar 

amount may be weighed more heavily under the investment test than a qualified 

investment with a higher dollar amount that has fewer qualitative enhancements. The 

criteria permit an examiner to qualitatively weight certain investments differently or to 
151

make other appropriate distinctions when evaluating an institution’s record of making 

qualified investments. For instance, an examiner should take into account that a targeted 

mortgage-backed security that qualifies as an affordable housing issue that has only 60 

percent of its face value supported by loans to low- or moderate-income borrowers would 

not provide as much affordable housing for low- and moderate-income individuals as a 

targeted mortgage-backed security with 100 percent of its face value supported by 

affordable housing loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers. The examiner should 

describe any differential weighting (or other adjustment), and its basis in the Performance 

Evaluation. See also Q&A § __.12(t) – 8 for a discussion about the qualitative 

consideration of prior-period investments.

§ __.23(e) – 2: How do examiners evaluate an institution’s qualified investment in 

a fund, the primary purpose of which is community development, as defined in the CRA 

regulations?

A2. When evaluating qualified investments that benefit an institution’s 

assessment area(s) or a broader statewide or regional area that includes its assessment 

area(s), examiners will look at the following four performance criteria:

(1) The dollar amount of qualified investments;

(2) The innovativeness or complexity of qualified investments;

(3) The responsiveness of qualified investments to credit and community development 

needs; and

(4) The degree to which the qualified investments are not routinely provided by private 

investors.
152

With respect to the first criterion, examiners will determine the dollar amount of 

qualified investments by relying on the figures recorded by the institution according to 

generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Although institutions may exercise a 

range of investment strategies, including short-term investments, long-term investments, 

investments that are immediately funded, and investments with a binding, up-front 

commitment that are funded over a period of time, institutions making the same dollar 

amount of investments over the same number of years, all other performance criteria 

being equal, would receive the same level of consideration. Examiners will include both 

new and outstanding investments in this determination. The dollar amount of qualified 

investments also will include the dollar amount of legally binding commitments recorded 

by the institution according to GAAP.

The extent to which qualified investments receive consideration, however, 

depends on how examiners evaluate the investments under the remaining three 

performance criteria -- innovativeness and complexity, responsiveness, and degree to 

which the investment is not routinely provided by private investors. Examiners also will 

consider factors relevant to the institution’s CRA performance context, such as the effect 

of outstanding long-term qualified investments, the pay-in schedule, and the amount of 

any cash call, on the capacity of the institution to make new investments.

§ __.24--Service test

§ __.24(a) Scope of test
153

§ __.24(a) – 1: How do examiners evaluate retail banking services and 

community development services under the large institution service test?

A1. Retail banking services and community development services are the two 

components of the service test and are both important in evaluating a large institution’s 

performance. In evaluating retail banking services, examiners consider the availability 

and effectiveness of an institution’s systems for delivering banking services, particularly 

in low- and moderate-income geographies and to low- and moderate income individuals; 

the 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. Examples of retail banking services that improve access to financial 

services, or decrease costs, for low- or moderate-income individuals include

• low-cost deposit accounts; 

• electronic benefit transfer accounts and point of sale terminal systems; 

• individual development accounts;

• free or low-cost government, payroll, or other check cashing services; and 

• reasonably priced international remittance services.

In evaluating community development services, examiners consider the extent to 

which the institution provides such services and their innovativeness and responsiveness 

to community needs. Examples of community development services are listed in Q&A 

§ __.12(i) – 3. Examiners will consider any information provided by the institution that 

demonstrates community development services benefit low- or moderate-income 

individuals or are responsive to community development needs. 
154

§ __.24(d) Performance criteria – retail banking services

§ __.24(d) – 1: How do examiners evaluate the availability and effectiveness of an 

institution’s systems for delivering retail banking services?

A1. Convenient access to full service branches within a community is an 

important factor in determining the availability of credit and non-credit services. 

Therefore, the service test performance standards place primary emphasis on full service 

branches while still considering alternative systems. The principal focus is on an 

institution’s current distribution of branches and its record of opening and closing 

branches, particularly branches located in low- or moderate-income geographies or 

primarily serving low- or moderate-income individuals. However, an institution is not 

required to expand its branch network or operate unprofitable branches. Under the 

service test, alternative systems for delivering retail banking services are considered only 

to the extent that they are effective alternatives in providing needed services to low- and 

moderate-income areas and individuals.

§ __.24(d) – 2: How do examiners evaluate an institution’s activities in 

connection with Individual Development Accounts (IDA)?

A2. Although there is no standard IDA program, IDAs typically are deposit 

accounts targeted to low- and moderate-income families that are designed to help them 

accumulate savings for education or job-training, down-payment and closing costs on a 

new home, or start-up capital for a small business. Once participants have successfully 

funded an IDA, their personal IDA savings are matched by a public or private entity. 

Financial institution participation in IDA programs comes in a variety of forms, including
155

providing retail banking services to IDA accountholders, providing matching dollars or 

operating funds to an IDA program, designing or implementing IDA programs, providing 

consumer financial education to IDA accountholders or prospective accountholders, or 

other means. The extent of financial institutions’ involvement in IDAs and the products 

and services they offer in connection with the accounts will vary. Thus, subject to 12 

CFR __.23(b), examiners evaluate the actual services and products provided by an 

institution in connection with IDA programs as one or more of the following: community 

development services, retail banking services, qualified investments, home mortgage 

loans, small business loans, consumer loans, or community development loans. See, e.g.,

Q&A § __.12(i) – 3.

Note that all types of institutions may participate in IDA programs. Their IDA 

activities are evaluated under the performance criteria of the type of examination 

applicable to the particular institution.

§ __.24(d)(3) Availability and effectiveness of alternative systems for delivering retail 

banking services

§ __.24(d)(3) – 1: How do examiners evaluate alternative systems for delivering 

retail banking services?

A1. There are a number of alternative systems used by financial institutions to 

deliver retail banking services to customers. Non-branch delivery systems, such as 

ATMs, online and mobile banking, and other means by which institutions provide 

services to their customers evolve over time. No matter the means of delivery, examiners 
156

evaluate the extent to which the alternative delivery systems are available and effective in 

providing financial services to low- and moderate-income geographies and individuals. 

For example, a system may be determined to be effective based on the accessibility of the 

system to low- and moderate-income geographies and individuals. To determine whether 

a financial institution’s alternative delivery system is an available and effective means of 

delivering retail banking services in low- and moderate-income geographies and to lowand moderate-income individuals, examiners may consider a variety of factors, including

• the ease of access, whether physical or virtual;

• the cost to consumers, as compared with the institution’s other delivery systems;

• the range of services delivered;

• the ease of use;

• the rate of adoption and use; and

• the reliability of the system.

Examiners will consider any information an institution maintains and provides to 

examiners demonstrating that the institution’s alternative delivery systems are available 

to, and used by, low- or moderate-income individuals, such as data on customer usage or 

transactions. 

§ __.24(d)(3) – 2: Are debit cards considered under the service test as an 

alternative delivery system?

A2. By themselves, no. However, if debit cards are a part of a larger 

combination of products, such as a comprehensive electronic banking service, that allows 

an institution to deliver needed services to low- and moderate-income areas and 
157

individuals in its community, the overall delivery system that includes the debit card 

feature would be considered an alternative delivery system.

§ __.24(d)(4) Range of services provided in geographies of different incomes

§ __.24(d)(4) – 1: How do examiners evaluate the range of services provided in 

low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income geographies and the degree to which those 

services are tailored to meet the needs of those geographies?

A1. Examiners review both information from the institution’s public file and 

other information provided related to the range of services offered and how they are 

tailored to meet the particular needs of low- and moderate-income geographies. 

Examiners always review the information that institutions must maintain in their public

files: a list of services generally offered at their 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. See 12 CFR __.43(a)(5). The information provided by the financial 

institution to identify the types of services offered and any differences in services among 

its branches in different geographies may indicate how its services (including, where 

appropriate, business hours) are tailored to the convenience and needs of its assessment 

area(s), particularly low- or moderate-income geographies or low- or moderate-income 

individuals. See 12 CFR __ app. A(b)(3). Examiners also review any other information 

provided by the institution, such as data regarding the costs and features of loan and 

deposit products, account usage and retention, geographic location of accountholders, the 
158

availability of information in languages other than English, and any other relevant 

information demonstrating that its services are tailored to meet the needs of its customers 

in the various geographies in its assessment area(s). Any information that institutions 

may maintain regarding services offered through alternative delivery systems (see Q&A 

§ __.24(d)(3) –1) and through collaborations with government, community, educational 

or employer organizations to offer or expand the range of services or access to services, 

particularly designed to meet the needs of their assessment area(s), including low- and 

moderate-income communities will also be considered. Examiners will also review 

information provided by the public through comments or community contacts. 

§ __.24(e) Performance criteria – community development services

§ __.24(e) – 1: Under what conditions may an institution receive consideration for 

community development services offered by affiliates or third parties?

A1. At an institution’s option, the Agencies will consider services performed by 

an affiliate or by a third party on the institution’s behalf under the service test if the 

services provided enable the institution to help meet the credit needs of its community. 

Indirect services that enhance an institution’s ability to deliver credit products or deposit 

services within its community and that can be quantified may be considered under the 

service test, if those services have not been considered already under the lending or 

investment test. See Q&A § __.23(b) – 1. For example, an institution that contracts with 

a community organization to provide home ownership counseling to low- and moderateincome home buyers as part of the institution’s mortgage program may receive 
159

consideration for that indirect service under the service test. In contrast, donations to a 

community organization that offers financial services to low- or moderate-income 

individuals may be considered under the investment test, but would not also be eligible 

for consideration under the service test. Services performed by an affiliate will be treated 

the same as affiliate loans and investments made in the institution’s assessment area and 

may be considered if the service is not claimed by any other institution. See 12 CFR 

__.22(c) and __.23(c).

§ __.24(e) – 2: In evaluating community development services, what quantitative 

and qualitative factors do examiners review?

A2. The community development services criteria are important factors in the 

evaluation of a large institution’s service test performance. According to the regulation, 

the Agencies evaluate the extent to which the financial institution provides community 

development services as well as the innovativeness and responsiveness of such services. 

Examiners consider both quantitative and qualitative aspects of community development 

services during the evaluation. Examiners assess quantitative factors to determine the 

extent to which community development services are offered and used. The review is not 

limited to a single quantitative factor. For example, quantitative factors may include the 

number of

• low- or moderate-income participants;

• organizations served;

• sessions sponsored; or 

• financial institution staff hours devoted.
160

Examiners will also consider qualitative factors by assessing the degree to which 

community development services are innovative or responsive to community needs. See

Q&As § __.21(a) – 4 and § __.21(a) – 3. These performance criteria recognize that 

community development services sometimes require special expertise and effort on the 

part of the institution and provide benefit to the community that would not otherwise be 

possible. Such an assessment will depend on the impact of a particular activity on 

community needs and the benefits received by a community. See Q&A § __.28(b) – 1. 

For example, a financial institution employee’s unique expertise and service on the board 

of a community organization may demonstrate these qualitative factors when the 

employee’s ongoing engagement significantly improves the products, services or 

operations of the community development organization.

Examiners will consider any relevant information provided by the institution and 

from third parties that documents the extent, innovativeness, and responsiveness of 

community development services.

§ __.25 Community development test for wholesale or limited purpose institutions

§ __.25(a) Scope of test

§ __.25(a) – 1: How can certain credit card banks help to meet the credit needs of 

their communities without losing their exemption from the definition of “bank” in the 

Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA), as amended by the Competitive Equality Banking 

Act of 1987 (CEBA)?
161

A1. Although the BHCA restricts institutions known as CEBA credit card banks 

to credit card operations, a CEBA credit card bank can engage in community 

development activities without losing its exemption under the BHCA. A CEBA credit 

card bank could provide community development services and investments without 

engaging in operations other than credit card operations. For example, the bank could 

provide credit card counseling, or the financial expertise of its executives, free of charge, 

to community development organizations. In addition, a CEBA credit card bank could 

make qualified investments, as long as the investments meet the guidelines for passive 

and noncontrolling investments provided in the BHCA and the Board's Regulation Y. 

Finally, although a CEBA credit card bank cannot make any loans other than credit card 

loans, under 12 CFR __.25(d)(2) (community development test – indirect activities), the 

bank could elect to have part of its qualified passive and noncontrolling investments in a 

third-party lending consortium considered as community development lending, provided 

that the consortium’s loans otherwise meet the requirements for community development 

lending. When assessing a CEBA credit card bank’s CRA performance under the 

community development test, examiners will take into account the bank’s performance 

context. In particular, examiners will consider the legal constraints imposed by the 

BHCA on the bank’s activities, as part of the bank’s performance context in 12 CFR 

__.21(b)(4).

§ __.25(d) Indirect activities
162

§ __.25(d) – 1: How are investments in third-party community development 

organizations considered under the community development test?

A1. Similar to the lending test for retail institutions, investments in third-party 

community development organizations may be considered as qualified investments or as 

community development loans or both (provided there is no double counting), at the 

institution’s option, as described above in the discussion regarding 12 CFR __.22(d) and 

__.23(b).

§ __.25(e) Benefit to assessment area(s)

§ __.25(e) – 1: How do examiners evaluate a wholesale or limited purpose 

institution’s qualified investment in a fund that invests in projects nationwide and which 

has a primary purpose of community development, as that is defined in the regulations?

A1. If examiners find that a wholesale or limited purpose institution has 

adequately addressed the needs of its assessment area(s), they will give consideration to 

qualified investments, as well as community development loans and community 

development services, by that institution nationwide. In determining whether an 

institution has adequately addressed the needs of its assessment area(s), examiners will 

consider qualified investments that benefit a broader statewide or regional area that 

includes the institution’s assessment area(s).

§ __.25(f) Community development performance rating
163

§ __.25(f) – 1: Must a wholesale or limited purpose institution engage in all three 

categories of community development activities (lending, investment, and service) to 

perform well under the community development test?

A1. No, a wholesale or limited purpose institution may perform well under the 

community development test by engaging in one or more of these activities.

§ __.26--Small institution performance standards

§ __.26 – 1: When evaluating a small or intermediate small institution’s

performance, will examiners consider, at the institution’s request, retail and community 

development loans originated or purchased by affiliates, qualified investments made by 

affiliates, or community development services provided by affiliates?

A1. Yes. However, a small institution that elects to have examiners consider 

affiliate activities must maintain sufficient information that the examiners may evaluate 

these activities under the appropriate performance criteria and ensure that the activities 

are not claimed by another institution. The constraints applicable to affiliate activities 

claimed by large institutions also apply to small and intermediate small institutions. See 

Q&As addressing 12 CFR __.22(c)(2) and related guidance provided to large institutions 

regarding affiliate activities. Examiners will not include affiliate lending in calculating 

the percentage of loans and, as appropriate, other lending-related activities located in an 

institution’s assessment area(s).

§ __.26(a) Performance criteria
164

§ __.26(a)(2) Intermediate small institutions

§ __.26(a)(2) – 1: When is an institution examined as an intermediate small 

institution?

A1. When a small institution has met the intermediate small institution asset 

threshold delineated in 12 CFR __.12(u)(1) for two consecutive calendar year-ends, the 

institution may be examined under the intermediate small institution examination 

procedures. The regulation does not specify an additional lag period between becoming 

an intermediate small institution and being examined as an intermediate small institution, 

as it does for large institutions, because an intermediate small institution is not subject to 

CRA data collection and reporting requirements. Institutions should contact their 

primary regulator for information on examination schedules.

§ __.26(b) Lending test

§ __.26(b) – 1: May examiners consider, under one or more of the performance 

criteria of the small institution performance standards, lending-related activities, such as 

community development loans and lending-related qualified investments, when 

evaluating a small institution?

A1. Yes. Examiners can consider “lending-related activities,” including 

community development loans and lending-related qualified investments, when 

evaluating the first four performance criteria of the small institution performance test. 

Although lending-related activities are specifically mentioned in the regulation in 
165

connection with only the first three criteria (i.e., loan-to-deposit ratio, percentage of loans 

in the institution’s assessment area(s), and lending to borrowers of different incomes and 

businesses of different sizes), examiners can also consider these activities when they 

evaluate the fourth criteria – geographic distribution of the institution’s loans.

Although lending-related community development activities are evaluated under 

the community development test applicable to intermediate small institutions, these 

activities may also augment the loan-to-deposit ratio analysis (12 CFR __.26(b)(1)) and 

the percentage of loans in the intermediate small institution’s assessment area(s) analysis 

(12 CFR __.26(b)(2)), if appropriate.

§ __.26(b) – 2: What is meant by “as appropriate” when referring to the fact that 

lending-related activities will be considered, “as appropriate,” under the various small 

institution performance criteria?

A2. “As appropriate” means that lending-related activities will be considered 

when it is necessary to determine whether an institution meets or exceeds the standards 

for a satisfactory rating. Examiners will also consider other lending-related activities at 

an institution’s request, provided they have not also been considered under the 

community development test applicable to intermediate small institutions.

§ __.26(b) – 3: When evaluating a small institution’s lending performance, will 

examiners consider, at the institution’s request, community development loans originated 

or purchased by a consortium in which the institution participates or by a third party in 

which the institution has invested?

A3. Yes. However, a small institution that elects to have examiners consider 

community development loans originated or purchased by a consortium or third party 
166

must maintain sufficient information on its share of the community development loans so 

that the examiners may evaluate these loans under the small institution performance 

criteria.

§ __.26(b) – 4: Under the small institution lending test performance standards, 

will examiners consider both loan originations and purchases?

A4. Yes, consistent with the other assessment methods in the regulation, 

examiners will consider both loans originated and purchased by the institution. Likewise, 

examiners may consider any other loan data the small institution chooses to provide, 

including data on loans outstanding, commitments, and letters of credit.

§ __.26(b) – 5: Under the small institution lending test performance standards, 

how will qualified investments be considered for purposes of determining whether a 

small institution receives a satisfactory CRA rating?

A5. The small institution lending test performance standards focus on lending 

and other lending-related activities. Therefore, examiners will consider only lendingrelated qualified investments for the purpose of determining whether a small institution

that is not an intermediate small institution receives a satisfactory CRA rating.

§ __.26(b)(1) Loan-to-deposit ratio

§ __.26(b)(1) – 1: How is the loan-to-deposit ratio calculated?

A1. A small institution’s loan-to-deposit ratio is calculated in the same manner 

that the Uniform Bank Performance Report (UBPR) determines the ratio. It is calculated 

by dividing the institution’s net loans and leases by its total deposits. The ratio is found 
167

in the Liquidity and Investment Portfolio section of the UBPR. Examiners will use this 

ratio to calculate an average since the last examination by adding the quarterly loan-todeposit ratios and dividing the total by the number of quarters.

§ __.26(b)(1) – 2: How is the “reasonableness” of a loan-to-deposit ratio 

evaluated?

A2. No specific ratio is reasonable in every circumstance, and each small 

institution’s ratio is evaluated in light of information from the performance context, 

including the institution’s capacity to lend, demographic and economic factors present in 

the assessment area(s), and the lending opportunities available in the assessment area(s). 

If a small institution’s loan-to-deposit ratio appears unreasonable after considering this 

information, lending performance may still be satisfactory under this criterion taking into 

consideration the number and the dollar volume of loans sold to the secondary market or 

the number and amount and innovativeness or complexity of community development 

loans and lending-related qualified investments.

§ __.26(b)(1) – 3: If an institution makes a large number of loans off-shore, will 

examiners segregate the domestic loan-to-deposit ratio from the foreign loan-to-deposit 

ratio?

A3. No. Examiners will look at the institution’s net loan-to-deposit ratio for the 

whole institution, without any adjustments.

§ __.26(b)(2) Percentage of lending within assessment area(s)
168

§ __.26(b)(2) – 1: Must a small institution have a majority of its lending in its 

assessment area(s) to receive a satisfactory performance rating?

A1. No. The percentage of loans and, as appropriate, other lending-related 

activities located in the institution’s assessment area(s) is but one of the performance 

criteria upon which small institutions are evaluated. If the percentage of loans and other 

lending-related activities in an institution’s assessment area(s) is less than a majority, 

then the institution does not meet the standards for satisfactory performance only under 

this criterion. The effect on the overall performance rating of the institution, however, is 

considered in light of the performance context, including information regarding economic 

conditions; loan demand; the institution’s size, financial condition, business strategies, 

and branching network; and other aspects of the institution’s lending record.

§ __.26(b)(3) & (4) Distribution of lending within assessment area(s) by borrower 

income and geographic location

§ __.26(b)(3) & (4) – 1: How will a small institution’s performance be assessed 

under these lending distribution criteria?

A1. Distribution of loans, like other small institution performance criteria, is 

considered in light of the performance context. For example, a small institution is not 

required to lend evenly throughout its assessment area(s) or in any particular geography. 

However, in order to meet the standards for satisfactory performance under this criterion, 

conspicuous gaps in a small institution’s loan distribution must be adequately explained 

by performance context factors such as lending opportunities in the institution’s 
169

assessment area(s), the institution’s product offerings and business strategy, and 

institutional capacity and constraints. In addition, it may be impracticable to review the 

geographic distribution of the lending of an institution with very few demographically 

distinct geographies within an assessment area. If sufficient information on the income 

levels of individual borrowers or the revenues or sizes of business borrowers is not 

available, examiners may use loan size as a proxy for estimating borrower characteristics, 

where appropriate.

§ __.26(c) Intermediate small institution community development test

§ __.26(c) – 1: How will the community development test be applied flexibly for 

intermediate small institutions?

A1. Generally, intermediate small institutions engage in a combination of 

community development loans, qualified investments, and community development 

services. An institution may not simply ignore one or more of these categories of 

community development, nor do the regulations prescribe a required threshold for 

community development loans, qualified investments, and community development 

services. Instead, based on the institution’s assessment of community development needs 

in its assessment area(s), it may engage in different categories of community 

development activities that are responsive to those needs and consistent with the 

institution’s capacity.

An intermediate small institution has the flexibility to allocate its resources 

among community development loans, qualified investments, and community 
170

development services in amounts that it reasonably determines are most responsive to 

community development needs and opportunities. Appropriate levels of each of these 

activities would depend on the capacity and business strategy of the institution, 

community needs, and number and types of opportunities for community development.

§ __.26(c)(3) Community development services

§ __.26(c)(3) – 1: What will examiners consider when evaluating the provision of 

community development services by an intermediate small institution?

A1. In addition to the examples listed in Q&A § __.12(i) – 3, examiners will 

consider retail banking services as community development services if they provide 

benefit to low- or moderate-income individuals. Examples include: 

• low-cost deposit accounts; 

• electronic benefit transfer accounts and point of sale terminal systems;

• individual development accounts; 

• free or low-cost government, payroll, or other check cashing services; and

• reasonably priced international remittance services. 

In addition, providing services to low- and moderate-income individuals through 

branches and other facilities located in low- and moderate-income, designated disaster, or 

distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income areas is considered. 

Generally, the presence of branches located in low- and moderate-income geographies 
171

will help to demonstrate the availability of banking services to low- and moderate-income 

individuals.

§ __.26(c)(4) Responsiveness to community development needs

§ __.26(c)(4) – 1: When evaluating an intermediate small institution’s community 

development record, what will examiners consider when reviewing the responsiveness of 

community development lending, qualified investments, and community development 

services to the community development needs of the area?

A1. When evaluating an intermediate small institution’s community development 

record, examiners will consider not only quantitative measures of performance, such as 

the number and amount of community development loans, qualified investments, and 

community development services, but also qualitative aspects of performance. In 

particular, examiners will evaluate the responsiveness of the institution’s community 

development activities in light of the institution’s capacity, business strategy, the needs of 

the community, and the number and types of opportunities for each type of community 

development activity (its performance context). Examiners also will consider the results 

of any assessment by the institution of community development needs, and how the

institution’s activities respond to those needs.

An evaluation of the degree of responsiveness considers the following factors: the 

volume, mix, and qualitative aspects of community development loans, qualified 

investments, and community development services. Consideration of the qualitative 
172

aspects of performance recognizes that community development activities sometimes 

require special expertise or effort on the part of the institution or provide a benefit to the 

community that would not otherwise be made available. (However, “innovativeness” and 

“complexity” ‒ factors examiners consider when evaluating a large institution under the 

lending, investment, and service tests ‒ are not criteria in the intermediate small 

institutions’ community development test.) In some cases, a smaller loan may have more 

qualitative benefit to a community than a larger loan. Activities are considered 

particularly responsive to community development needs if they benefit low- and 

moderate-income individuals in low- or moderate-income geographies, designated 

disaster areas, or distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies. 

Activities are also considered particularly responsive to community development needs if 

they benefit low- or moderate-income geographies.

§ __.26(d) Performance rating

§ __.26(d) −1: How can a small institution that is not an intermediate small 

institution achieve an “outstanding” performance rating?

A1. A small institution that is not an intermediate small institution that meets 

each of the standards in the lending test for a “satisfactory” rating and exceeds some or 

all of those standards may warrant an “outstanding” performance rating. In assessing 

performance at the “outstanding” level, the Agencies consider the extent to which the 

institution exceeds each of the performance standards and, at the institution’s option, its 

performance in making qualified investments and providing services that enhance credit 
173

availability in its assessment area(s). In some cases, a small institution may qualify for 

an “outstanding” performance rating solely on the basis of its lending activities, but only 

if its performance materially exceeds the standards for a “satisfactory” rating, particularly 

with respect to the penetration of borrowers at all income levels and the dispersion of 

loans throughout the geographies in its assessment area(s) that display income variation. 

An institution with a high loan-to-deposit ratio and a high percentage of loans in its 

assessment area(s), but with only a reasonable penetration of borrowers at all income 

levels or a reasonable dispersion of loans throughout geographies of differing income 

levels in its assessment area(s), generally will not be rated “outstanding” based only on 

its lending performance. However, the institution’s performance in making qualified 

investments and its performance in providing branches and other services and delivery 

systems that enhance credit availability in its assessment area(s) may augment the 

institution’s satisfactory rating to the extent that it may be rated “outstanding.”

§ __.26(d) – 2: Will a small institution’s qualified investments, community 

development loans, and community development services be considered if they do not 

directly benefit its assessment area(s)?

A2. Yes. These activities are eligible for consideration if they benefit a broader 

statewide or regional area that includes a small institution’s assessment area(s), as 

discussed more fully in Q&As § __.12(h) – 6 and § __.12(h) – 7.

§ __.27--Strategic plan

§ __.27(c) Plans in general
174

§ __.27(c) – 1: To what extent will the Agencies provide guidance to an 

institution during the development of its strategic plan?

A1. An institution will have an opportunity to consult with and provide 

information to the Agencies on a proposed strategic plan. Through this process, an 

institution is provided guidance on procedures and on the information necessary to ensure 

a complete submission. For example, the Agencies will provide guidance on whether the 

level of detail as set out in the proposed plan would be sufficient to permit Agency 

evaluation of the plan. However, the Agencies’ guidance during plan development and, 

particularly, prior to the public comment period, will not include commenting on the 

merits of a proposed strategic plan or on the adequacy of measurable goals.

§ __.27(c) – 2: How will a joint strategic plan be reviewed if the affiliates have 

different primary Federal supervisors?

A2. The Agencies will coordinate review of and action on the joint plan. Each 

Agency will evaluate the measurable goals for those affiliates for which it is the primary 

regulator.

§ __.27(f) Plan content

§ __.27(f)(1) Measurable goals

§ __.27(f)(1) – 1: How should annual measurable goals be specified in a strategic 

plan?
175

A1. Annual measurable goals (e.g., number of loans, dollar amount, geographic 

location of activity, and benefit to low- and moderate-income areas or individuals) must 

be stated with sufficient specificity to permit the public and the Agencies to quantify 

what performance will be expected. However, institutions are provided flexibility in 

specifying goals. For example, an institution may provide ranges of lending amounts in 

different categories of loans. Measurable goals may also be linked to funding 

requirements of certain public programs or indexed to other external factors as long as 

these mechanisms provide a quantifiable standard.

§ __.27(g) Plan approval

§ __.27(g)(2) Public participation

§ __.27(g)(2) – 1: How will the public receive notice of a proposed strategic plan?

A1. An institution submitting a strategic plan for approval by the Agencies is 

required to solicit public comment on the plan for a period of 30 days after publishing 

notice of the plan at least once in a newspaper of general circulation. The notice should 

be sufficiently prominent to attract public attention and should make clear that public 

comment is desired. An institution may, in addition, provide notice to the public in any 

other manner it chooses.

§ __.28--Assigned ratings
176

§ __.28 – 1: Are innovative lending practices, innovative or complex qualified 

investments, and innovative community development services required for a 

“satisfactory” or “outstanding” CRA rating?

A1. No. The performance criterion of “innovativeness” applies only under the 

lending, investment, and service tests applicable to large institutions and the community 

development test applicable to wholesale and limited purpose institutions. Moreover, 

even under these tests, the lack of innovative lending practices, innovative or complex 

qualified investments, or innovative community development services alone will not 

result in a “needs to improve” CRA rating. However, under these tests, the use of 

innovative lending practices, innovative or complex qualified investments, and 

innovative community development services may augment the consideration given to an 

institution’s performance under the quantitative criteria of the regulations, resulting in a 

higher performance rating. See also Q&A § __.26(c)(4) – 1 for a discussion about 

responsiveness to community development needs under the community development test 

applicable to intermediate small institutions.

§ __.28(a) Ratings in general

§ __.28(a) – 1: How are institutions with domestic branches in more than one 

state assigned a rating?

A1. The evaluation of an institution that maintains domestic branches in more 

than one state (“multistate institution”) will include a written evaluation and rating of its 

CRA record of performance as a whole and in each state in which it has a domestic 
177

branch. The written evaluation will contain a separate presentation on a multistate 

institution’s performance for each MSA and the nonmetropolitan area within each state, 

if it maintains one or more domestic branch offices in these areas. This separate 

presentation will contain conclusions, supported by facts and data, on performance under 

the performance tests and standards in the regulation. The evaluation of a multistate 

institution that maintains a domestic branch in two or more states in a multistate 

metropolitan area will include a written evaluation (containing the same information 

described above) and rating of its CRA record of performance in the multistate 

metropolitan area. In such cases, the statewide evaluation and rating will be adjusted to 

reflect performance in the portion of the state not within the multistate MSA.

§ __.28(a) – 2: How are institutions that operate within only a single state 

assigned a rating?

A2. An institution that operates within only a single state (“single-state 

institution”) will be assigned a rating of its CRA record based on its performance within 

that state. In assigning this rating, the Agencies will separately present a single-state 

institution’s performance for each metropolitan area in which the institution maintains 

one or more domestic branch offices. This separate presentation will contain 

conclusions, supported by facts and data, on the single-state institution’s performance 

under the performance tests and standards in the regulation.

§ __.28(a) – 3: How do the Agencies weight performance under the lending, 

investment, and service tests for large retail institutions?

A3. A rating of “outstanding,” “high satisfactory,” “low satisfactory,” “needs to 

improve,” or “substantial noncompliance,” based on a judgment supported by facts and 
178

data, will be assigned under each performance test. Points will then be assigned to each 

rating as described in the first matrix set forth below. A large retail institution’s overall 

rating under the lending, investment and service tests will then be calculated in 

accordance with the second matrix set forth below, which incorporates the rating 

principles in the regulation.

POINTS ASSIGNED FOR PERFORMANCE UNDER LENDING, INVESTMENT 

AND SERVICE TESTS

Lending Service Investment

Outstanding 12 6 6

High Satisfactory 9 4 4

Low Satisfactory 6 3 3

Needs to Improve 3 1 1

Substantial Noncompliance 0 0 0
179

COMPOSITE RATING POINT REQUIREMENTS

(Add points from three tests)

Rating Total Points

Outstanding 20 or over

Satisfactory 11 through 19

Needs to Improve 5 through 10

Substantial Noncompliance 0 through 4

Note: There is one exception to the Composite Rating matrix. An institution may not 

receive a rating of “satisfactory” unless it receives at least “low satisfactory” on the 

lending test. Therefore, the total points are capped at three times the lending test score.

§ __.28(b) Lending, investment, and service test ratings

§ __.28(b) – 1: How is performance under the quantitative and qualitative 

performance criteria weighed when examiners assign a CRA rating?

A1. The lending, investment, and service tests each contain a number of 

performance criteria designed to measure whether an institution is effectively helping to 

meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income 

neighborhoods, in a safe and sound manner. Some of these performance criteria are 

quantitative, such as number and amount, and others, such as the use of innovative or 

flexible lending practices, the innovativeness or complexity of qualified investments, and 

the innovativeness and responsiveness of community development services, are 
180

qualitative. The performance criteria that deal with these qualitative aspects of 

performance recognize that these loans, qualified investments, and community 

development services sometimes require special expertise and effort on the part of the 

institution and provide a benefit to the community that would not otherwise be possible. 

As such, the Agencies consider the qualitative aspects of an institution’s activities when 

measuring the benefits received by a community. An institution’s performance under 

these qualitative criteria may augment the consideration given to an institution’s 

performance under the quantitative criteria of the regulations, resulting in a higher level 

of performance and rating.

§ __.28(c) Effect of evidence of discriminatory or other illegal credit practices

§ __.28(c) – 1: What is meant by “discriminatory or other illegal credit 

practices”?

A1. An institution engages in discriminatory credit practices if it discourages or 

discriminates against credit applicants or borrowers on a prohibited basis, in violation, for 

example, of the Fair Housing Act or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (as implemented 

by Regulation B). Examples of other illegal credit practices inconsistent with helping to 

meet community credit needs include violations of

• the Truth in Lending Act regarding rescission of certain mortgage transactions and 

regarding disclosures and certain loan term restrictions in connection with credit 

transactions that are subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act;
181

• the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act regarding the giving and accepting of 

referral fees, unearned fees, or kickbacks in connection with certain mortgage 

transactions; and

• the Federal Trade Commission Act regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Examiners will determine the effect of evidence of illegal credit practices as set forth in 

examination procedures and § __.28(c) of the regulation.

Violations of other provisions of the consumer protection laws generally will not 

adversely affect an institution’s CRA rating, but may warrant the inclusion of comments 

in an institution’s performance evaluation. These comments may address the institution’s 

policies, procedures, training programs, and internal assessment efforts.

§ __.29--Effect of CRA performance on applications

§ __.29(a) CRA performance

§ __.29(a) – 1: What weight is given to an institution’s CRA performance 

examination in reviewing an application?

A1. In reviewing applications in which CRA performance is a relevant factor, 

information from a CRA examination of the institution is a particularly important 

consideration. The examination is a detailed evaluation of the institution’s CRA 

performance by its supervisory Agency. In this light, an examination is an important, and 

often controlling, factor in the consideration of an institution’s record. In some cases, 

however, the examination may not be recent, or a specific issue raised in the application 
182

process, such as progress in addressing weaknesses noted by examiners, progress in 

implementing commitments previously made to the reviewing Agency, or a supported 

allegation from a commenter, is relevant to CRA performance under the regulation and 

was not addressed in the examination. In these circumstances, the applicant should 

present sufficient information to supplement its record of performance and to respond to 

the substantive issues raised in the application proceeding.

§ __.29(a) – 2: What consideration is given to an institution’s commitments for 

future action in reviewing an application by those Agencies that consider such 

commitments?

A2. Commitments for future action are not viewed as part of the CRA record of 

performance. In general, institutions cannot use commitments made in the applications 

process to overcome a seriously deficient record of CRA performance. However, 

commitments for improvements in an institution’s performance may be appropriate to 

address specific weaknesses in an otherwise satisfactory record or to address CRA 

performance when a financially troubled institution is being acquired.

§ __.29(b) Interested parties

§ __.29(b) – 1: What consideration is given to comments from interested parties 

in reviewing an application?

A1. Materials relating to CRA performance received during the application 

process can provide valuable information. Written comments, which may express either 

support for or opposition to the application, are made a part of the record in accordance 
183

with the Agencies’ procedures, and are carefully considered in making the Agencies’ 

decisions. Comments should be supported by facts about the applicant’s performance 

and should be as specific as possible in explaining the basis for supporting or opposing 

the application. These comments must be submitted within the time limits provided 

under the Agencies’ procedures.

§ __.29(b) – 2: Is an institution required to enter into agreements with private 

parties?

A2. No. Although communications between an institution and members of its 

community may provide a valuable method for the institution to assess how best to 

address the credit needs of the community, the CRA does not require an institution to 

enter into agreements with private parties. The Agencies do not monitor compliance with 

nor enforce these agreements.

§ __.41--Assessment area delineation

§ __.41(a) In general

§ __.41(a) – 1: How do the Agencies evaluate “assessment areas” under the CRA 

regulations?

A1. The rule focuses on the distribution and level of an institution’s lending, 

investments, and services rather than on how and why an institution delineated its

assessment area(s) in a particular manner. Therefore, the Agencies will not evaluate an 

institution’s delineation of its assessment area(s) as a separate performance criterion. 
184

Rather, the Agencies will only review whether the assessment area(s) delineated by the 

institution complies with the limitations set forth in the regulations at 12 CFR __.41(e).

§ __.41(a) – 2: If an institution elects to have the Agencies consider affiliate 

lending, will this decision affect the institution’s assessment area(s)?

A2. If an institution elects to have the lending activities of its affiliates 

considered in the evaluation of the institution’s lending, the geographies in which the 

affiliate lends do not affect the institution’s delineation of assessment area(s).

§ __.41(a) – 3: Can a financial institution identify a specific racial or ethnic group 

rather than a geographic area as its assessment area?

A3. No, assessment areas must be based on geography. The only exception to 

the requirement to delineate an assessment area based on geography is that an institution, 

the business of which predominantly consists of serving the needs of military personnel 

or their dependents who are not located within a defined geographic area, may delineate 

its entire deposit customer base as its assessment area.

§ __.41(c) Geographic area(s) for institutions other than wholesale or limited purpose 

institutions

§ __.41(c)(1) Generally consist of one or more MSAs or metropolitan divisions or one or 

more contiguous political subdivisions

§ __.41(c)(1) – 1: Besides cities, towns, and counties, what other units of local 

government are political subdivisions for CRA purposes?
185

A1. Townships and Indian reservations are political subdivisions for CRA 

purposes. Institutions should be aware that the boundaries of townships and Indian 

reservations may not be consistent with the boundaries of the census tracts (i.e., 

geographies) in the area. In these cases, institutions must ensure that their assessment 

area(s) consists only of whole geographies by adding any portions of the geographies that 

lie outside the political subdivision to the delineated assessment area(s).

§ __.41(c)(1) – 2: Are wards, school districts, voting districts, and water districts 

political subdivisions for CRA purposes?

A2. No. However, an institution that determines that it predominantly serves an 

area that is smaller than a city, town, or other political subdivision may delineate as its 

assessment area the larger political subdivision and then, in accordance with 12 CFR 

__.41(d), adjust the boundaries of the assessment area to include only the portion of the 

political subdivision that it reasonably can be expected to serve. The smaller area that the 

institution delineates must consist of entire geographies, may not reflect illegal 

discrimination, and may not arbitrarily exclude low- or moderate-income geographies.

§ __.41(d) Adjustments to geographic area(s)

§ __.41(d) – 1: When may an institution adjust the boundaries of an assessment 

area to include only a portion of a political subdivision?

A1. Institutions must include whole geographies (i.e., census tracts) in their 

assessment areas and generally should include entire political subdivisions. Because 

census tracts are the common geographic areas used consistently nationwide for data 
186

collection, the Agencies require that assessment areas be made up of whole geographies. 

If including an entire political subdivision would create an area that is larger than the area 

the institution can reasonably be expected to serve, an institution may, but is not required 

to, adjust the boundaries of its assessment area to include only portions of the political 

subdivision. For example, this adjustment is appropriate if the assessment area would 

otherwise be extremely large, of unusual configuration, or divided by significant 

geographic barriers (such as a river, mountain, or major highway system). When 

adjusting the boundaries of their assessment areas, institutions must not arbitrarily 

exclude low- or moderate-income geographies or set boundaries that reflect illegal 

discrimination.

§ __.41(e) Limitations on delineation of an assessment area

§ __.41(e)(3) May not arbitrarily exclude low- or moderate-income geographies

§ __.41(e)(3) – 1: How will examiners determine whether an institution has 

arbitrarily excluded low- or moderate-income geographies?

A1. Examiners will make this determination on a case-by-case basis after 

considering the facts relevant to the institution’s assessment area delineation. 

Information that examiners will consider may include

• income levels in the institution’s assessment area(s) and surrounding geographies;

• locations of branches and deposit-taking ATMs;

• loan distribution in the institution’s assessment area(s) and surrounding geographies;

• the institution’s size;
187

• the institution’s financial condition; and

• the business strategy, corporate structure, and product offerings of the institution.

§ __.41(e)(4) May not extend substantially beyond an MSA boundary or beyond a state 

boundary unless located in a multistate MSA

§ __.41(e)(4) – 1: What are the maximum limits on the size of an assessment 

area?

A1. An institution may not delineate an assessment area extending substantially 

across the boundaries of an MSA unless the MSA is in a combined statistical area 

(CSA)). Although more than one MSA in a CSA may be delineated as a single 

assessment area, an institution’s CRA performance in individual MSAs in those 

assessment areas will be evaluated using separate median family incomes and other 

relevant information at the MSA level rather than at the CSA level.

An assessment area also may not extend substantially across state boundaries 

unless the assessment area is located in a multistate MSA. An institution may not 

delineate a whole state as its assessment area unless the entire state is contained within an 

MSA. These limitations apply to wholesale and limited purpose institutions as well as 

other institutions.

An institution must delineate separate assessment areas for the areas inside and 

outside an MSA if the area served by the institution’s branches outside the MSA extends 

substantially beyond the MSA boundary. Similarly, the institution must delineate 

separate assessment areas for the areas inside and outside of a state if the institution’s 
188

branches extend substantially beyond the boundary of one state (unless the assessment 

area is located in a multistate MSA). In addition, the institution should also delineate 

separate assessment areas if it has branches in areas within the same state that are widely 

separate and not at all contiguous. For example, an institution that has its main office in 

New York City and a branch in Buffalo, New York, and each office serves only the 

immediate areas around it, should delineate two separate assessment areas. 

§ __.41(e)(4) – 2: May an institution delineate one assessment area that consists 

of an MSA and two large counties that abut the MSA but are not adjacent to each other?

A2. As a general rule, an institution’s assessment area should not extend 

substantially beyond the boundary of an MSA. Therefore, the MSA would be a separate 

assessment area, and because the two abutting counties are not adjacent to each other and, 

in this example, extend substantially beyond the boundary of the MSA, the institution 

would delineate each county as a separate assessment area, assuming branches or deposittaking ATMs are located in each county and the MSA. So, in this example, there would 

be three assessment areas. However, if the MSA and the two counties were in the same 

CSA, then the institution could delineate only one assessment area including them all. 

But, the institution’s CRA performance in the MSAs and the non-MSA counties in that 

assessment area would be evaluated using separate median family incomes and other 

relevant information at the MSA and state, non-MSA level, rather than at the CSA level.

§ __.42--Data collection, reporting, and disclosure
189

§ __.42 – 1: When must an institution collect and report data under the CRA 

regulations?

A1. All institutions except small institutions are subject to data collection and 

reporting requirements. (“Small institution” is defined in the Agencies’ CRA regulations 

at 12 CFR __.12(u).) Examples describing the data collection requirements of 

institutions, in particular those that have just surpassed the asset-size threshold of a small 

institution, may be found on the FFIEC Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/cra. All 

institutions that are subject to the data collection and reporting requirements must report 

the data for a calendar year (CY) by March 1 of the subsequent year. For example, data 

for CY 2015 would be reported by March 1, 2016.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System processes the reports for 

all of the primary regulators. Data may be submitted on diskette, CD-ROM, or via 

Internet e-mail. 

CRA respondents are encouraged to use the free FFIEC Data Entry Software to 

send their CRA data. “Submission via Web” is the preferred option. CRA respondents 

may also send a properly encrypted CRA file (using the “Export to Federal Reserve 

Board via Internet e-mail” option) to CRASUB@FRB.GOV. 

Please mail diskette or CD-ROM submissions to: 

Federal Reserve Board

Attention: CRA Processing 

20th & Constitution Avenue, NW

MS N402

Washington, DC 20551-0001.
190

For questions about submitting or resubmitting CRA data, please contact the 

FFIEC at CRAHELP@FRB.GOV.

§ __.42 – 2: Should an institution develop its own program for data collection, or 

will the regulators require a certain format?

A2. An institution may use the free software that is provided by the FFIEC to 

reporting institutions for data collection and reporting or develop its own program. Those 

institutions that develop their own programs may create a data submission using the File 

Specifications and Edit Validation Rules that have been set forth to assist with electronic 

data submissions. For information about specific electronic formatting procedures, 

contact CRAHELP@FRB.GOV.

§ __.42 – 3: How should an institution report data on lines of credit?

A3. Institutions must collect and report data on lines of credit in the same way 

that they provide data on loan originations. Lines of credit are considered originated at 

the time the line is approved or increased; and an increase is considered a new 

origination. Generally, the full amount of the credit line is the amount that is considered

originated. In the case of an increase to an existing line, the amount of the increase is the 

amount that is considered originated and that amount should be reported. However, 

consistent with the Call Report instructions, institutions would not report an increase to a 

small business or small farm line of credit if the increase would cause the total line of 

credit to exceed $1 million, in the case of a small business line, or $500,000, in the case 

of a small farm line. Of course, institutions may provide information about such line 

increases to examiners as “other loan data.”

§ __.42 – 4: Should renewals of lines of credit be collected and/or reported?
191

A4. Renewals of lines of credit for small business, small farm, consumer, or 

community development purposes should be collected and reported, if applicable, in the 

same manner as renewals of small business or small farm loans. See Q&A § __.42(a) –

5. Institutions that are HMDA reporters continue to collect and report home equity lines 

of credit at their option in accordance with the requirements of 12 CFR part 1003.

§ __.42 – 5: When should merging institutions collect data?

A5. Three scenarios of data collection responsibilities for the calendar year of a 

merger and subsequent data reporting responsibilities are described below.

• Two institutions are exempt from CRA collection and reporting requirements because 

of asset size. The institutions merge. No data collection is required for the year in which 

the merger takes place, regardless of the resulting asset size. Data collection would begin 

after two consecutive years in which the combined institution had year-end assets at least 

equal to the small institution asset-size threshold amount described in 12 CFR 

__.12(u)(1).

• Institution A, an institution required to collect and report the data, and Institution B, 

an exempt institution, merge. Institution A is the surviving institution. For the year of 

the merger, data collection is required for Institution A’s transactions. Data collection is 

optional for the transactions of the previously exempt institution. For the following year, 

all transactions of the surviving institution must be collected and reported.

• Two institutions that each are required to collect and report the data merge. Data 

collection is required for the entire year of the merger and for subsequent years so long as 

the surviving institution is not exempt. The surviving institution may file either a 
192

consolidated submission or separate submissions for the year of the merger but must file 

a consolidated report for subsequent years.

§ __.42 – 6: Can small institutions get a copy of the data collection software even 

though they are not required to collect or report data?

A6. Yes. Any institution that is interested in receiving a copy of the software 

may download it from the FFIEC Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/cra. For assistance, 

institutions may send an e-mail to CRAHELP@FRB.GOV.

§ __.42 – 7: If a small institution is designated a wholesale or limited purpose 

institution, must it collect data that it would not otherwise be required to collect because 

it is a small institution?

A7. No. However, small institutions that are designated as wholesale or limited 

purpose institutions must be prepared to identify those loans, investments, and services to 

be evaluated under the community development test.

§ __.42(a) Loan information required to be collected and maintained

§ __.42(a) – 1: Must institutions collect and report data on all commercial loans of 

$1 million or less at origination?

A1. No. Institutions that are not exempt from data collection and reporting are 

required to collect and report only those commercial loans that they capture in Call 

Report Schedule RC-C, Part II. Small business loans are defined as those whose original 

amounts are $1 million or less and that were reported as either “Loans secured by 
193

nonfarm or nonresidential real estate” or “Commercial and industrial loans” in Call 

Report Schedule RC-C, Part I.

§ __.42(a) – 2: For loans defined as small business loans, what information should 

be collected and maintained?

A2. Institutions that are not exempt from data collection and reporting are 

required to collect and maintain, in a standardized, machine-readable format, information 

on each small business loan originated or purchased for each calendar year: 

• A unique number or alpha-numeric symbol that can be used to identify the relevant 

loan file.

• The loan amount at origination.

• The loan location.

• An indicator whether the loan was to a business with gross annual revenues of $1 

million or less.

The location of the loan must be maintained by census tract. In addition, 

supplemental information contained in the file specifications includes a date associated 

with the origination or purchase and whether a loan was originated or purchased by an 

affiliate. The same requirements apply to small farm loans.

§ __.42(a) – 3: Will farm loans need to be segregated from business loans?

A3. Yes.

§ __.42(a) – 4: Should institutions collect and report data on all agricultural loans 

of $500,000 or less at origination?

A4. Institutions are to report those farm loans that they capture in Call Report 

Schedule RC-C, Part II. Small farm loans are defined as those whose original amounts 
194

are $500,000 or less and were reported as either “Loans to finance agricultural production 

and other loans to farmers” or “Loans secured by farmland” in Call Report Schedule RCC, Part I.

§ __.42(a) – 5: Should institutions collect and report data about small business 

and small farm loans that are refinanced or renewed?

A5. An institution should collect information about small business and small 

farm loans that it refinances or renews as loan originations. (A refinancing generally 

occurs when the existing loan obligation or note is satisfied and a new note is written, 

while a renewal refers to an extension of the term of a loan. However, for purposes of 

small business and small farm CRA data collection and reporting, it is not necessary to 

distinguish between the two.) When reporting small business and small farm data, 

however, an institution may only report one origination (including a renewal or 

refinancing treated as an origination) per loan per year, unless an increase in the loan 

amount is granted. However, a demand loan that is merely reviewed annually is not 

reported as a renewal because the term of the loan has not been extended.

If an institution increases the amount of a small business or small farm loan when 

it extends the term of the loan, it should always report the amount of the increase as a 

small business or small farm loan origination. The institution should report only the 

amount of the increase if the original or remaining amount of the loan has already been 

reported one time that year. For example, a financial institution makes a term loan for 

$25,000; principal payments have resulted in a present outstanding balance of $15,000. 

In the next year, the customer requests an additional $5,000, which is approved, and a 

new note is written for $20,000. In this example, the institution should report both the 
195

$5,000 increase and the renewal or refinancing of the $15,000 as originations for that 

year. These two originations may be reported together as a single origination of $20,000.

§ __.42(a) – 6: Does a loan to the “fishing industry” come under the definition of 

a small farm loan?

A6. Yes. Instructions for Call Report Schedule RC-C, Part I include loans “made 

for the purpose of financing fisheries and forestries, including loans to commercial 

fishermen” as a component of the definition for “Loans to finance agricultural production 

and other loans to farmers.” Call Report Schedule RC-C, Part II, which serves as the 

basis of the definition for small business and small farm loans in the regulation, captures

both “Loans to finance agricultural production and other loans to farmers” and “Loans 

secured by farmland.”

§ __.42(a) – 7: How should an institution report a home equity line of credit, part 

of which is for home improvement purposes and part of which is for small business 

purposes?

A7. When an institution originates a home equity line of credit that is for both 

home improvement and small business purposes, the institution has the option of 

reporting the portion of the home equity line that is for home improvement purposes as a 

home improvement loan under HMDA. Examiners would consider that portion of the 

line when they evaluate the institution’s home mortgage lending. When an institution 

refinances a home equity line of credit into another home equity line of credit, HMDA 

reporting continues to be optional. If the institution opts to report the refinanced line, the 

entire amount of the line would be reported as a refinancing and examiners will consider 

the entire refinanced line when they evaluate the institution’s home mortgage lending.
196

If an institution that has originated a home equity line of credit for both home 

improvement and small business purposes (or if an institution that has refinanced such a 

line into another line) chooses not to report a home improvement loan (or a refinancing) 

under HMDA, and if the line meets the regulatory definition of a “community 

development loan,” the institution should collect and report information on the entire line 

as a community development loan. If the line does not qualify as a community 

development loan, the institution has the option of collecting and maintaining (but not 

reporting) the entire line of credit as “Other Secured Lines/Loans for Purposes of Small 

Business.”

§ __.42(a) – 8: When collecting small business and small farm data for CRA 

purposes, may an institution collect and report information about loans to small 

businesses and small farms located outside the United States?

A8. At an institution’s option, it may collect data about small business and small 

farm loans located outside the United States; however, it cannot report this data because 

the CRA data collection software will not accept data concerning loan locations outside 

the United States.

§ __.42(a) – 9: Is an institution that has no small farm or small business loans 

required to report under CRA?

A9. Each institution subject to data reporting requirements must, at a minimum, 

submit a transmittal sheet, definition of its assessment area(s), and a record of its 

community development loans. If the institution does not have community development 

loans to report, the record should be sent with “0” in the community development loan 

composite data fields. An institution that has not purchased or originated any small 
197

business or small farm loans during the reporting period would not submit the composite 

loan records for small business or small farm loans.

§ __.42(a) – 10: How should an institution collect and report the location of a loan 

made to a small business or farm if the borrower provides an address that consists of a 

post office box number or a rural route and box number?

A10. Prudent banking practices and Bank Secrecy Act regulations dictate that 

institutions know the location of their customers and loan collateral. Further, Bank 

Secrecy Act regulations specifically state that a post office box is not an acceptable 

address. Therefore, institutions typically will know the actual location of their borrowers 

or loan collateral beyond an address consisting only of a post office box.

Many borrowers have street addresses in addition to rural route and box numbers. 

Institutions should ask their borrowers to provide the street address of the main business 

facility or farm or the location where the loan proceeds otherwise will be applied. 

Moreover, in many cases in which the borrower’s address consists only of a rural route 

number, the institution knows the location (i.e., the census tract) of the borrower or loan 

collateral. Once the institution has this information available, it should assign the census 

tract to that location (geocode) and report that information as required under the 

regulation.

However, if an institution cannot determine a rural borrower’s street address, and 

does not know the census tract, the institution should report the borrower’s state, county, 

MSA or metropolitan division, if applicable, and “NA,” for “not available,” in lieu of a 

census tract code.
198

§ __.42(a)(2) Loan amount at origination

§ __.42(a)(2) – 1: When an institution purchases a small business or small farm 

loan, in whole or in part, which amount should the institution collect and report – the 

original amount of the loan or the amount at purchase?

A1. When collecting and reporting information on purchased small business and 

small farm loans, including loan participations, an institution collects and reports the 

amount of the loan at origination, not at the time of purchase. This is consistent with the 

Call Report’s use of the “original amount of the loan” to determine whether a loan should 

be reported as a “loan to a small business” or a “loan to a small farm” and in which loan 

size category a loan should be reported. When assessing the volume of small business 

and small farm loan purchases for purposes of evaluating lending test performance under 

CRA, however, examiners will evaluate an institution’s activity based on the amounts at 

purchase.

§ __.42(a)(2) – 2: How should an institution collect data about multiple loan 

originations to the same business?

A2. If an institution makes multiple originations to the same business, the loans 

should be collected and reported as separate originations rather than combined and 

reported as they are on the Call Report, which reflects loans outstanding, rather than 

originations. However, if institutions make multiple originations to the same business 

solely to inflate artificially the number or volume of loans evaluated for CRA lending 

performance, the Agencies may combine these loans for purposes of evaluation under the 

CRA.
199

§ __.42(a)(2) – 3: How should an institution collect data pertaining to credit cards 

issued to small businesses?

A3. If an institution agrees to issue credit cards to a business’s employees, all of 

the credit card lines opened on a particular date for that single business should be 

reported as one small business loan origination rather than reporting each individual 

credit card line, assuming the criteria in the “small business loan” definition in the 

regulation are met. The credit card program’s “amount at origination” is the sum of all of 

the employee/business credit cards’ credit limits opened on a particular date. If 

subsequently issued credit cards increase the small business credit line, the added amount 

is reported as a new origination.

§ __.42(a)(3) The loan location

§ __.42(a)(3) – 1: Which location should an institution record if a small business 

loan’s proceeds are used in a variety of locations?

A1. The institution should record the loan location by either the location of the

small business borrower’s headquarters or the location where the greatest portion of the 

proceeds are applied, as indicated by the borrower.

§ __.42(a)(4) Indicator of gross annual revenue

§ __.42(a)(4) – 1: When indicating whether a small business borrower had gross 

annual revenues of $1 million or less, upon what revenues should an institution rely?
200

A1. Generally, an institution should rely on the revenues that it considered in 

making its credit decision. For example, in the case of affiliated businesses, such as a 

parent corporation and its subsidiary, if the institution considered the revenues of the 

entity’s parent or a subsidiary corporation of the parent as well, then the institution would 

aggregate the revenues of both corporations to determine whether the revenues are $1 

million or less. Alternatively, if the institution considered the revenues of only the entity 

to which the loan is actually extended, the institution should rely solely upon whether 

gross annual revenues are above or below $1 million for that entity. However, if the 

institution considered and relied on revenues or income of a cosigner or guarantor that is 

not an affiliate of the borrower, such as a sole proprietor, the institution should not adjust 

the borrower’s revenues for reporting purposes.

§ __.42(a)(4) – 2: If an institution that is not exempt from data collection and 

reporting does not request or consider revenue information to make the credit decision 

regarding a small business or small farm loan, must the institution collect revenue 

information in connection with that loan?

A2. No. In those instances, the institution should enter the code indicating 

“revenues not known” on the individual loan portion of the data collection software or on 

an internally developed system. Loans for which the institution did not collect revenue 

information may not be included in the loans to businesses and farms with gross annual 

revenues of $1 million or less when reporting this data.

§ __.42(a)(4) – 3: What gross revenue should an institution use in determining the 

gross annual revenue of a start-up business?
201

A3. The institution should use the actual gross annual revenue to date (including 

$0 if the new business has had no revenue to date). Although a start-up business will 

provide the institution with pro forma projected revenue figures, these figures may not 

accurately reflect actual gross revenue and, therefore, should not be used.

§ __.42(a)(4) – 4: When indicating the gross annual revenue of small business or 

small farm borrowers, do institutions rely on the gross annual revenue or the adjusted 

gross annual revenue of their borrowers?

A4. Institutions rely on the gross annual revenue, rather than the adjusted gross 

annual revenue, of their small business or small farm borrowers when indicating the 

revenue of small business or small farm borrowers. The purpose of this data collection is 

to enable examiners and the public to judge whether the institution is lending to small 

businesses and small farms or whether it is only making small loans to larger businesses 

and farms.

The regulation does not require institutions to request or consider revenue 

information when making a loan; however, if institutions do gather this information from 

their borrowers, the Agencies expect them to collect and rely upon the borrowers’ gross 

annual revenue for purposes of CRA. The CRA regulations similarly do not require 

institutions to verify revenue amounts; thus, institutions may rely on the gross annual 

revenue amount provided by borrowers in the ordinary course of business. If an 

institution does not collect gross annual revenue information for its small business and 

small farm borrowers, the institution should enter the code “revenues not known.” See

Q&A § __.42(a)(4) – 2.
202

§ __.42(b) Loan information required to be reported

§ __.42(b)(1) Small business and small farm loan data

§ __.42(b)(1) – 1: For small business and small farm loan information that is 

collected and maintained, what data should be reported?

A1. Each institution that is not exempt from data collection and reporting is 

required to report in machine-readable form annually by March 1 the following 

information, aggregated for each census tract in which the institution originated or 

purchased at least one small business or small farm loan during the prior year: 

• The number and amount of loans originated or purchased with original amounts of 

$100,000 or less.

• The number and amount of loans originated or purchased with original amounts of 

more than $100,000 but less than or equal to $250,000.

• The number and amount of loans originated or purchased with original amounts of 

more than $250,000 but not more than $1 million, as to small business loans, or 

$500,000, as to small farm loans.

• To the extent that information is available, the number and amount of loans to 

businesses and farms with gross annual revenues of $1 million or less (using the revenues 

the institution considered in making its credit decision).

§ __.42(b)(2) Community development loan data
203

§ __.42(b)(2) – 1: What information about community development loans must 

institutions report?

A1. Institutions subject to data reporting requirements must report the aggregate 

number and amount of community development loans originated and purchased during 

the prior calendar year.

§ __.42(b)(2) – 2: If a loan meets the definition of a home mortgage, small 

business, or small farm loan AND qualifies as a community development loan, where 

should it be reported? Can Federal Housing Administration, Veterans Affairs, and Small 

Business Administration loans be reported as community development loans?

A2. Except for multifamily affordable housing loans, which may be reported by 

retail institutions both under HMDA as home mortgage loans and as community 

development loans, in order to avoid double counting, retail institutions must report loans 

that meet the definition of “home mortgage loan,” “small business loan,” or “small farm 

loan” only in those respective categories even if they also meet the definition of 

“community development loan.” As a practical matter, this is not a disadvantage for

institutions evaluated under the lending, investment, and service tests because any 

affordable housing mortgage, small business, small farm, or consumer loan that would 

otherwise meet the definition of “community development loan” will be considered 

elsewhere in the lending test. Any of these types of loans that occur outside the 

institution’s assessment area(s) can receive consideration under the borrower 

characteristic criteria of the lending test. See Q&A § __.22(b)(2) & (3) – 4.

Limited purpose and wholesale institutions that meet the size threshold for 

reporting purposes also must report loans that meet the definitions of home mortgage, 
204

small business, or small farm loans in those respective categories. However, these 

institutions must also report any loans from those categories that meet the regulatory 

definition of “community development loan” as community development loans. There is 

no double counting because wholesale and limited purpose institutions are not subject to 

the lending test and, therefore, are not evaluated on their level and distribution of home 

mortgage, small business, small farm, and consumer loans.

§ __.42(b)(2) – 3: When the primary purpose of a loan is to finance an affordable 

housing project for low- or moderate-income individuals, but, for example, only 40 

percent of the units in question will actually be occupied by individuals or families with 

low or moderate incomes, should the entire loan amount be reported as a community 

development loan?

A3. It depends. As long as the primary purpose of the loan is a community 

development purpose as described in Q&A § __.12(h) – 8, the full amount of the 

institution’s loan should be included in its reporting of aggregate amounts of community 

development lending. Even though the entire amount of the loan is reported, as noted in 

Q&A § __.22(b)(4) – 1, examiners may make qualitative distinctions among community 

development loans on the basis of the extent to which the loan advances the community 

development purpose.

In addition, if an institution that reports CRA data elects to request consideration 

for loans that provide mixed-income housing where only a portion of the loan has 

community development as its primary purpose, such as in connection with a 

development that has a mixed-income housing component or an affordable housing setaside required by Federal, state, or local government, the institution must report only the 
205

pro rata dollar amount of the portion of the loan that provides affordable housing to lowor moderate-income individuals. The pro rata dollar amount of the total activity will be 

based on the percentage of units that are affordable. See Q&A § __.12(h) – 8 for a 

discussion of “primary purpose” of community development describing the distinction 

between the types of loans that would be reported in full and those for which only the pro 

rata amount would be reported.

§ __.42(b)(2) – 4: When an institution purchases a participation in a community 

development loan, which amount should the institution report – the entire amount of the 

credit originated by the lead lender or the amount of the participation purchased?

A4. The institution reports only the amount of the participation purchased as a 

community development loan. However, the institution uses the entire amount of the 

credit originated by the lead lender to determine whether the original credit meets the 

definition of a “loan to a small business,” “loan to a small farm,” or “community 

development loan.” For example, if an institution purchases a $400,000 participation in a 

business credit that has a community development purpose, and the entire amount of the 

credit originated by the lead lender is over $1 million, the institution would report 

$400,000 as a community development loan.

§ __.42(b)(2) – 5: Should institutions collect and report data about community 

development loans that are refinanced or renewed?

A5. Yes. Institutions should collect information about community development 

loans that they refinance or renew as loan originations. Community development loan 

refinancings and renewals are subject to the reporting limitations that apply to 
206

refinancings and renewals of small business and small farm loans. See Q&A § __.42(a) –

5.

§ __.42(b)(3) Home mortgage loans

§ __.42(b)(3) – 1: Must institutions that are not required to collect home mortgage 

loan data by the HMDA collect home mortgage loan data for purposes of the CRA?

A1. No. If an institution is not required to collect home mortgage loan data by 

the HMDA, the institution need not collect home mortgage loan data under the CRA. 

Examiners will sample these loans to evaluate the institution’s home mortgage lending. 

If an institution wants to ensure that examiners consider all of its home mortgage loans, 

the institution may collect and maintain data on these loans.

§ __.42(c) Optional data collection and maintenance

§ __.42(c)(1) Consumer loans

§ __.42(c)(1) – 1: What are the data requirements regarding consumer loans?

A1. There are no data reporting requirements for consumer loans. Institutions 

may, however, opt to collect and maintain data on consumer loans. If an institution 

chooses to collect information on consumer loans, it may collect data for one or more of 

the following categories of consumer loans: motor vehicle, credit card, home equity, 

other secured, and other unsecured. If an institution collects data for loans in a certain 

category, it must collect data for all loans originated or purchased within that category. 
207

The institution must maintain these data separately for each category for which it chooses 

to collect data. The data collected and maintained should include for each loan

• a unique number or alpha-numeric symbol that can be used to identify the relevant 

loan file;

• the loan amount at origination or purchase;

• the loan location; and

• the gross annual income of the borrower that the institution considered in making its 

credit decision.

Generally, guidance given with respect to data collection of small business and 

small farm loans, including, for example, guidance regarding collecting loan location 

data, and whether to collect data in connection with refinanced or renewed loans, will 

also apply to consumer loans.

§ __.42(c)(1)(iv) Income of borrower

§ __.42(c)(1)(iv) – 1: If an institution does not consider income when making an 

underwriting decision in connection with a consumer loan, must it collect income 

information?

A1. No. Further, if the institution routinely collects, but does not verify, a 

borrower’s income when making a credit decision, it need not verify the income for 

purposes of data maintenance.
208

§ __.42(c)(1)(iv) – 2: May an institution list “0” in the income field on consumer 

loans made to employees when collecting data for CRA purposes as the institution would 

be permitted to do under HMDA?

A2. Yes.

§ __.42(c)(1)(iv) – 3: When collecting the gross annual income of consumer 

borrowers, do institutions collect the gross annual income or the adjusted gross annual 

income of the borrowers?

A3. Institutions collect the gross annual income, rather than the adjusted gross 

annual income, of consumer borrowers. The purpose of income data collection in 

connection with consumer loans is to enable examiners to determine the distribution, 

particularly in the institution’s assessment area(s), of the institution’s consumer loans, 

based on borrower characteristics, including the number and amount of consumer loans 

to low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income borrowers, as determined on the basis of 

gross annual income.

The regulation does not require institutions to request or consider income 

information when making a loan; however, if institutions do gather this information from 

their borrowers, the Agencies expect them to collect the borrowers’ gross annual income 

for purposes of CRA. The CRA regulations similarly do not require institutions to verify 

income amounts; thus, institutions may rely on the gross annual income amount provided 

by borrowers in the ordinary course of business.

§ __.42(c)(1)(iv) – 4: Whose income does an institution collect when a consumer 

loan is made to more than one borrower?
209

A4. An institution that chooses to collect and maintain information on consumer 

loans collects the gross annual income of all primary obligors for consumer loans, to the 

extent that the institution considered the income of the obligors when making the 

decision to extend credit. Primary obligors include co-applicants and co-borrowers, 

including co-signers. An institution does not, however, collect the income of guarantors 

on consumer loans, because guarantors are only secondarily liable for the debt.

§ __.42(c)(2) Other loan data

§ __.42(c)(2) – 1: Call Report Schedule RC-C, Part II does not allow institutions 

to report loans for commercial and industrial purposes that are secured by residential real 

estate, unless the security interest in the nonfarm residential real estate is taken only as an 

abundance of caution. (See Q&A § __.12(v) – 3.) Loans extended to small businesses 

with gross annual revenues of $1 million or less may, however, be secured by residential 

real estate. May an institution collect this information to supplement its small business 

lending data at the time of examination?

A1. Yes. If these loans promote community development, as defined in the 

regulation, the institution should collect and report information about the loans as 

community development loans. Otherwise, at the institution’s option, it may collect and 

maintain data concerning loans, purchases, and lines of credit extended to small 

businesses and secured by nonfarm residential real estate for consideration in the CRA 

evaluation of its small business lending. An institution may collect this information as 

“Other Secured Lines/Loans for Purposes of Small Business” in the individual loan data. 
210

This information should be maintained at the institution but should not be submitted for 

central reporting purposes.

§ __.42(c)(2) – 2: Must an institution collect data on loan commitments and letters 

of credit?

A2. No. Institutions are not required to collect data on loan commitments and 

letters of credit. Institutions may, however, provide for examiner consideration 

information on letters of credit and commitments.

§ __.42(c)(2) – 3: Are commercial and consumer leases considered loans for 

purposes of CRA data collection?

A3. Commercial and consumer leases are not considered small business or small 

farm loans or consumer loans for purposes of the data collection requirements in 12 CFR 

__.42(a) & (c)(1). However, if an institution wishes to collect and maintain data about 

leases, the institution may provide this data to examiners as “other loan data” under 12 

CFR __.42(c)(2) for consideration under the lending test.

§ __.42(d) Data on affiliate lending

§ __.42(d) – 1: If an institution elects to have an affiliate’s home mortgage 

lending considered in its CRA evaluation, what data must the institution make available 

to examiners?

A1. If the affiliate is a HMDA reporter, the institution must identify those loans 

reported by its affiliate under 12 CFR part 1003 (Regulation C, implementing HMDA). 

At its option, the institution may provide examiners with either the affiliate’s entire 
211

HMDA Disclosure Statement or just those portions covering the loans in its assessment 

area(s) that it is electing to consider. If the affiliate is not required by HMDA to report 

home mortgage loans, the institution must provide sufficient data concerning the 

affiliate’s home mortgage loans for the examiners to apply the performance tests.

§ __.43--Content and availability of public file

§ __.43(a) Information available to the public

§ __.43(a)(1) Public comments related to an institution’s CRA performance

§ __.43(a)(1) – 1: What happens to comments received by the Agencies?

A1. Comments received by an Agency will be on file at the Agency for use by 

examiners. Those comments are also available to the public unless they are exempt from 

disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

§ __.43(a)(1) – 2: Is an institution required to respond to public comments?

A2. No. All institutions should review comments and complaints carefully to 

determine whether any response or other action is warranted. A small institution subject 

to the small institution performance standards is specifically evaluated on its record of 

taking action, if warranted, in response to written complaints about its performance in 

helping to meet the credit needs in its assessment area(s). See 12 CFR __.26(b)(5). For 

all institutions, responding to comments may help to foster a dialogue with members of 

the community or to present relevant information to an institution’s supervisory Agency. 

If an institution responds in writing to a letter in the public file, the response must also be 
212

placed in that file, unless the response reflects adversely on any person or placing it in the 

public file violates a law.

§ __.43(a)(2) CRA performance evaluation

§ __.43(a)(2) – 1: May an institution include a response to its CRA performance 

evaluation in its public file?

A1. Yes. However, the format and content of the evaluation, as transmitted by 

the supervisory Agency, may not be altered or abridged in any manner. In addition, an 

institution that received a less than satisfactory rating during it most recent examination 

must include in its public file a description of its current efforts to improve its 

performance in helping to meet the credit needs of its entire community. See 12 CFR 

__.43(b)(5). The institution must update the description on a quarterly basis.

§ __.43(b) Additional information available to the public

§ __.43(b)(1) Institutions other than small institutions

§ __.43(b)(1) – 1: Must an institution that elects to have affiliate lending 

considered include data on this lending in its public file?

A1. Yes. The lending data to be contained in an institution’s public file covers 

the lending of the institution’s affiliates, as well as of the institution itself, considered in 

the assessment of the institution’s CRA performance. An institution that has elected to 

have mortgage loans of an affiliate considered must include either the affiliate’s HMDA 
213

Disclosure Statements for the two prior years or the parts of the Disclosure Statements 

that relate to the institution’s assessment area(s), at the institution’s option.

§ __.43(b)(1) – 2: May an institution retain its CRA disclosure statement in 

electronic format in its public file, rather than printing a hard copy of the CRA disclosure 

statement for retention in its public file?

A2. Yes, if the institution can readily print out its CRA disclosure statement from 

an electronic medium (e.g., CD, DVD, or Internet Web site) when a consumer requests 

the public file. If the request is at a branch other than the main office or the one 

designated branch in each state that holds the complete public file, the institution should 

provide the CRA disclosure statement in a paper copy, or in another format acceptable to 

the requestor, within five calendar days, as required by 12 CFR __.43(c)(2)(ii).

§ __.43(c) Location of public information

§ __.43(c) – 1: What is an institution’s “main office”?

A1. An institution’s main office is the main, home, or principal office as 

designated in its charter.

§ __.43(c) – 2: May an institution maintain a copy of its public file on an intranet 

or the Internet?

A2. Yes, an institution may keep all or part of its public file on an intranet or the 

Internet, provided that the institution maintains all of the information, either in paper or 

electronic form, that is required in 12 CFR __.43. An institution that opts to keep part or 

all of its public file on an intranet or the Internet must follow the rules in 12 CFR 
214

__.43(c)(1) and (2) as to what information is required to be kept at a main office and at a 

branch. The institution also must ensure that the information required to be maintained at 

a main office and branch, if kept electronically, can be readily downloaded and printed 

for any member of the public who requests a hard copy of the information.

§ __.44--Public notice by institutions

§ __.44 – 1: Are there any placement or size requirements for an institution’s 

public notice?

A1. The notice must be placed in the institution’s public lobby, but the size and 

placement may vary. The notice should be placed in a location and be of a sufficient size 

that customers can easily see and read it.

§ __.45--Publication of planned examination schedule

§ __.45 – 1: Where will the Agencies publish the planned examination schedule 

for the upcoming calendar quarter?

A1. The Agencies may use the Federal Register, a press release, the Internet, or 

other existing Agency publications for disseminating the list of the institutions scheduled

for CRA examinations during the upcoming calendar quarter. Interested parties should 

contact the appropriate Federal financial supervisory Agency for information on how the 

Agency is publishing the planned examination schedule.
215

§ __.45 – 2: Is inclusion on the list of institutions that are scheduled to undergo 

CRA examinations in the next calendar quarter determinative of whether an institution 

will be examined in that quarter?

A2. No. The Agencies attempt to determine as accurately as possible which 

institutions will be examined during the upcoming calendar quarter. However, whether 

an institution’s name appears on the published list does not conclusively determine 

whether the institution will be examined during that quarter. The Agencies may need to 

defer a planned examination or conduct an unforeseen examination because of scheduling 

difficulties or other circumstances.

APPENDIX A to Part __ – Ratings

APPENDIX A to Part __ – 1: Must an institution’s performance fit each aspect of 

a particular rating profile in order to receive that rating?

A1. No. Exceptionally strong performance in some aspects of a particular rating 

profile may compensate for weak performance in others. For example, a retail institution

other than an intermediate small institution that uses non-branch delivery systems to 

obtain deposits and to deliver loans may have almost all of its loans outside the 

institution’s assessment area(s). Assume that an examiner, after consideration of 

performance context and other applicable regulatory criteria, concludes that the 

institution has weak performance under the lending criteria applicable to lending activity, 

geographic distribution, and borrower characteristics within the assessment area(s). The 

institution may compensate for such weak performance by exceptionally strong 
216

performance in community development lending in its assessment area(s) or a broader 

statewide or regional area that includes its assessment area(s).

APPENDIX B to Part __ – CRA Notice

APPENDIX B to Part __ – 1: What agency information should be added to the 

CRA notice form?

A1. The following information should be added to the form:

OCC-supervised institutions only: For all national banks and Federal savings 

associations (collectively, banks), in connection with the nationwide list of banks that are 

scheduled for CRA evaluation in a particular quarter, you may insert the following Web 

site along with the postal mailing address of the deputy comptroller: 

http://www.occ.treas.gov. In addition, in connection with the invitation for comments on 

the bank’s performance in helping to meet community credit needs, you may insert the 

following e-mail address along with the postal mailing address of the deputy comptroller: 

CRACOMMENTS@OCC.TREAS.GOV.

For community banks, insert in the appropriate blank the postal mailing address 

of the deputy comptroller of the district in which the institution is located. These 

addresses can be found at http://www.occ.gov. For banks supervised under the large 

bank program, insert in the appropriate blank the following postal mailing address: 

“Large Bank Supervision, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219-0001.” For banks 

supervised under the midsize/credit card bank program, insert in the appropriate blank the 
217

following postal mailing address: “Midsize and Credit Card Bank Supervision, 400 7th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219-0001.”

OCC-, FDIC-, and Board-supervised institutions: “Officer in Charge of 

Supervision” is the title of the responsible official at the appropriate Federal Reserve 

Bank.

End of text of the Interagency Questions and Answers
218

[THIS SIGNATURE PAGE PERTAINS TO THE JOINT NOTICE ENTITLED 

“COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT: INTERAGENCY QUESTIONS AND 

ANSWERS REGARDING COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT.”]

Dated: July 6, 2016

Thomas J. Curry (signed)

_______________________

Thomas J. Curry,

Comptroller of the Currency.
219

[THIS SIGNATURE PAGE PERTAINS TO THE JOINT NOTICE ENTITLED 

“COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT: INTERAGENCY QUESTIONS AND 

ANSWERS REGARDING COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT.”]

By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 7, 2016.

Robert deV. Frierson (signed)

________________________

Robert deV. Frierson,

Secretary of the Board.
220

[THIS SIGNATURE PAGE PERTAINS TO THE JOINT NOTICE ENTITLED 

“COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT: INTERAGENCY QUESTIONS AND 

ANSWERS REGARDING COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT.”]

Dated at Washington, D.C., this 6th day of July, 2016.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Valerie J. Best (signed)

______________________________

Valerie J. Best

Assistant Executive Secretary.