Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 

Examination Scope 

For institutions (interstate and intrastate) with more than one assessment area, 

identify assessment areas for a full scope review. A full scope review is 

accomplished when examiners complete all of the procedures for an assessment 

area. For interstate institutions, a minimum of one assessment area from each 

state, and a minimum of one assessment area from each multistate MSA/MD, must 

be reviewed using the full scope examination procedures. 

1. To identify assessment areas for full scope review, review prior CRA 

performance evaluations, available community contact materials, and reported 

lending data and demographic data on each assessment area. Consider factors 

such as: 

a. The retail lending and community development opportunities in the 

different assessment areas, particularly areas where the need for credit 

and community development activities is significant; 

b. The level of the institution’s activity in the different assessment areas, 

including in low- and moderate-income areas, designated disaster areas, 

or distressed or underserved non-metropolitan middle-income 

geographies designated by the Agencies (Footnote 1. The Board of Governors of the Federal Rese

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.) based on (a) rates of poverty, 

unemployment, and population loss or (b) population size, density, and 

dispersion; (Footnote 2. A list of distressed or undeserved non-metropolitan middle-income geographies will be made available 

FFIEC web site at www.ffiec.gov.) 

c. The number of other institutions in the different assessment areas and the 

importance of the institution under examination in serving the different 

areas, particularly any areas with relatively few other providers of financial 

services; 

d. The existence of apparent anomalies in the reported data for any 

particular assessment area(s); 

e. The length of time since the assessment area(s) was last examined using 

a full scope review; 

f. The institution’s prior CRA performance in different assessment areas; 

1 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

g. Examiners’ knowledge of the same or similar assessment areas; and 

h. Comments from the public regarding the institution’s CRA performance. 

2. Select one or more assessment areas in each state, and one or more 

assessment areas in any multi-state MSA, for examination using these 

procedures. This is required because for interstate institutions, a rating must be 

assigned for each state where the institution has a branch and for each multistate MSA/MD where the institution has branches in two or more states that 

comprise that MSA/MD. 

Performance Context 

1. Review standardized worksheets and other agency information sources to obtain 

relevant demographic, economic, and loan data, to the extent available, for each 

assessment area under review. 

2. Obtain for review the Consolidated Reports of Condition (Call Reports), Uniform 

Bank Performance Reports (UBPRs), annual reports, supervisory reports, and 

prior CRA evaluations of the institution under examination to help understand the 

institution’s ability and capacity, including any limitations imposed by size, 

financial condition, or statutory, regulatory, economic or other constraints, to 

respond to safe and sound opportunities in the assessment area(s) for retail 

loans, and community development loans, qualified investments and community 

development services. 

3. Discuss with the institution, and consider, any information the institution may 

provide about its local community and economy, including community 

development needs and opportunities, its business strategy, its lending capacity, 

or information that otherwise assists in the evaluation of the institution. 

4. Review community contact forms prepared by the regulatory agencies to obtain 

information that assists in the evaluation of the institution. Contact local 

community, governmental or economic development representatives to update or 

supplement this information. Refer to the Community Contact Procedures for 

more detail. 

5. Review any comments received by the institution or the agency since the last 

CRA examination. 

6. By reviewing the public evaluations and other financial data, determine whether 

any similarly situated institutions (in terms of size, financial condition, product 

offerings, and business strategy) serve the same or similar assessment area(s) 

and would provide relevant and accurate information for evaluating the 

2 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

institution’s CRA performance. Consider, for example, whether the information 

could help identify: 

a. Lending and community development opportunities available in the 

institution’s assessment area(s) that are compatible with the institution’s 

business strategy and consistent with safe and sound banking practices; 

b. Constraints affecting the opportunities to make safe and sound retail 

loans, community development loans, qualified investments, and 

community development services compatible with the institution’s 

business strategy in the assessment area(s); and 

c. Successful CRA-related product offerings or activities utilized by other 

lenders serving the same or similar assessment area(s). 

7. Document the performance context information, particularly community 

development needs and opportunities, gathered for use in evaluating the 

institution’s performance. 

Assessment Area 

1. Review the institution’s stated assessment area(s) to ensure that it: 

a. Consists of one or more MSAs/MDs or contiguous political subdivisions 

(e.g., counties, cities, or towns); 

b. Includes the geographies where the institution has its main office, 

branches, and deposit-taking ATMs, as well as the surrounding 

geographies in which the institution originated or purchased a substantial 

portion of its loans; 

c. Consists only of whole census tracts; 

d. Consists of separate delineations for areas that extend substantially 

across MSA/MD or state boundaries unless the assessment area is 

located in a multistate MSA/MD; 

e. Does not reflect illegal discrimination; and 

f. Does not arbitrarily exclude any low- or moderate-income area(s), taking 

into account the institution’s size, branching structure, and financial 

condition. 

2. If an institution’s assessment area(s) does not coincide with the boundaries of an 

MSA/MD or political subdivision(s), assess whether the adjustments to the 

3 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

boundaries were made because the assessment area would otherwise be too 

large for the institution to reasonably serve, have an unusual configuration, or 

include significant geographic barriers. 

3. If the assessment area(s) fails to comply with the applicable criteria described 

above, develop, based on discussions with management, a revised assessment 

area(s) that complies with the criteria. Use this assessment area(s) to evaluate 

the institution’s performance, but do not otherwise consider the revision in 

determining the institution’s rating. 

Intermediate Small Institution Lending Test Performance Criteria 

Loan-to-Deposit Analysis 

1. From data contained in Call Reports or UBPRs, calculate the average loan-todeposit ratio since the last examination by adding the quarterly loan-to-deposit 

ratios and dividing by the number of quarters. 

2. Evaluate whether the institution’s average loan-to-deposit ratio is reasonable in 

light of information from the performance context including, as applicable, the 

institution’s capacity to lend, the capacity of other similarly situated institutions to 

lend in the assessment area(s), demographic and economic factors present in 

the assessment area(s), and the lending opportunities available in the 

institution’s assessment area(s). 

3. If the loan-to-deposit ratio does not appear reasonable in light of the performance 

context, consider whether the number and the dollar amount of loans sold to the 

secondary market compensate for a low loan-to-deposit ratio or supplement the 

institution’s lending performance. 

4. Summarize in work papers conclusions regarding the institution’s loan-to-deposit 

ratio. 

Comparison of Credit Extended Inside and Outside of the Assessment Area(s) 

1. If available, review HMDA data, automated loan reports, and any other reports 

that may have been generated by the institution to analyze the extent of lending 

inside and outside of the assessment area(s). If a report generated by the 

institution is used, test the accuracy of the output. 

2. If loan reports or data analyzing lending inside and outside of the assessment 

area(s) are not available or comprehensive, or if their accuracy cannot be 

verified, use sampling guidelines to select a sample of loans originated, 

purchased or committed to calculate the percentage (by number and dollar 

volume) located within the assessment area(s). 

4 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

3. If the percentage of loans or other lending related activities in the assessment 

area is less than a majority, then the institution does not meet the standards for 

“Satisfactory” under this performance criterion. In this case, consider information 

from the performance context, such as information about economic conditions, 

loan demand, the institution’s size, financial condition, branching network, and 

business strategies when determining the effect of not meeting the standards for 

satisfactory for this criterion on the overall rating for the institution. 

4. Summarize in work papers conclusions regarding the institution’s level of lending 

or other lending related activities inside and outside of its assessment area(s). 

Distribution of Credit within the Assessment Area(s) 

1. Determine whether the number and income distribution of geographies in the 

assessment area(s) are sufficient for a meaningful analysis of the geographic 

distribution of the institution’s loans in its assessment area(s). 

2. If a geographic distribution analysis of the institution’s loans would be meaningful 

and the necessary geographic information (street address or census tract 

number) is collected by the institution in the ordinary course of its business, 

determine the distribution of the institution’s loans in its assessment area(s) 

among low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income geographies. Where 

possible, use the same loan reports, loan data, or sample used to compare credit 

extended inside and outside the assessment area(s). 

3. If a geographic analysis of loans in the assessment area(s) is performed, identify 

groups of geographies, by income categories, in which there is little or no loan 

penetration. Note that institutions are not expected to lend in every geography. 

4. To the extent information about borrower income (individuals) or revenues 

(businesses) is collected by the institution in the ordinary course of its business, 

determine the distribution of loans in the assessment area(s) by borrower income 

and by business revenues. Where possible, use the same loan reports, loan 

data, or sample used to compare credit extended inside and outside the 

assessment area(s). 

5. Identify categories of borrowers by income or business revenue for which there is 

little or no loan penetration. 

6. If an analysis of the distribution of loans among geographies of different income 

levels would not be meaningful (e.g., very few geographies in the assessment 

area(s)) or an analysis of lending to borrowers of different income or revenues 

could not be performed (e.g., income data are not collected for certain loans), 

consider possible proxies to use for analysis of the institution’s distribution of 

credit. Possibilities include analyzing geographic distribution by street address 

rather than geography (if data are available and the analysis would be 

5 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

meaningful) or analyzing the distribution by loan size as a proxy for income or 

revenue of the borrower. 

7. If there are categories of low penetration, form conclusions about the reasons for 

that low penetration. Consider available information from the performance 

context, including: 

a. Information about the institution’s size, branch network, financial condition, 

supervisory restrictions (if any) and prior CRA record; 

b. Information from discussions with management, loan officers, and members 

of the community; 

c. Information about economic conditions, particularly in the assessment 

area(s); 

d. Information about demographic or other characteristics of particular 

geographies that could affect loan demand, such as the existence of a prison 

or college; and 

e. Information about other lenders serving the same or similar assessment 

area(s). 

8. Summarize in work papers conclusions concerning the geographic distribution of 

loans and the distribution of loans by borrower characteristics in the institution’s 

assessment area(s). 

Review of Complaints 

1. Review all complaints relating to the institution’s CRA performance received by 

the institution (these should all be contained in the institution’s public file) and 

those that were received by its supervisory agency. 

2. If there were any complaints, evaluate the institution’s record of taking action, if 

warranted, in response to written complaints about its CRA performance. 

3. If there were any complaints, discuss the preliminary findings in this section with 

management. 

4. If there were any complaints, summarize in work papers conclusions regarding 

the institution’s record of taking action, if warranted, in response to written 

complaints about its CRA performance. Include the total number of complaints 

and resolutions with examples that illustrate the nature, responsiveness to, and 

resolution of, the complaints. 

5. Discuss the preliminary findings in the lending test section with management. 

6 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

INTERMEDIATE SMALL INSTITUTION LENDING TEST RATINGS MATRIX 

CHARACTERISTIC colum heading OUTSTANDING column heading SATISFACTORY column heading NEEDS TO IMPROVE column heading SUBSTANTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE column heading 

Loan-to-deposit ratio row heading 

Loan-to-deposit ratio -

OUTSTANDING 

The loan-to-deposit ratio is more than 

reasonable (considering seasonal 

variations and taking into account 

lending-related activities) given the 

institution’s size, financial condition, 

and assessment area credit needs. 

Loan-to-deposit ratio -

SATISFACTORY 

The loan-to-deposit ratio is 

reasonable (considering 

seasonal variations and taking 

into account lending-related 

activities) given the institution’s 

size, financial condition, and 

assessment area credit needs. 

Loan-to-deposit ratio -

NEEDS TO IMPROVE 

The loan-to-deposit ratio is less 

than reasonable (considering 

seasonal variations and taking 

into account lending-related 

activities) given the institution’s 

size, financial condition, and 

assessment area credit needs. 

Loan-to-deposit ratio -

SUBSTANTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE 

The loan-to-deposit ratio is unreasonable 

(considering seasonal variations and taking into 

account lending-related activities) given the 

institution’s size, financial condition, and 

assessment area credit needs. 

Assessment area(s) 

concentration 

Assessment area(s) 

concentration -

OUTSTANDING 

A substantial majority of loans and 

other lending related activities are in 

the institution’s assessment area(s). 

Assessment area(s) 

concentration -

SATISFACTORY 

A majority of loans and other 

lending related activities are in 

the institution’s assessment 

area(s). 

Assessment area(s) 

concentration -

NEEDS TO IMPROVE 

A majority of loans and other 

lending related activities are 

outside the institution’s 

assessment area(s). 

Assessment area(s) 

concentration -

SUBSTANTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE 

A substantial majority of loans and other lending 

related activities are outside the institution’s 

assessment area(s). Geographic distribution of 

loans 

Geographic distribution of 

loans -

OUTSTANDING 

The geographic distribution of loans 

reflects excellent dispersion 

throughout the assessment area(s). 

Geographic distribution of 

loans -

SATISFACTORY 

The geographic distribution of 

loans reflects reasonable 

dispersion throughout the 

assessment area(s). 

Geographic distribution of 

loans -

NEEDS TO IMPROVE 

The geographic distribution of 

loans reflects poor dispersion 

throughout the assessment 

area(s). 

Geographic distribution of 

loans -

SUBSTANTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE 

The geographic distribution of loans reflects very 

poor dispersion throughout the assessment 

area(s). Borrower’s profile 

Borrower’s profile -

OUTSTANDING 

The distribution of borrowers reflects, 

given the demographics of the 

assessment area(s), excellent 

penetration among individuals of 

different income levels (including lowand moderate-income) and 

businesses of different sizes. 

Borrower’s profile -

SATISFACTORY 

The distribution of borrowers 

reflects, given the 

demographics of the 

assessment area(s), 

reasonable penetration among 

individuals of different income 

levels (including low- and 

moderate-income) and 

businesses of different sizes. 

Borrower’s profile -

NEEDS TO IMPROVE 

The distribution of borrowers 

reflects, given the demographics 

of the assessment area(s), poor 

penetration among individuals of 

different income levels (including 

low- and moderate-income) and 

businesses of different sizes. 

Borrower’s profile -

SUBSTANTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE 

The distribution of borrowers reflects, given the 

demographics of the assessment area(s), very 

poor penetration among individuals of different 

income levels (including low- and moderateincome) and businesses of different sizes. Response to 

substantiated complaints 

Response to 

substantiated complaints -

OUTSTANDING 

The institution has taken noteworthy, 

creative action in response to 

substantiated complaints about its 

performance in meeting assessment 

area credit needs. 

Response to 

substantiated complaints -

SATISFACTORY 

The institution has taken 

appropriate action in response 

to substantiated complaints 

about its performance in 

meeting assessment area 

credit needs. 

Response to 

substantiated complaints -

NEEDS TO IMPROVE 

The institution has taken 

inadequate action in response to 

substantiated complaints about its 

performance in meeting 

assessment area credit needs. 

Response to 

substantiated complaints -

SUBSTANTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE 

The institution is unresponsive to substantiated 

complaints about its performance in meeting 

assessment area credit needs. 

7 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

Intermediate Small Institution Community Development Test 

An institution should appropriately assess the needs in its community, engage in 

different types of community development activities based on those needs and the 

institution’s capacities, and take reasonable steps to apply its community development 

resources strategically to meet those needs. The flexibility inherent in the community 

development test allows intermediate small institutions to focus on meeting the 

substance of community needs through these activities. Examiners will consider the 

results of any assessment by the institution of community needs along with information 

from community, government, civic, and other sources to gain a working knowledge of 

community needs. 

1. Identify the number and amount of the institution’s community development loans, 

qualified investments, and community development services. Obtain this information 

through discussions with management, HMDA data collected by the institution, as 

applicable; investment portfolios; any other relevant financial records; and materials 

available to the public. Include, at the institution’s option: 

a. Community development loans, qualified investments, and community 

development services provided by affiliates, if they are not claimed by any other 

institution; and 

b. Community development lending by consortia or third parties. 

2. Review community development loans, qualified investments, and community 

development services to verify that they qualify as community development. 

3. If the institution participates in community development lending by consortia or third 

parties, or claims activities provided by affiliates, review records provided to the 

institution by the consortia or third parties or affiliates to ensure that the community 

development loans claimed by the institution do not account for more than the 

institution’s share (based on the level of its participation or investment) of the total 

loans originated by the consortium or third party. 

4. Considering the institution’s capacity and constraints and other information obtained 

through the performance context review, form conclusions about: 

a. The number and amount of community development loans and qualified 

investments; 

b. The extent to which the institution provides community development services, 

including the provision and availability of services to low- and moderate-income 

people, including through branches and other facilities in low- and moderateincome areas. 

8 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

c. The responsiveness to the opportunities for community development lending, 

qualified investments, and community development services, considering: 

1) The results of any assessment of community development needs and 

opportunities provided by the institution; 

2) The examiner’s review of performance context information from 

community, government, civic, and other sources; and 

3) Whether the amount and combination of community development loans, 

qualified investments, and community development services, along with 

their qualitative aspects, are responsive to community needs and 

opportunities. 

5. Summarize conclusions regarding the institution’s community development 

performance and retain in the work papers. 

INTERMEDIATE SMALL INSTITUTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TEST 

RATING MATRIX 

OUTSTANDING column heading SATISFACTORY column heading NEEDS TO IMPROVE column heading SUBSTANTIAL 

NONCOMPLIANCE column head

OUTSTANDING 

The institution’s community 

development performance 

demonstrates excellent 

responsiveness to 

community development 

needs in its assessment 

area(s) through community 

development loans, 

qualified investments, and 

community development 

services, as appropriate, 

considering the institution’s 

capacity and the need and 

availability of such 

opportunities for 

community development in 

the institution’s 

assessment area(s). 

SATISFACTORY 

The institution’s community 

development performance 

demonstrates adequate 

responsiveness to the 

community development 

needs of its assessment 

area(s) through community 

development loans, qualified 

investments, and community 

development services, as 

appropriate, considering the 

institution's capacity and the 

need and availability of such 

opportunities for community 

development in the 

institution’s assessment 

area(s). 

NEEDS TO IMPROVE 

The institution’s community 

development performance 

demonstrates poor 

responsiveness to the 

community development needs 

of its assessment area(s) 

through community 

development loans, qualified 

investments, and community 

development services, as 

appropriate, considering the 

institution's capacity and the 

need and availability of such 

opportunities for community 

development in the institution’s 

assessment area(s). 

SUBSTANTIAL 

NONCOMPLIANCE 

The institution’s 

community development 

performance 

demonstrates very poor 

responsiveness to the 

community development 

needs of its assessment 

area(s) through 

community development 

loans, qualified 

investments, and 

community development 

services, as appropriate, 

considering the 

institution's capacity and 

the need and availability 

of such opportunities for 

community development 

in the institution’s 

assessment area(s). 

9 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

Overall Intermediate Small Institution CRA Rating 

1. Group the analyses of the assessment areas examined by MSA (Footnote 3. The reference to MSA may also reference MD.) and non-MSA 

areas within each state where the institution has branches. If an institution has 

branches in two or more states of a multi-state MSA, group the assessment 

areas that are in that MSA. 

2. Summarize conclusions about the institution’s performance in each MSA and the 

non-MSA portion of each state in which an assessment area received a full 

scope review. If two or more assessment areas in an MSA or in the non-MSA 

portion of a state received full scope reviews, weigh the different assessment 

areas considering such factors as: 

a. The significance of the institution’s activities in each compared to the 

institution’s overall activities; 

b. The retail lending and community development opportunities in each; 

c. The importance of the institution in providing loans and community 

development activities to each, particularly in light of the number of other 

institutions and the extent of their activities in each; and 

d. Demographic and economic conditions in each. 

3. For assessment areas in MSAs and non-MSA areas that were not examined 

using these procedures, consider facts and data related to the institution’s 

lending and community development activities to ensure that performance in 

those assessment areas is not inconsistent with the conclusions based on the 

assessment areas which received full scope reviews. 

4. For institutions operating in only one multi-state MSA or one state, assign one of 

the four preliminary ratings – “Satisfactory,” “Outstanding,” “Needs to Improve,” 

or “Substantial Noncompliance” -- in accordance with step 6 below. To 

determine the relative significance of each MSA and non-MSA area to the 

institution’s preliminary rating, consider: 

a. The significance of the institution’s activities in each compared to the 

institution’s overall activities; 

b. The retail lending and community development opportunities in each; 

c. The importance of the institution to each, particularly in light of the number of 

other institutions and the extent of their activities in each; and 

d. Demographic and economic conditions in each. 

10 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

5. For other institutions, assign one of the four preliminary ratings -- “Satisfactory,” 

“Outstanding,” “Needs to Improve,” or “Substantial Noncompliance” -- for each 

state in which the institution has at least one branch and for each multi-state 

MSA in which the institution has branches in two or more states in accordance 

with step #6 below. To determine the relative significance of each MSA and the 

non-MSA area on the institution’s preliminary state rating, consider: 

a. The significance of the institution’s activities in each compared to the 

institution’s overall activities; 

b. The retail lending and community development opportunities in each; 

c. The importance of the institution in each, particularly in light of the number of 

other institutions and the extent of their activities in each; and 

d. Demographic and economic conditions in each. 

6. Consult the intermediate small institution ratings matrices (lending and 

community development) and information in work papers to assign a preliminary 

rating of: 

a. “Satisfactory” if the institution’s performance is rated as “Satisfactory” in each 

test. 

b. “Needs to Improve” or “Substantial Noncompliance,” depending upon the 

degree to which the institution’s performance has failed to meet the standards 

for a “Satisfactory” rating on a test; or 

c. “Outstanding” if the institution is rated an ”Outstanding” on both tests; or 

“Outstanding” on one test and the extent to which the institution meets or 

exceeds the “Satisfactory” criteria on the other test. 

7. For an institution with branches in more than one state or multi-state MSA, 

assign a preliminary rating to the institution as a whole taking into account the 

institution’s record in different states or multi-state MSAs by considering: 

a. The significance of the institution’s activities in each compared to the 

institution’s overall activities; 

b. The retail lending and community development opportunities in each; 

c. The importance of the institution in providing loans to each, particularly in light 

of the number of other institutions and the extent of their activities in each; 

and 

d. Demographic and economic conditions in each. 

11 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

8. Review the results of the most recent compliance examination and determine 

whether evidence of discriminatory or other illegal credit practices should lower 

the institution’s overall CRA rating or, if applicable, its CRA rating in any state or 

multi-state MSA. If evidence of discrimination or other illegal credit practices in 

any geography by the institution, or in any assessment area by any affiliate 

whose loans were considered as part of the institution’s lending performance, 

was found, consider: 

a. The nature, extent, and strength of the evidence of the practices; 

b. The policies and procedures that the institution (or affiliate, as applicable) has 

in place to prevent the practices; 

c. Any corrective action that the institution (or affiliate, as applicable) has taken, 

or has committed to take, including voluntary corrective action resulting from 

self-assessment; and 

d. Any other relevant information. 

9. Assign a final rating for the institution as a whole and, if applicable, each state in 

which the institution has at least one branch and each multi-state MSA in which it 

has branches in two or more states, considering: 

a. The institution’s preliminary rating; and 

b. Any evidence of discriminatory or other illegal credit practices. 

10. Discuss conclusions with management. 

11. Write an evaluation of the institution’s performance for the examination report 

and the public evaluation. 

12. Prepare recommendations for a supervisory strategy and for matters that 

require attention or follow-up activities. 

Public File Checklist 

1. There is no need to review each branch or each complete public file during every 

examination. In determining the extent to which the institution’s public files 

should be reviewed, consider the institution’s record of compliance with the public 

file requirements in previous examinations, its branching structure and changes 

to it since its last examination, complaints about the institution’s compliance with 

the public file requirements, and any other relevant information. 

2. In any review of the public file undertaken, determine whether branches display 

an accurate public notice in their lobbies, a complete public file is available in the 

12 
Interagency Intermediate Small Institution Examination Procedures 8-1-05 

institution’s main office and at least one branch in each state, and the public 

file(s) in the main office and in each state contain: 

a. All written comments from the public relating to the institution’s CRA 

performance and any responses to them for the current and preceding two 

calendar years (except those that reflect adversely on the good name or 

reputation of any persons other than the institution); 

b. The institution’s most recent CRA Performance Evaluation; 

c. A map of each assessment area showing its boundaries and, on the map or 

in a separate list, the geographies contained within the assessment area; 

d. A list of the institution’s branches, branches opened and closed during the 

current and each of the prior two calendar years, their street addresses and 

geographies; 

e. A list of services (loan and deposit products and transaction fees generally 

offered, and hours of operation at the institution’s branches), including a 

description of any material differences in the availability or cost of services 

between those locations; 

f. The institution’s loan-to-deposit ratio for each quarter of the prior calendar 

year; 

g. A quarterly report of the institution’s efforts to improve its record if it received 

a less than satisfactory rating during its most recent CRA examination; and 

h. HMDA Disclosure Statements for the prior two calendar years for the 

institution and for each non-depository affiliate the institution has elected to 

include in assessment of its CRA record, if applicable. 

3. In any branch review undertaken, determine whether the branch provides the 

most recent public evaluation and a list of services generally available at its 

branches and a description of any material differences in the availability or cost 

of services at the branch (or a list of services available at the branch). 

13