Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45053 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

website: https://energy.gov/eere/ 

buildings/appliance-standards-andrulemaking-federal-advisory-committee. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this notice. The 

request and advance copy of statements 

must be received at least one week 

before the public meeting and may be 

emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by 

mail. DOE prefers to receive requests 

and advance copies via email. Please 

include a telephone number to enable 

DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, 

if needed. 

Conduct of Public Meeting 

ASRAC’s Designated Federal Officer 

will preside at the public meeting and 

may also use a professional facilitator to 

aid discussion. The meeting will not be 

a judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. A transcript of the 

public meeting will be included on 

DOE’s website: https://energy.gov/eere/ 

buildings/appliance-standards-andrulemaking-federal-advisory-committee. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. Public comment and 

statements will be allowed prior to the 

close of the meeting. 

Docket 

The docket is available for review at 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, not 

all documents listed in the index may 

be publically available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on August 29, 

2018. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19212 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

12 CFR Parts 25 and 195 

[Docket ID OCC–2018–0008] 

RIN 1557–AE34 

Reforming the Community 

Reinvestment Act Regulatory 

Framework 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller 

of the Currency (OCC or agency) invites 

comments on this advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit 

ideas for building a new framework to 

transform or modernize the regulations 

that implement the Community 

Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA). A new 

CRA regulatory framework would help 

regulated financial institutions more 

effectively serve the convenience and 

needs of their communities by 

encouraging more lending, investment, 

and activity where it is needed most; 

evaluating CRA activities more 

consistently; and providing greater 

clarity regarding CRA-qualifying 

activities. A transformed or modernized 

framework also would facilitate more 

timely evaluations of bank CRA 

performance, offer greater transparency 

regarding ratings, promote a consistent 

interpretation of the CRA, and 

encourage increased community and 

economic development in low- and 

moderate-income (LMI) areas. Revisions 

of this nature are consistent with the 

original intent of the CRA: To help meet 

the credit needs of the communities that 

banks serve. In addition, these types of 

revisions would align with the 

transformation of the banking industry 

and reduce the complexity, ambiguity, 

and burden associated with the 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments on this ANPR must be 

received on or before November 19, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

directed to: 

Commenters are encouraged to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal or email, if possible. 

Please use the title ‘‘Reforming the 

Community Reinvestment Act 

Regulatory Framework’’ to facilitate the 

organization and distribution of the 

comments. You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal— 

‘‘Regulations.gov’’: Go to 

www.regulations.gov. Enter ‘‘Docket ID 

OCC–2018–0008’’ in the Search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on ‘‘Comment 

Now’’ to submit public comments. Click 

on the ‘‘Help’’ tab on the 

Regulations.gov home page to get 

information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for submitting 

public comments. 

• Email: regs.comments@

occ.treas.gov. 

• Mail: Legislative and Regulatory 

Activities Division, Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th 

Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington, 

DC 20219. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th 

Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington, 

DC 20219. 

• Fax: (571) 465–4326. 

Instructions: You must include 

‘‘OCC’’ as the agency name and ‘‘Docket 

ID OCC–2018–0008’’ in your comment. 

In general, the OCC will enter all 

relevant comments received into the 

docket and publish your comment on 

the Regulations.gov website without 

change, including any business or 

personal information that you provide, 

such as name and address information, 

email addresses, or phone numbers. 

Comments received, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, are part of the public record 

and subject to public disclosure. Do not 

include any information in your 

comment or supporting materials that 

you consider confidential or 

inappropriate for public disclosure. 

You may review comments and other 

related materials that pertain to this 

rulemaking action by any of the 

following methods: 

• Viewing Comments Electronically: 

Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter 

‘‘Docket ID OCC–2018–0008’’ in the 

Search box and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ on the right side 

of the screen. Comments and supporting 

materials can be viewed and filtered by 

clicking on ‘‘View all documents and 

comments in this docket’’ and then 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
45054 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1Public Law 95–128, 91 Stat. 1147 (October 12, 

1977), codified at 12 U.S.C. 2901 et seq. 

2 12 U.S.C. 2902(2) defines ‘‘regulated financial 

institution’’ to mean an ‘‘insured depository 

institution’’ as defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813. Twelve 

U.S.C. 1813(c)(2) defines ‘‘insured depository 

institution’’ to mean any bank or savings 

association whose deposits are insured by the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

3 12 U.S.C. 2901(a). 

4 12 U.S.C. 2903(a)(1). 

5 12 U.S.C. 2903(a)(2). 

6 12 U.S.C. 2904. 

7 12 U.S.C. 2905. 

8Public Law 101–73, 103 Stat. 183 (August 9, 

1989). 

9Public Law 102–242, 105 Stat. 2236 (December 

19, 1991). 

10Public Law 103–328, 108 Stat. 2338 (September 

29, 1994). 

11Public Law 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338 (November 

12, 1999). 

12 43 FR 47144 (October 12, 1978). 

13 60 FR 22156 (May 4, 1995); 70 FR 44256 

(August 2, 2005). Although adopted individually by 

each agency, the regulations have generally been 

drafted on an interagency basis and released jointly. 

14The agencies have published the Q & A 

guidance for notice and comment prior to final 

publication in the Federal Register. 

15 12 U.S.C. 2906. 

16 12 U.S.C. 2906(b)(1)(A)(i). 

17 12 U.S.C. 2906(b)(1)(A)(ii). 

18 12 U.S.C. 2906(b)(1)(A)(iii). There are four 

statutory rating categories: Outstanding, 

satisfactory, needs to improve, and substantial noncompliance (12 U.S.C. 2906(b)(2)). 

19 12 CFR 25.29 and 195.29. 

20See ‘‘Agencies Announce Public Hearings on 

Community Reinvestment Act Regulations,’’ Joint 

Press Release (June 17, 2010) (available at https:// 

www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2010/ 

nr-ia-2010-65.html). 

using the filtering tools on the left side 

of the screen. Click on the ‘‘Help’’ tab 

on the Regulations.gov home page to get 

information on using Regulations.gov. 

The docket may be viewed after the 

close of the comment period in the same 

manner as during the comment period. 

• Viewing Comments Personally: You 

may personally inspect comments at the 

OCC, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, 

DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC 

requires that visitors make an 

appointment to inspect comments. You 

may do so by calling (202) 649–6700 or, 

for persons who are deaf or hearing 

impaired, TTY (202) 649–5597. Upon 

arrival, visitors will be required to 

present valid government-issued photo 

identification and submit to security 

screening in order to inspect comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OCC: Vonda J. Eanes, Director for 

CRA and Fair Lending Policy, 

Compliance Risk Policy Division, (202) 

649–5470; Emily R. Boyes, Senior 

Attorney, (202) 649–6350, Karen E. 

McSweeney, Special Counsel, (202) 

649–5490, and Allison Hester-Haddad, 

Counsel, (202) 649–5490, Chief 

Counsel’s Office; for persons who are 

deaf or hearing impaired, TTY (202) 

649–5597; or Office of the Comptroller 

of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20219. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Introduction 

The Community Reinvestment Act of 

1977 1 was enacted to encourage 

financial institutions 2 (banks) to help 

meet the credit needs of the 

communities that they serve, including 

LMI neighborhoods, consistent with the 

banks’ safe and sound operations. In 

passing the CRA, Congress established 

that (1) banks are required by law to 

demonstrate that their deposit facilities 

serve the convenience and needs of the 

communities in which they are 

chartered to do business; (2) the 

convenience and needs of communities 

include the need for credit services as 

well as deposit services; and (3) banks 

have a continuing and affirmative 

obligation to help meet the credit needs 

of the local communities in which they 

are chartered.3 The statute directed each 

appropriate federal financial 

supervisory agency (i.e., the OCC, the 

Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (collectively, 

agencies)) to assess the record of a bank 

in meeting the credit needs of its entire 

community, including LMI 

neighborhoods; 4 take this record into 

account when evaluating the bank’s 

application for a deposit facility; 5 and 

report to Congress the actions it has 

taken to carry out its CRA 

responsibilities.6 The CRA directed each 

agency to publish regulations to carry 

out the statute’s purpose.7

Since the CRA’s enactment, Congress 

has amended the statute numerous 

times, including in the Financial 

Institutions Reform, Recovery, and 

Enforcement Act of 1989 8 (which 

required public disclosure of a bank’s 

CRA written evaluation and rating); the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Improvement Act of 1991 9 (which 

required the inclusion of a bank’s CRA 

examination data in the determination 

of its CRA rating); the Riegle-Neal 

Interstate Banking and Branching 

Efficiency Act of 1994 10 (which (1) 

required an agency to consider an outof-state national bank’s or state bank’s 

CRA rating when determining whether 

to allow interstate branches; and (2) 

prescribed certain requirements for the 

contents of the written CRA evaluation 

for banks with interstate branches); and 

the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 11

(which, among other things, provided 

regulatory relief for smaller banks by 

reducing the frequency of their CRA 

examinations). 

In 1978, consistent with Congress’ 

statutory directive, the agencies 

promulgated the first CRA regulations.12

They have since amended these 

regulations on several occasions, most 

significantly in 1995 and 2005.13 In 

addition, the agencies have periodically 

published interpretations of the CRA 

regulations in the form of Interagency 

Questions and Answers Regarding 

Community Reinvestment (Q&A 

guidance).14

The CRA requires each agency to 

prepare a written evaluation of a bank’s 

record of meeting the credit needs of its 

entire community, including LMI 

neighborhoods, at the conclusion of its 

CRA evaluation.15 This report, known 

as a Performance Evaluation (PE), is 

required to be a public document that 

presents an agency’s conclusions 

regarding a bank’s overall performance 

for each ‘‘assessment factor’’ identified 

in the CRA regulations.16 A PE must 

also present facts and data supporting 

the agency’s conclusions 17 and contain 

both the bank’s CRA rating and a 

description of the basis for the rating.18

A bank’s CRA rating is considered, for 

example, in applications to merge or 

acquire another bank, open a branch, or 

relocate a main office or branch.19 A 

bank with a CRA rating below 

‘‘satisfactory’’ may be restricted from 

certain activities until its next CRA 

evaluation, which is generally one or 

more years in the future. 

II. The Changing Banking Environment 

Over the past two decades, the 

financial services industry has 

undergone transformative changes, 

including the removal of bank interstate 

branching restrictions and the expanded 

role of technology in financial services. 

To better understand how banking 

products and services are delivered to 

consumers in this evolving industry and 

how these changes affect a bank’s CRA 

performance, the agencies have solicited 

feedback from the banking industry, 

community groups, academics, and 

others (collectively, stakeholders) on 

several occasions. For example, in 2010, 

the agencies held a series of joint public 

hearings across the country and 

solicited written feedback regarding 

how to update the CRA regulations in 

light of, among other things, changes in 

how banking services were delivered to 

consumers.20

From 2014 through 2016, the agencies 

again solicited feedback on the CRA, as 

part of the Economic Growth and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45055 

21See, e.g., 80 FR 7980 (February 13, 2015). 

22Memorandum from the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury to the Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (April 3, 2018) (available at https:// 

home.treasury.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/4-3- 

18%20CRA%20memo.pdf). 

23 Id. at 2. 

24The asset sizes are adjusted annually based on 

the Consumer Price Index. 

Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1996 review,21 and received more than 

60 comments about the CRA regulatory 

framework. These comments raised 

issues related to regulatory burden, as 

well as broader issues related to 

modernizing the CRA regulations and 

related Q&A guidance. During 2017 and 

2018, the OCC held numerous meetings 

with bankers, community groups, nonprofit organizations, legislators, and 

other stakeholders and regulators to 

discuss the current CRA regulatory 

framework and to solicit input on how 

to improve the current regulatory 

framework. 

During 2017 and 2018, the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury (Treasury 

Department) invited a diverse group of 

stakeholders to provide feedback on 

how the CRA regulations could more 

effectively encourage economic growth 

in the communities that banks serve.22

On April 3, 2018, the Treasury 

Department issued recommendations to 

the agencies for broad changes to the 

fundamental administration of the CRA 

based on the feedback it had received. 

Specifically, the Treasury Department 

recommended updating the approach to 

delineating assessment areas to reflect 

the changing nature of banking; 

improving the evaluation process to 

increase the timeliness of evaluations 

and enable greater accountability for 

banks’ CRA activity planning; 

increasing the clarity and flexibility of 

CRA evaluations to foster transparency 

and effectiveness in CRA rating 

determinations; and incorporating 

performance incentives to encourage 

banks to meet the credit and deposit 

needs of their communities.23

As the financial services industry 

continues to evolve, many stakeholders 

believe that the statutory purpose of the 

CRA—to encourage banks to help meet 

the credit needs of the communities 

they serve, including LMI areas, in a 

manner that is consistent with their safe 

and sound operation—is not fully or 

effectively accomplished through the 

current regulations. Although aspects of 

the current CRA regulatory framework 

may be sufficient for certain locally 

focused and less complex banks, 

stakeholders have expressed concern 

that the current CRA regulatory 

framework no longer reflects how many 

banks and consumers engage in the 

business of banking. Stakeholders have 

also identified concerns about the lack 

of clarity, consistency, and certainty 

with respect to current CRA regulatory 

requirements. 

III. Objectives of the ANPR 

The OCC has reached out to and 

engaged with over 1,000 stakeholders on 

the existing CRA framework and 

whether it is meeting the credit needs of 

communities, given the changing 

landscape of the financial services 

industry and banking. The OCC’s goal 

for issuing this ANPR is to obtain 

additional public input on how to revise 

the CRA regulations to encourage more 

local and nationwide community and 

economic development—and thus 

promote economic opportunity—by 

encouraging banks to lend more to LMI 

areas, small businesses, and other 

communities in need of financial 

services. The agency invites comments 

on how to revise the CRA regulations to 

bring greater clarity, consistency, and 

certainty to the evaluation process, as 

well as to provide flexibility to 

accommodate banks with different 

business strategies. The OCC also 

invites comments on how to update 

assessment area definitions to 

accommodate digital lending channels, 

while retaining a focus on the 

communities in which bank branches 

are located. Additionally, the agency 

invites comments on clarifying and 

broadening the range of activities 

supporting community and economic 

development that qualify for CRA 

consideration. 

The following sections of the ANPR 

invite comments from all stakeholders 

on changing the current approach to 

performance evaluations; developing 

metrics to increase the objectivity of 

performance measures; updating how 

communities and assessment areas are 

defined to accommodate banks with 

different business strategies and allow 

banks to help meet the needs of 

underserved communities; broadening 

the range of qualifying activities to 

better support the purpose of the CRA; 

and enhancing recordkeeping and 

reporting. The OCC invites all 

comments and suggestions for other 

ways to improve the CRA regulatory 

framework. 

IV. Current CRA Regulatory Approach 

A. Current Performance Evaluation 

Methods 

The OCC’s current CRA regulations 

provide different methods to evaluate a 

bank’s CRA performance depending on 

the bank’s asset size and business 

strategy.24 Some stakeholders have 

expressed the view that the current 

regulatory framework is too complex, 

the asset thresholds for the performance 

tests and standards have not kept pace 

with bank asset sizes, and the standards 

are not applied transparently or 

consistently in performance evaluations. 

Under the current framework, 

• small banks (banks with less than 

$313 million in assets) are evaluated 

under a retail lending test that may also 

consider community development (CD) 

loans. CD investments and services may 

be considered for an outstanding rating 

at the bank’s option, but only if the bank 

meets or exceeds the lending test 

criteria in the small bank performance 

standards. 

• intermediate small banks (ISB) 

(banks with asset sizes between $313 

million and $1.252 billion) are 

evaluated under the retail lending test 

for small banks and a CD test. The ISB 

CD test evaluates all CD activities 

together. 

• large banks (banks with more than 

$1.252 billion in assets) are evaluated 

under the lending, investment, and 

service tests. The large bank lending and 

service tests consider both retail and CD 

activity, while the investment test 

focuses on qualified CD investments. 

• wholesale and limited purpose 

banks are evaluated under a CD test that 

considers activities in a much broader 

geographic area than the area that is 

considered for large banks or ISBs. 

• a bank whose business 

predominantly consists of serving the 

needs of military personnel who are not 

located within a defined geographic area 

is evaluated under the performance test 

or standards applicable to its size and 

business model; such a bank, however, 

may delineate its entire deposit 

customer base as its assessment area. 

• any bank can elect to be evaluated 

under a strategic plan that sets out 

measurable, annual goals for lending, 

investment, and service to achieve a 

satisfactory or outstanding rating. A 

strategic plan must be developed with 

community input and approved by the 

bank’s primary regulator. 

Additionally, although the small 

bank, ISB, and large bank lending tests 

share some common elements, other 

elements are unique to each test. For 

example, to facilitate the evaluation of 

performance under the large bank 

lending test, the CRA regulations 

require that certain data on small 

business, small farm, and CD loans be 

collected and reported annually. Small 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
45056 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

25 12 U.S.C. 2906(b)(1)(B), (d)(3)(A). ‘‘Domestic 

branch’’ is defined as any bank branch office or 

other bank facility that accepts deposits, located in 

any state (12 U.S.C. 2906(e)(1)). For banks that 

maintain domestic branches in two or more states, 

the OCC must prepare separate written evaluations 

of performance in each state in which banks 

maintain one or more domestic branches. For banks 

that maintain domestic branches in two or more 

states within a multistate metropolitan area, the 

OCC must prepare a separate written evaluation of 

performance within the multistate metropolitan 

area (12 U.S.C. 2906(d)(1)(B), (d)(2)). 

26 12 CFR 25.41 and 195.41. 

27See Q & A guidance §l.12(h)–6. For banks 

evaluated pursuant to the CD test for wholesale or 

limited purpose banks, the agencies also consider 

qualified investments, CD loans, and CD services 

that benefit areas outside the bank’s asessment 

area(s), if the bank has adequately adressed the 

needs of its assessment area(s) (12 CFR 25.25(e)(2) 

and 195.25(e)(2)). 

28As noted in footnote 18, the four statutory 

rating categories are outstanding, satisfactory, needs 

to improve, and substantial non-compliance (12 

U.S.C. 2906(b)(2)). 

banks and ISBs are not required to 

report this data. 

Finally, the OCC also considers 

applicable performance context 

information to inform its conclusions 

and CRA ratings in all cases. 

B. Community and Assessment Areas 

The CRA statute does not define 

‘‘community.’’ The statute requires the 

OCC to state conclusions, supported by 

facts and data, on banks’ performance in 

metropolitan areas and—for banks with 

branches in more than one state—in the 

nonmetropolitan area of a state where a 

bank has one or more domestic 

branches.25

The current CRA regulations also do 

not expressly define ‘‘community’’; they 

implement the concept by requiring a 

bank to delineate one or more 

‘‘assessment area(s)’’ in which the 

agency evaluates the bank’s record of 

helping to meet the credit needs of its 

‘‘community.’’ 26

The current CRA regulations specify 

what must be and what cannot be 

included in the assessment area 

delineation. The current interpretation 

of the regulations limits assessment 

area(s) to the area(s) surrounding a 

bank’s main office, branch offices, and 

deposit-taking automated teller 

machines (ATMs). 

A bank’s CRA performance evaluation 

is based primarily on the CRAqualifying activities that occur in or 

serve a bank’s assessment area(s). For 

some banks, their assessment area(s) 

may not include a substantial portion of 

the area(s) in which they conduct 

activities that would otherwise qualify 

for CRA consideration. The activities 

that occur outside of the bank’s 

assessment area that do not have a 

purpose, mandate, or function of serving 

the bank’s assessment area generally 

will not receive consideration unless the 

agency concludes that the bank has been 

responsive to the needs of its 

assessment area(s). Even then, the 

current CRA regulations and Q&A 

guidance generally limit consideration 

of CD activities to the broader statewide 

or regional areas that includes the 

bank’s assessment area(s).27

Stakeholders have expressed concern 

that, in practice, the lack of clarity in 

the regulations and guidance limits 

banks’ willingness or ability to engage 

in CD activities outside of their 

assessment area(s). 

The current assessment area 

definition was developed when banking 

was based largely on physical branch 

locations as the primary means of 

delivering products and services. While 

some banks continue to conduct most of 

their CRA-qualifying activities within 

their assessment area(s), in part because 

of the current framework for evaluating 

CRA performance, banking has evolved 

and the cost of operating branches has 

increased. Changes in the industry offer 

more opportunities for banks to engage 

in business outside of the geographies 

surrounding physical branches. 

Numerous factors, including 

technological advances in the delivery 

of banking services, shifting business 

models, and changes in consumer 

behavior and preferences permit banks 

to engage in the business of banking 

regardless of whether they have 

branches or, if they do, the location of 

their branches. 

C. Questions Regarding Current 

Regulatory Approach 

The OCC invites comments on 

changes to transform or modernize the 

current CRA regulatory framework, 

including with respect to the following 

questions: 

1. Are the current CRA regulations 

clear and easy to understand? 

2. Are the current CRA regulations 

applied consistently? 

3. Is the current CRA rating system 

objective, fair, and transparent? 

4. Two goals of the CRA are to help 

banks effectively serve the convenience 

and needs of their entire communities 

and to encourage banks to lend, invest, 

and provide services to LMI 

neighborhoods. Does the current 

regulatory framework support these 

goals in light of how banks and 

consumers now engage in the business 

of banking? 

5. With the statutory purpose of the 

CRA in mind, what aspects of the 

current regulatory framework are most 

successful in achieving that purpose? 

6. If the current regulatory framework 

is changed, what features and aspects of 

the current framework should be 

retained? 

V. A Modernized CRA 

A. Revising or Transforming the Current 

Regulatory Approach 

1. Revising the Current Performance 

Evaluation Method 

The OCC invites comments on ways 

to modernize the current regulatory 

framework by modifying and 

streamlining the existing CRA 

performance tests, such as by 

implementing an alternative evaluation 

method or by increasing and enhancing 

the use of metrics within the 

performance tests. One such alternative 

evaluation method could replace 

existing performance tests and 

standards and separately evaluate retail 

or CD activities for all banks, accounting 

for variations in size, business model, 

and other factors. This approach could 

include updated metrics that take into 

account information on a bank’s 

performance context, such as the 

demographic characteristics and the 

economic and financial conditions of 

specific communities. 

2. Metric-Based Framework 

The OCC also invites comments on a 

more transformational approach to the 

CRA regulatory framework that could 

(1) increase the transparency of how a 

bank’s CRA performance is evaluated by 

using quantitative benchmarks for 

specific ratings and clear standards for 

quantifying CRA activities; (2) define 

‘‘community’’ more broadly to include 

additional domestic geographies in 

which the bank engages in the business 

of banking; and (3) expand the types of 

activities that would receive CRA 

consideration in a CRA evaluation, with 

a focus on lending, investments, and 

services for LMI geographies and 

individuals and other geographies and 

populations in need of financial 

services. Such an approach could 

simplify and improve the 

implementation of the CRA while better 

effectuating the law’s directive to 

encourage banks to serve their entire 

communities, including LMI 

neighborhoods, consistent with safe and 

sound operations. 

One approach is to create a metricbased performance measurement system 

with thresholds or ranges (benchmarks) 

that correspond to the four statutory 

CRA rating categories.28 These 

benchmarks could represent the overall 

or ‘‘macro’’ benchmarks for obtaining a 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45057 

particular rating and could be composed 

of the ‘‘micro’’ components of CRA 

qualifying lending, investments, and 

services. These components could be 

aggregated to achieve the overall 

benchmark or level of performance. This 

approach would allow flexibility to 

accommodate bank capacity and 

business models while facilitating the 

comparison among banks of all sizes 

and business models and the evaluation 

against an objective, transparent 

threshold. 

In a metric-based framework designed 

to bring clarity to the determination of 

CRA ratings, the benchmarks 

representing the dollar value of CRAqualified activity could be compared to 

readily available and objective criteria, 

such as, a percentage of domestic assets, 

deposits, or capital from the bank’s 

balance sheet, to calculate a ratio that 

could correspond to the benchmark 

established for each rating category. For 

example, a bank with $1 billion in total 

assets that conducted $100 million of 

CRA-qualifying activities in the 

aggregate would achieve a 10-percent 

ratio, if total assets were used for the 

denominator. 

The OCC invites comments on the 

above approaches, including with 

respect to the following questions: 

7. How could an alternative method 

for evaluating CRA performance be 

applied, taking into account the 

following factors: bank business model, 

asset size, delivery channels, and 

branch structure; measures or criteria 

used to evaluate performance, including 

appropriate metrics; and consideration 

for qualifying activities that serve areas 

outside a bank’s delineated assessment 

areas? 

8. How could appropriate benchmarks 

for CRA ratings be established under a 

metric-based framework approach, 

taking into account balance-sheet items, 

such as assets, deposits, or capital and 

other factors, including business 

models? 

9. How could performance context be 

included in such a metric-based 

approach? 

10. In a metric-based framework, 

additional weight could be given to 

certain categories of CRA-qualifying 

activities, such as activities in certain 

geographies, including LMI areas near 

bank branches; activities targeted to LMI 

borrowers; or activities that are 

particularly innovative, complex, or 

impactful on the bank’s community. 

How could a metric-based framework 

most effectively apply different 

weighting to such categories of 

activities? For example, should a $1 

loan product count as $1 in the 

aggregate, while a $1 CD equity 

investment count as $2 in the aggregate? 

11. How can community involvement 

be included in an evaluation process 

that uses a metric-based framework? 

12. For purposes of evaluating 

performance, CD services are not 

currently quantified in a standard way, 

such as by dollar value. Under a metricbased framework, how should CD 

services be quantified? For example, a 

bank could calculate the value of 1,000 

hours of volunteer work by multiplying 

it by an average labor rate and then 

include that number in the aggregate 

total value of its CRA activity. 

3. Redefining Communities and 

Assessment Areas 

To recognize evolving banking 

practices, the OCC invites comments on 

ways to update how a bank’s 

community is interpreted for purposes 

of implementing the CRA. Under an 

updated approach, banks would 

continue to receive consideration for 

CRA-qualifying activities within their 

branch and deposit-taking ATM 

footprint and could receive 

consideration for providing these types 

of beneficial activities in LMI areas 

outside of their branch and deposittaking ATM footprint and other 

underserved areas. An updated 

approach to defining assessment areas 

could allow a bank to include additional 

areas tied to the bank’s business 

operations (e.g., areas where the bank 

has a concentration of deposits or loans, 

non-bank affiliate offices, or loan 

production offices). Under such an 

approach, banks could include these 

additional geographies in their 

assessment areas, enabling 

consideration of CRA-qualifying 

activities conducted within these areas. 

Such an approach could address 

concerns that the current CRA 

assessment areas can restrict bank 

lending or investment in areas of need, 

by expanding the circumstances in 

which banks receive consideration for 

CRA-qualifying activities beyond their 

delineated assessment areas. Providing 

consideration for activities conducted in 

targeted areas or areas that have 

historically been largely excluded from 

consideration such as remote rural 

populations or Indian country, for 

example, could help promote services 

and activities in those areas as well. It 

may also accommodate banks that either 

operate with business models that have 

no physical branches or banks with 

services that reach far beyond the 

geographic location of their physical 

branches. While the OCC would 

continue to assess CRA performance as 

required by statute, qualifying activities 

outside of the areas where a bank has its 

main office, branch offices, and deposittaking ATMs could be considered and 

assessed in the aggregate, at the bank 

level, in addition to activities in its 

traditional assessment areas or local 

geographies. 

The OCC invites comments on this 

approach, including with respect to the 

following questions: 

13. How could the current approach 

to delineating assessment areas be 

updated to consider a bank’s business 

operations, in addition to branches and 

deposit-taking ATMs, as well as more of 

the communities that banks serve, 

including where the bank has a 

concentration of deposits, lending, 

employees, depositors, or borrowers? 

14. Should bank activities in the LMI 

geographies surrounding branches and 

deposit-taking ATMs, or in other 

targeted geographic areas, be weighted 

(and if so, how), or should some other 

approach be taken to ensure that 

activities in those areas continue to 

receive appropriate focus from banks, 

such as requiring banks to have some 

minimum level of performance in the 

metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and 

non-MSA areas in which they have 

domestic branches before receiving 

credit for activity outside those areas? 

B. Expanding CRA-Qualifying Activities 

The OCC invites comments on the 

type and categories of activities that 

should receive CRA consideration. 

Within the current regulation’s 

performance tests and standards, CRA 

activities are generally considered in 

two categories—retail and CD—with the 

objective of encouraging banks to engage 

in a broad range of CRA-qualifying 

activities that are within LMI and other 

areas specified in the regulations and 

that benefit LMI individuals, small 

businesses, and small farms. For the 

most part, CRA-qualifying activities are 

defined by the regulations and further 

described in the Q&A guidance. The 

statute, however, requires the agencies 

to consider low-cost education loans 

provided to low-income borrowers, and 

it permits the agencies to consider 

activities undertaken by a non-minorityowned bank in conjunction with a 

minority- or women-owned bank or 

low-income credit union (MWLI), 

provided these activities benefit the 

MWLI’s local community. 

Some stakeholders have expressed 

concerns about which activities receive 

CRA consideration. These stakeholders 

generally express a desire for more 

clarity and certainty regarding which 

CD, small business, lending, and retail 

service activities will receive CRA 

consideration. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
45058 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

29Loans to small businesses are defined as those 

with original amounts of $1 million or less reported 

on the institution’s Call Report as either ‘‘loans 

secured by nonfarm residential property’’ or 

‘‘commercial and industrial loans.’’ In addition to 

receiving consideration for business loan in 

amounts of $1 million or less, a bank may also 

receive CRA consideration for business loans of 

more than $1 million if the loan has a primary 

purpose of ‘‘community development’’ as that term 

is defined in the CRA regulations. 

The OCC invites comments on 

regulatory changes that could ensure 

CRA consideration for a broad range of 

activities supporting community and 

economic development in banks’ CRA 

performance evaluations, while 

retaining a focus on LMI populations 

and areas, and set clear standards for 

determining whether an activity 

qualifies for CRA consideration. The 

OCC recognizes that providing greater 

clarity on qualifying activities could be 

beneficial in supporting the goals of the 

CRA for all banks, including those with 

more traditional business models. 

Additionally, under the current 

regulatory framework banks receive 

CRA consideration for certain small 

business loans. The CRA regulatory 

definition of a small business loan 

mirrors the definition found in bank 

Call Reports.29

The OCC also considers whether a 

large bank uses innovative or flexible 

lending practices in addressing the 

credit needs of LMI borrowers or 

geographies. Depending on the facts and 

circumstances, a bank that develops a 

unique approach or lending program 

targeted to support the needs of 

borrowers or small businesses in LMI 

geographies, LMI borrowers, or small 

businesses may be eligible to receive 

consideration under CRA for those 

activities. 

The OCC invites comments on the 

role of small business credit in LMI 

areas or for LMI small business owners, 

and under what circumstances small 

business loans should receive CRA 

consideration. 

The OCC invites comments on 

qualifying activities, including with 

respect to the following questions: 

15. How should ‘‘community and 

economic development’’ be defined to 

better address community needs and to 

incentivize banks to lend, invest, and 

provide services that further the 

purposes of the CRA? For example, 

should certain categories of loans and 

investments be presumed to receive 

consideration, such as those that 

support projects, programs, or 

organizations with a mission, purpose, 

or intent of community or economic 

development; or, within such categories, 

only those that are defined as 

community or economic development 

by federal, state, local, or tribal 

governments? 

16. Should there be specific standards 

for CD activities to receive 

consideration, such as requiring those 

activities to provide identified benefits 

to LMI individuals and small business 

borrowers or to lend to and invest in 

LMI communities or other areas or 

populations identified by federal, state, 

local, or tribal government as distressed 

or underserved, including designated 

major disaster areas (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘other identified areas’’ or 

‘‘other identified populations’’)? 

17. Are there certain categories of CD 

activities that should only receive 

consideration if they benefit specified 

underserved populations or areas, such 

as providing credit or technical 

assistance to small businesses or small 

farms; credit or financial services to LMI 

individuals or other identified 

populations (such as the disabled); or 

social services for LMI individuals or job 

creation, workforce development, 

internships, or apprentice programs for 

LMI individuals or other identified 

populations? 

18. Should consideration for certain 

activities that might otherwise qualify as 

CD be limited or excluded? For 

example, how should investments in 

loan-backed securities be considered? 

19. How should financial education or 

literacy programs, including digital 

literacy, be considered? 

20. Should bank activities to expand 

the use of small and disadvantaged 

service providers receive CRA 

consideration as CD activities? 

21. The current regulatory framework 

provides for CRA performance 

evaluations to consider home mortgage, 

small business, and small farm lending, 

and consumer lending in certain 

circumstances. Should these categories 

of lending continue to be considered as 

CRA-qualifying activities or should 

consideration in any or all of these 

categories be limited to loans to LMI 

borrowers and loans in LMI or other 

identified areas? 

22. Under what circumstances should 

consumer lending be considered as a 

CRA-qualifying activity? For example, 

should student, auto, credit card, or 

affordably priced small-dollar loans 

receive consideration? If so, what loan 

features or characteristics should be 

considered in deciding whether loans in 

these categories are CRA-qualifying? 

23. Under what circumstances should 

small business loans receive CRA 

consideration? For example should 

consideration be given to all loans to 

businesses that meet the Small Business 

Administration standards for small 

businesses? 

24. How should small business loans 

with a CD purpose be considered? 

25. Should a bank’s loan purchases 

and loan originations receive equal 

consideration when evaluating that 

bank’s lending performance? 

26. Should loans originated by a bank 

to hold in portfolio be weighted 

differently from loans originated for 

sale? If so, how? 

27. Should bank delivery channels, 

branching patterns, and branches in 

LMI areas be reviewed as part of the 

CRA evaluations? If so, what factors 

should be considered? 

28. The CRA states that the agencies 

may take into consideration in the CRA 

evaluation of a non-minority-owned and 

non-women-owned financial institution 

(majority-owned institution) any capital 

investment, loan participation, and 

other venture undertaken in cooperation 

with MWLIs, even if these activities do 

not benefit the majority-owned 

institution’s community, provided that 

these activities help meet the credit 

needs of local communities in which the 

MWLIs are chartered. What types of 

ventures should be eligible for such 

consideration, and how should such 

ventures be considered? 

C. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

The OCC also invites comments on 

how to modernize CRA regulations to 

promote transparency and consistency 

in recordkeeping, reporting, and 

examination requirements. The current 

regulatory approach does not facilitate 

regular tracking, monitoring, and 

comparisons of levels of CRA 

performance by banks and other 

stakeholders. One advantage of a 

modernized CRA framework that uses 

objective reportable metrics could be to 

allow for better tracking by banks of 

their overall CRA level of performance 

on a regular, periodic basis. If a metricbased framework and clarified standards 

for identifying and measuring qualifying 

activities were implemented, such an 

approach could also allow stakeholders 

to better understand the level of a bank’s 

CRA performance on a straightforward 

and timely basis. 

This type of framework may involve 

an updated approach to the OCC’s CRArelated data collection to be used for 

monitoring and assessing banks’ CRA 

performance. Additionally, under a 

metric-based framework, the ability to 

differentiate among activities based on 

their location, type, or other factors may 

involve additional recordkeeping and 

reporting. 

Such reporting could also support 

comparison among banks, their peer 

groups, or the entire industry and would 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45059 

support understanding of industry-wide 

activity and trends. 

The OCC invites comments on CRA 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. The OCC notes that 

additional feedback on recordkeeping 

and reporting may be necessary if a new 

framework is proposed in a future 

rulemaking. 

29. Could the reporting of data 

gathered using a metric-based approach 

on a regular, periodic basis better 

support the tracking, monitoring, and 

comparison of CRA performance levels? 

30. How frequently should banks 

report CRA activity data for the OCC to 

evaluate and report on CRA 

performance under a revised regulatory 

framework? 

31. As required by law, and to the 

extent possible, the OCC attempts to 

minimize regulatory burden in its 

rulemakings consistent with the 

effective implementation of its statutory 

responsibilities. The OCC is committed 

to evaluating the economic impact of, 

and costs and benefits associated with, 

any changes that are proposed to the 

CRA regulations. Under the current 

regulatory framework, what are the 

annual costs, in dollars or staff hours, 

associated with CRA-related data 

collection, recordkeeping, and 

reporting? 

D. Additional Options or Approaches 

The OCC invites other ideas and 

options for modernizing the CRA 

regulatory framework not identified in 

this ANPR. 

Dated: August 28, 2018. 

Joseph M. Otting, 

Comptroller of the Currency. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19169 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2018–0832] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Head of the Buffalo 

Regatta; Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a temporary safety zone for 

certain waters of the Buffalo River 

during the Head of the Buffalo Regatta. 

This proposed rulemaking would 

prohibit persons and vessels from being 

in the safety zone unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a 

designated representative. We invite 

your comments on this proposed 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before October 5, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2018–0832 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email LTJG Sean 

Dolan, Chief of Waterways Management, 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; 

telephone 716–843–9322, email D09- 

SMB-SECBuffalo-WWM@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On August 16, 2018, the Buffalo 

Scholastic Rowing Association notified 

the Coast Guard that it would be 

conducting a rowing regatta from 8:00 

a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on October 20, 2018, 

in conjunction with the Head of the 

Buffalo Regatta. The rowing vessels will 

launch for their warmup from the Ohio 

St. Kayak Launch, at position 

42°51′55.9′′ N, 78°52′07.2′′ W, then 

proceed to travel upriver to turnaround 

at position 42°51′36.7′′ N, 78°50′56.0′′ 

W. The race will then begin at position 

42°51′40.0′′ N, 78°50′56.5′′ W, and 

proceed downriver to the finish line 

near the Ohio St. bridge at position 

42°52′17.5′′ N, 78°52′21.0′′ W. 

Participants will then proceed further 

upriver to the turnaround point located 

at position 42°52′19.4′′ N, 78°52′25.3′′ 

W, and return to the starting point. The 

Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has 

determined that potential hazards 

associated with rowboat races would be 

a safety concern for anyone within that 

stretch of the Buffalo River. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

enhance the safety of vessels and racers 

on the navigable waters within the 

above stated points, before, during, and 

after the scheduled event. The Coast 

Guard proposes this rulemaking under 

authority 33 U.S.C. 1231. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP proposes to establish a 

temporary safety zone to be enforced 

intermittently from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 

p.m. on October 20, 2018. The safety 

zone will cover all navigable waters 

between the two points starting at 

position 42°52′19.4′′ N, 78°52′25.3′′ W, 

and ending at position 42°51′36.7′′ N, 

78°50′56.0′′ W, on the Buffalo River, 

Buffalo, NY. The duration of the zone is 

intended to ensure the safety of vessels 

and these navigable waters before, 

during, and after the scheduled rowboat 

races between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 

No vessel or person will be permitted to 

enter the safety zone without obtaining 

permission from the COTP or a 

designated representative. The 

regulatory text we are proposing appears 

at the end of this document. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Executive Order 13771 directs agencies 

to control regulatory costs through a 

budgeting process. This NPRM has not 

been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ under Executive 

Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size, location, duration, 

and time-of-day of the safety zone. 

Vessel traffic would not be able to safely 

transit around this safety zone, which 

would impact a small designated area of 

the Buffalo River. However, the Coast 

Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel 

16 about the zone, and the rule would 

allow vessels to seek permission to enter 

the zone. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS