68456 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Notices 

§ ll.26(c) Intermediate Small Bank 

Community Development Test 

§ ll.26(c)–1 (proposed): How will 

the community development test be 

applied flexibly for intermediate small 

banks? 

A1 (proposed): Generally, 

intermediate small banks engage in a 

combination of community 

development loans, qualified 

investments, and community 

development services. A bank 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 bank’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 bank’s 

capacity. 

An intermediate small bank has the 

flexibility to allocate its resources 

among community development loans, 

qualified investments, and community 

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 bank, community needs, 

and number and types of opportunities 

for community development. 

§ ll.26(c)(3) Community 

Development Services under 

Intermediate Small Bank Community 

Development Test 

§ ll.26(c)(3)–1 (proposed): What will 

examiners consider when evaluating the 

provision of community development 

services by an intermediate small bank? 

A1 (proposed): Examiners will 

consider not only the types of services 

provided to benefit low- and moderateincome individuals, such as low-cost 

bank checking accounts and low-cost 

remittance services, but also the 

provision and availability of services to 

low- and moderate-income individuals, 

including through branches and other 

facilities located in low- and moderateincome areas. 

§ ll.26(c)(4) Responsiveness to 

Community Development Needs under 

Intermediate Small Bank Community 

Development Test 

§ ll.26(c)(4)–1 (proposed): When 

evaluating an Intermediate Small Bank’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 (proposed): When evaluating an 

Intermediate Small Bank’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 bank’s 

community development activities in 

light of the bank’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 bank’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 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 bank 

under the lending, investment, and 

service tests, are not criteria in the 

intermediate small banks’ 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 lowand moderate-income individuals in 

low- or moderate-income geographies, 

designated disaster areas, or distressed 

or underserved middle-income 

nonmetropolitan geographies. Activities 

are also considered particularly 

responsive to community development 

needs if they benefit low- or moderateincome geographies. 

This concludes the text of the 

proposed Interagency Questions and 

Answers Regarding Community 

Reinvestment. 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

John C. Dugan, 

Comptroller of the Currency. 

By order of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, November 4, 2005. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

Dated at Washington, DC, this third day of 

November, 2005. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–22468 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P; 6210–01–P; 6714–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Improvements to the Andrade Port of 

Entry, Andrade, California 

AGENCY: Public Buildings Service, GSA. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability and 

Public Hearing. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) announces the 

availability of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for 

Improvements to the Andrade Port of 

Entry, Andrade, California, for public 

review and comment. The EIS provides 

GSA and its stakeholders an analysis of 

the environmental impacts resulting 

from ongoing operations as well as 

reasonable alternatives for new 

operations and facilities at the Andrade 

Port of Entry, located in southeastern 

California, and a potential new Port of 

Entry west of Yuma, Arizona. 

DATES: Written comments on the Draft 

EIS are invited from the public and may 

be submitted through the end of the 

comment period, which ends January 9, 

2006 (see ADDRESSES section for more 

details). Comments must be postmarked 

by January 9, 2006, to ensure 

consideration; late comments will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

The GSA will use the comments 

received to help prepare the final 

version of the Andrade Port of Entry 

EIS. A public hearing on the Draft EIS 

will be held on Wednesday, November 

16, 2005, from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm, at 

the Shilo Inn, Yuma Conference Room, 

1550 South Castle Dome Road, Yuma, 

AZ. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Notices 68457 

The hearing will provide 

opportunities for information exchange 

and discussion between GSA and the 

public, as well as for submitting 

prepared statements. For more 

information call (415) 522–3473. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Morris Angell, Regional Environmental 

Quality Advisor, GSA, 450 Golden Gate 

Ave., 3rd Floor E, San Francisco, CA 

94102, (415)522–3473, or via e-mail to 

Morris.Angell@gsa.gov. Oral and written 

comments may also be submitted at the 

public hearing described in the DATES 

section. Requests for copies of the Draft 

Andrade Port of Entry EIS or other 

matters regarding this environmental 

review should be referred to Morris 

Angell at the address above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

of availability will be mailed to all 

agencies, organizations, and individuals 

who participated in the scoping process 

or were identified during the EIS 

process. GSA has distributed copies of 

the Draft Andrade Port of Entry EIS to 

appropriate Congressional members and 

committees, the states of California and 

Arizona, American Indian tribal 

governments, local county governments, 

other federal agencies, and other 

interested parties who have already 

requested copies. 

The Draft EIS was prepared pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.] and the Council on Environmental 

Quality NEPA regulations [40 CFR part 

1500]. GSA proposes to continue 

operating the Andrade Port of Entry, 

which is located in the extreme 

southeastern corner of California. GSA 

has identified and assessed five action 

alternatives for the operation of the 

Andrade Port of Entry: (1) New Facility 

on Current Site and Adjacent Land to 

West (Variants A and B), (2) New 

Facility on Current Site and Adjacent 

Land to East, (3) New Pedestrian and 

Vehicle Facility on the Peninsula 

between the Alamo Canal and the 

Colorado River, (4) New Facility on the 

Peninsula for Vehicles Only, and (5) 

New Facility in Arizona for Vehicles 

Only. In addition, GSA analyzed the No 

Action Alternative in which GSA would 

continue the status quo, that is, operate 

the port of entry in its current 

configuration, with only minor planned 

upgrades. 

The Draft Andrade Port of Entry EIS 

identifies the expected environmental 

impacts from facility operations for each 

alternative, and presents comparisons of 

these impacts among the six 

alternatives. For each alternative, 

impact discussions are presented by 

resource area (e.g., land use, geology 

and soils) or topic area (e.g., traffic, 

environmental justice). 

After the public comment period, 

which ends January 9, 2006, GSA will 

consider the comments received, revise 

the Draft EIS, select a preferred 

alternative, and issue a Final EIS. GSA 

will consider the Final EIS, along with 

other economic and technical 

considerations, to make a decision on 

the appropriate course for 

improvements at the Andrade Port of 

Entry. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted in writing to: Morris Angell, 

Regional Environmental Quality 

Advisor, GSA, 450 Golden Gate Ave., 

3rd Floor E, San Francisco, CA 94102, or 

via e-mail to Morris.Angell@gsa.gov. 

Oral and written comments may also be 

submitted at the public hearing 

described in the DATES section. 

Requests for copies of the Draft Andrade 

Port of Entry EIS or other matters 

regarding this environmental review 

should be referred to Morris Angell at 

the address above. 

Dated: October 27, 2005. 

Peter G. Stamison, 

Regional Administrator,Public Building 

Service,Pacific Rim Region. 

Dated: October 27, 2005. 

Jeffrey Neely, 

Assistant Regional Administrator,Public 

Building Service,Pacific Rim Region. 

[FR Doc. 05–22428 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–YF–S 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 

Maximum Per Diem Rates for 

California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, 

Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, New 

Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 

Virginia and Wisconsin 

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide 

Policy, General Services Administration 

(GSA). 

ACTION: Notice of Per Diem Bulletin 06–

03, revised continental United States 

(CONUS) per diem rates. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) has reviewed the 

lodging rates of certain locations in the 

States of California, Colorado, Florida, 

Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, New 

Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 

Virginia and Wisconsin and determined 

that they are inadequate. Also, GSA is 

changing the FY 2006 meals and 

incidental expenses rate in Illinois, city 

of Chicago, including Cook and Lake 

Counties, to provide for the 

reimbursement of Federal employees’

meals and incidental expenses covered 

by the per diem. The per diems 

prescribed in Bulletin 06–03 may be 

found at http://www.gsa.gov/perdiem. 

DATES: This notice is effective 

November 10, 2005 and applies to travel 

performed on or after November 21, 

2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Patrick 

McConnell, Office of Governmentwide 

Policy, Travel Management Policy, at 

(202) 501–2362. Please cite FTR Per 

Diem Bulletin 06–03. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

After an analysis of the per diem rates 

established for FY 2005 (see the Federal 

Register notices at 70 FR 52100, 

September 1, 2005, and 70 FR 59349, 

October 12, 2005), the per diem rate is 

being changed in the following 

locations: 

State of California 

• Butte County 

State of Colorado 

• El Paso County 

• Summitt County 

State of Florida 

• Broward County 

State of Georgia 

• Glynn County 

State of Idaho 

• Twin Falls County 

State of Illinois 

• Cook and Lake Counties 

State of Kansas 

• Wyandotte and Johnson Counties 

State of Missouri 

• Jackson, Clay, Cass and Platte 

Counties 

State of New Jersey 

• Atlantic and Cape May Counties 

State of New York 

• Erie County 

State of Ohio 

• Franklin County 

• Greene, Darke, and Montgomery 

Counties 

State of Pennsylvania 

• Dauphin County 

• City of Hershey 

State of South Carolina 

• Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester 

Counties 

State of Tennessee 

• Shelby County 

State of Texas 

• Bexar County 

State of Virginia 

• Albemarle County 

State of Wisconsin 

• Milwaukee County 

B. Procedures 

Per diem rates are published on the 

Internet at www.gsa.gov/perdiem as an