As part of the FDIC's systematic review of its regulations under section 303(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRI Act), the FDIC is amending its regulations to reflect changes in the marketplace, update and streamline the regulation, improve efficiency, and reduce unnecessary costs. The text of this final rule is substantially similar to that of the proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register of August 6, 1996. Previous references to specific sources of data to be used in determining whether a region is economically depressed were removed in order to allow for more flexibility in our analyses. In addition, the general designation of states as the geographical unit over which the FDIC defines ``economically depressed regions'' has been changed under this amendment. Under this amendment, the FDIC will define the geographic unit that comprises an ``economically depressed region'' for an institution on a case-by-case basis. Such a determination is required because the geographic area over which institutions conduct business varies across institutions, as well as over time for an individual institution. After an institution's geographic market has been defined the FDIC will next determine whether that market falls within an ``economically depressed region''. This allows for cases where an institution's geographic market is limited to some portion of a state or crosses two or more state boundaries. The FDIC also will consider relevant information from institutions regarding their geographic market, as well as information on whether that market is ``economically depressed''. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the FDIC also is withdrawing a 1992 proposed amendment to the regulation that was published on December 18, 1992. The FDIC is required by statute to consider proposals for direct financial assistance by Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) members having offices located in an ``economically