Document ID: SEC-2019-1039-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Rule
Title: Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds
Posted Date: 2019-07-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35008-35022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15019]

[[Page 35008]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Part 44

[Docket ID OCC-2018-0029]
RIN 1557-AE47

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 248

[Docket No. R-1643]
RIN 7100-AF33

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 351

RIN 3064-AE88

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 75

RIN 3038-AE72

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 255

[Release no. BHCA-6; File no. S7-30-18]
RIN 3235-AM43

Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading 
and Certain Interests In, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and 
Private Equity Funds

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); Securities and Exchange 
Commission (SEC); and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

ACTION: Final rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The OCC, Board, FDIC, SEC, and CFTC are adopting final rules 
to amend the regulations implementing the Bank Holding Company Act's 
prohibitions and restrictions on proprietary trading and certain 
interests in, and relationships with, hedge funds and private equity 
funds (commonly known as the Volcker Rule) in a manner consistent with 
the statutory amendments made pursuant to certain sections of the 
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act 
(EGRRCPA). The EGRRCPA amendments and the final rules exclude from 
these prohibitions and restrictions certain firms that have total 
consolidated assets equal to $10 billion or less and total trading 
assets and liabilities equal to five percent or less of total 
consolidated assets. The EGRRCPA amendments and the final rules also 
revise the restrictions applicable to the naming of a hedge fund or 
private equity fund to permit an investment adviser that is a banking 
entity to share a name with the fund under certain circumstances.

DATES: These final rules are effective on July 22, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    OCC: Roman Goldstein, Risk Specialist, Treasury and Market Risk 
Policy, 202-649-6360; Tabitha Edgens, Senior Attorney; Mark O'Horo, 
Senior Attorney, Chief Counsel's Office, (202) 649-5510; for persons 
who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
    Board: Flora Ahn, Special Counsel, (202) 452-2317, Gregory 
Frischmann, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-2803, Kirin Walsh, Attorney, 
(202) 452-3058, or Sarah Podrygula, Attorney, (202) 912-4658, Legal 
Division, Constance Horsley, Deputy Associate Director, (202) 452-5239, 
Cecily Boggs, Senior Financial Institution Policy Analyst, (202) 530-
6209, David Lynch, Deputy Associate Director, (202) 452-2081, Division 
of Supervision and Regulation; Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551.
    FDIC: Bobby R. Bean, Associate Director, bbean@fdic.gov, Michael E. 
Spencer, Chief, Capital Markets Strategies, michspencer@fdic.gov, 
Andrew D. Carayiannis, Senior Policy Analyst, acarayiannis@fdic.gov, or 
Brian Cox, Capital Markets Policy Analyst, brcox@fdic.gov, Capital 
Markets Branch, (202) 898-6888; Michael B. Phillips, Counsel, 
mphillips@fdic.gov, Benjamin J. Klein, Counsel, d9bbb2b5bcb0b799bfbdb0baf7beb6af, or 
Annmarie H. Boyd, Counsel, aboyd@fdic.gov, Legal Division, Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 
20429.
    SEC: Andrew R. Bernstein, Senior Special Counsel, Sam Litz, 
Attorney-Adviser, Aaron Washington, Special Counsel, or Carol McGee, 
Assistant Director, at (202) 551-5870, Office of Derivatives Policy and 
Trading Practices, Division of Trading and Markets, and Matthew Cook, 
Senior Counsel, Benjamin Tecmire, Senior Counsel, and Jennifer Songer, 
Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6787 or IArules@sec.gov, Division of 
Investment Management, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F 
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
    CFTC: Cantrell Dumas, Special Counsel, (202) 418-5043, 
cdumas@cftc.gov; Jeffrey Hasterok, Data and Risk Analyst, (646) 746-
9736, jhasterok@cftc.gov, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary 
Oversight; Mark Fajfar, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 418-6636, 
mfajfar@cftc.gov, Office of the General Counsel; Stephen Kane, Research 
Economist, (202) 418-5911, skane@cftc.gov, Office of the Chief 
Economist; Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 
Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (BHC Act),\1\ 
also known as the Volcker Rule, generally prohibits any banking entity 
from engaging in proprietary trading or from acquiring or retaining an 
ownership interest in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with 
a hedge fund or private equity fund, subject to certain exemptions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 1851.
    \2\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the statute, authority for developing and adopting 
regulations to implement the prohibitions and restrictions of section 
13 of the BHC Act is shared among the OCC, Board, FDIC, SEC, and CFTC 
(the agencies).\3\ The agencies adopted final rules implementing 
section 13 of the BHC Act in December 2013 (the 2013 final rule).\4\ 
The agencies recently proposed amendments to these rules to provide 
clarity about what activities are prohibited, and to improve 
supervision

[[Page 35009]]

and implementation of section 13 of the BHC Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 12 U.S.C. 1851(b)(2). Under section 13(b)(2)(B) of the 
BHC Act, rules implementing section 13's prohibitions and 
restrictions must be issued by: (i) The appropriate Federal banking 
agencies (i.e., the Board, the OCC, and the FDIC), jointly, with 
respect to insured depository institutions; (ii) the Board, with 
respect to any company that controls an insured depository 
institution, or that is treated as a bank holding company for 
purposes of section 8 of the International Banking Act, any nonbank 
financial company supervised by the Board, and any subsidiary of any 
of the foregoing (other than a subsidiary for which an appropriate 
Federal banking agency, the SEC, or the CFTC is the primary 
financial regulatory agency); (iii) the CFTC with respect to any 
entity for which it is the primary financial regulatory agency, as 
defined in section 2 of the Dodd-Frank Act; and (iv) the SEC with 
respect to any entity for which it is the primary financial 
regulatory agency, as defined in section 2 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 
See id.
    \4\ See ``Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading 
and Certain Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and 
Private Equity Funds; Final Rule,'' 79 FR 5535 (Jan. 31, 2014).
    \5\ See ``Proposed Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on 
Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships 
With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds,'' 83 FR 33432 (July 17, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act 
(EGRRCPA) amended section 13 of the BHC Act by modifying the definition 
of ``banking entity'' to exclude certain community banks and their 
affiliates from section 13's restrictions and by permitting an 
investment adviser that is a banking entity to share a name with a 
hedge fund or private equity fund that the banking entity organizes and 
offers under certain circumstances.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer 
Protection Act, Public Law 115-174, sections 203, 204 (May 24, 
2018). These provisions were effective upon EGRRCPA's enactment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the enactment of EGRRCPA, the definition of ``banking 
entity,'' for purposes of section 13 of the BHC Act, included any 
insured depository institution, as defined in the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Act (FDI Act),\7\ any company that controls an insured 
depository institution, or that is treated as a bank holding company 
for purposes of section 8 of the International Banking Act of 1978 
(IBA), and any affiliate or subsidiary of such entity (excluding from 
the term insured depository institution certain insured depository 
institutions that function solely in a trust or fiduciary capacity, 
subject to a variety of conditions).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 3(c)(2) of the FDI Act defines an insured depository 
institution to include any bank or savings association the deposits 
of which are insured by the FDIC under the FDI Act. 12 U.S.C. 
1813(c)(2).
    \8\ 12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(2), 1851(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 203 of EGRRCPA, entitled ``Community bank relief,'' 
modified the scope of the term ``banking entity'' to exclude certain 
community banks and their affiliates. Specifically, under section 203, 
the term ``insured depository institution'' no longer includes any 
institution that does not have, and is not controlled by a company that 
has: (i) More than $10 billion in total consolidated assets; and (ii) 
total trading assets and trading liabilities, as reported on the most 
recent applicable regulatory filing filed by the institution, that are 
more than 5 percent of total consolidated assets. Therefore, an insured 
depository institution and its affiliates generally are not ``banking 
entities'' if the insured depository institution and each affiliated 
insured depository institution meets the statutory exclusion.\9\ 
However, EGRRCPA did not amend the definition of ``banking entity'' as 
it relates to a company that is treated as a bank holding company for 
purposes of section 8 of the IBA. Accordingly, the statutory exclusion 
does not apply to a foreign banking organization with a U.S. branch or 
agency, which continues to be subject to the prohibitions in section 13 
of the BHC Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 203 amended section 13(h)(1)(B) of the BHC Act by 
excluding certain institutions from the term ``insured depository 
institution'' exclusively for the purposes of section 13. Insured 
banks and savings associations that qualify for this exclusion for 
the purposes of section 13 of the BHC Act remain insured depository 
institutions under section 3(c)(2) of the FDI Act. Additionally, an 
institution that meets the criteria to be excluded from the 
definition of insured depository institution under EGRRCPA may still 
be a banking entity by virtue of its affiliation with another 
insured depository institution or a company that is treated as a 
bank holding company under section 8 of the IBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 204 of EGRRCPA revised the restrictions applicable to the 
naming of a hedge fund or private equity fund \10\ to permit an 
investment adviser that is a banking entity to share a name with the 
fund under certain circumstances. Prior to enactment of EGRRCPA, 
section 13 provided that a banking entity (or an affiliate of the 
banking entity), including an investment adviser, that organized and 
offered a hedge fund or private equity fund could not share the same 
name or a variation of the same name with the fund (the name-sharing 
restriction).\11\ Section 204 of EGRRCPA amended the name-sharing 
restriction to permit a hedge fund or private equity fund organized and 
offered by a banking entity to share the same name or a variation of 
the same name as a banking entity that is an investment adviser to the 
hedge fund or private equity fund, if: (1) The investment adviser is 
not an insured depository institution, a company that controls an 
insured depository institution, or a company that is treated as a bank 
holding company for purposes of section 8 of the IBA; \12\ (2) the 
investment adviser does not share the same name or a variation of the 
same name with any such entities; and (3) the name does not contain the 
word ``bank.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The terms ``hedge fund'' and ``private equity fund'' are 
defined at 12 U.S.C. 1851(h)(2). See also 12 CFR 44.10(b); 12 CFR 
248.10(b); 12 CFR 351.10(b); 17 CFR 255.10(b); 17 CFR 75.10(b) 
(defining ``covered fund'' for purposes of the 2013 final rule).
    \11\ 12 U.S.C. 1851(d)(1)(G)(vi) (2017).
    \12\ 12 U.S.C. 3106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 8, 2019, the agencies published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (the proposal) to revise the 2013 final rule consistent with 
the EGRRCPA statutory amendments.\13\ For the reasons discussed below, 
the agencies are now adopting the proposal as final without change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Proposed Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on 
Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships 
With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds,'' 84 FR 2778 (Feb. 8, 
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Final Rules

A. Definition of Banking Entity

    Consistent with the proposal, the agencies are modifying the 
definition of ``insured depository institution'' in Sec.  __.2(r) of 
the 2013 final rule to conform that definition with section 203 of 
EGRRCPA. Under this revised definition, an insured depository 
institution must satisfy two conditions for it and its affiliates to 
qualify for the exclusion. First, the insured depository institution, 
and every entity that controls it, must have total consolidated assets 
equal to or less than $10 billion. Second, total consolidated trading 
assets and liabilities of the insured depository institution, and every 
entity that controls it, must be equal to or less than five percent of 
its total consolidated assets.
    Trade associations representing large commercial banks, community 
banks, and credit unions all generally supported the agencies' proposal 
to implement the community bank relief provision under section 203 of 
EGRRCPA.\14\ Some commenters cited, among other considerations, the 
statute's plain meaning, legislative history, and policy considerations 
for their support of the proposal.\15\ Certain other commenters 
suggested that section 203 extended relief to firms with either $10 
billion or less in total consolidated assets or trading assets and 
liabilities equal to 5 percent or less of total consolidated 
assets.\16\ Under these commenters' view of section 203, many banks 
with total consolidated assets well over $10 billion, including certain 
global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) with over $250 billion in 
total consolidated assets, would be exempt from section 13 of the BHC 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See American Bankers Association; Independent Community 
Bankers of America; National Association of Federally-Insured Credit 
Unions; California Bankers Association.
    \15\ Los Huertos and Mount; National Association of Federally-
Insured Credit Unions.
    \16\ See Competitive Enterprise Institute; Competitive 
Enterprise Institute et al.; Luetkemeyer; Matthew Thomas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering these comments, the agencies are not persuaded by 
the argument that the exclusion under section 203 of EGRRCPA extends to 
institutions with total consolidated assets in excess of $10 billion. 
The agencies believe that the statute requires an institution to 
satisfy both criteria to qualify for the exclusion. This approach

[[Page 35010]]

is most consistent with the statutory language of EGRRCPA, the 
congressional intent behind the statute, and the structure of the 
statute as a whole.
    The agencies note that Section 203 of EGRRCPA, is entitled 
``Community bank relief,'' and that numerous floor statements made by 
senators contemporaneously with passage of the legislation in the 
Senate on a bipartisan basis indicated that section 203 was only 
intended to exclude community banks and their affiliates.\17\ Moreover, 
the Senate Banking Committee's summary of section 203 describes it as 
exempting banking entities that have total consolidated assets of $10 
billion or less and total trading assets and trading liabilities that 
are five percent or less of total consolidated assets.\18\ For these 
reasons, the agencies are adopting without change the proposed 
revisions to the banking entity definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., 164 Cong. Rec. S1696 at S1701, S1720, S1724-25 
(Mar. 14, 2018).
    \18\ See S. 2155, Section-By-Section, as Passed by Senate, 
United State Senate Committee on Banking and Urban Affairs (March 
14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters requested that, for purposes of determining whether 
trading assets and liabilities are within the five percent threshold, 
the agencies limit their review to an institution's most recent 
applicable regulatory filing.\19\ These commenters requested that the 
agencies not review all ``available information,'' as suggested in the 
preamble to the proposal,\20\ because such information could be at 
variance with the trading assets and/or liabilities figure(s) reported 
in the most recent applicable regulatory filing. These commenters also 
requested that the agencies confirm that section 203 of EGRRCPA is 
self-effectuating and that no additional action is required by the 
agencies for the community bank exclusion to take effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See American Bankers Association; California Bankers 
Association. Another commenter requested that the agencies provide 
additional clarity for the purposes of determining which 
institutions qualify for the relevant exclusion. See Grimm. That 
commenter also requested further clarity with respect to the changes 
made to the name-sharing restriction pursuant to section 204 of 
EGRRCPA.
    \20\ The preamble to the proposal stated that ``the Agencies 
would expect to use available information, including information 
reported on regulatory reporting forms available to each Agency, 
with respect to whether financial institutions qualify for the 
exclusion.'' 84 FR 2781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies confirm that a bank or savings association seeking to 
determine its eligibility for the exclusion may use its most recent 
quarterly Consolidated Report of Condition and Income (call report) as 
the source of data for its consolidated assets and its total trading 
assets and liabilities at the bank or savings association level. 
Similarly, a banking organization may use the most recent filing of the 
Board's FR Y-9C by its holding company as the source of data about the 
consolidated assets and total trading assets and liabilities of the 
companies controlling the bank or savings association. Generally, the 
agencies believe that most current FR Y9-SP filers will be able to 
determine eligibility for the exclusion based on the call report data 
filed by their affiliated insured depository institution(s). All 
entities that seek to rely on the community bank exclusion should 
assure themselves that all affiliated banks or savings associations and 
holding companies satisfy the total consolidated assets and trading 
asset and liability thresholds. As the agencies noted in the proposal, 
institutions that meet the eligibility requirements under section 203 
of EGRRCPA are no longer subject to the requirements of section 13 of 
the BHC Act, and no additional action by the agencies is required for 
the exclusion to take effect.
    Two commenters requested that the agencies provide clarification 
that certain securities held by banks or savings associations and their 
holding companies are not within the category of ``trading assets'' for 
purposes of determining eligibility for the exclusion.\21\ As described 
above, the call report or FR Y-9C, as applicable, may be used as the 
source of data for purposes of determining compliance with the total 
assets and trading asset and liability thresholds. Institutions should 
classify assets and liabilities consistent with the instructions to the 
relevant report in consultation with appropriate supervisors, as 
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ American Bankers Association (securities reported as 
available-for-sale); Bessemer Group, Inc. (mutual fund shares held 
to hedge nonqualified compensation plan liabilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter requested that the agencies generally clarify that 
securities held as available-for-sale do not count towards the trading 
assets and liabilities threshold.\22\ The call report and FR Y-9C 
require reporting an institution's available-for-sale securities 
separately from the institution's trading assets. Accordingly, 
securities appropriately classified as available-for-sale and excluded 
from trading assets on an institution's call report or FR Y-9C will not 
count toward an institution's trading assets and liabilities threshold. 
Another commenter requested that the agencies address the 
classification of securities held in connection with employee deferred 
compensation programs for purposes of the call report and FR Y-9C.\23\ 
The question of how to classify specific types of assets, such as 
assets held in connection with employee deferred compensation programs, 
on the call report and FR Y-9C is fact-specific and beyond the scope of 
this rulemaking.\24\ As stated above, institutions should classify 
assets and liabilities consistent with the instructions to the relevant 
report in consultation with appropriate supervisors, as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ American Bankers Association.
    \23\ Bessemer Group, Inc.
    \24\ The regulatory reporting forms to which the commenter is 
requesting revision or clarification are also used for other 
purposes, such as for determining capital requirements. See 12 CFR 
part 3, app. B; 12 CFR 217.202; 12 CFR 324.202 (using trading assets 
and liabilities for the purpose of determining ``covered positions'' 
under the market risk capital rule). Accordingly, changes to the 
reporting forms or the instructions thereto would likely have 
unintended consequences for other areas of supervision and 
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters generally opposed providing an exclusion to 
community banks.\25\ One of these commenters suggested that, for a 
community bank to remain eligible for the exclusion, it should be 
required to pass periodic tests by its regulator.\26\ As noted above, 
EGRRCPA excludes community banks from section 13 if they meet the 
specified total consolidated assets and trading asset and liability 
conditions, and these provisions became effective upon enactment. 
Accordingly, the agencies are finalizing the exclusion as proposed in 
order to conform the regulation to the statutory exclusion. The banking 
agencies note that they will continue to examine community banks that 
are exempt under section 203 for compliance with applicable laws and 
regulations, including the requirement under applicable banking laws 
and regulations that they operate in a safe and sound manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Tinee Carraker, Rodger Cunningham.
    \26\ See Carraker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter requested relief from the control definition or a 
specific exclusion for investors in companies that control industrial 
loan companies (ILCs).\27\ Any changes to the definition of ``control'' 
under the BHC Act \28\ are outside of the scope of this rulemaking.\29\ 
Furthermore, the agencies do not find any support for a specific 
exemption from section 13 of the BHC Act for investors in ILC parents 
under EGRRCPA. Accordingly, the agencies are not adopting an exemption 
from

[[Page 35011]]

section 13 of the BHC Act for parent ILCs or investors in the parent 
ILCs that do not otherwise meet the eligibility requirements for the 
community bank exclusion under section 203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See EnerBank.
    \28\ 12 U.S.C. 1841(a)(2); 12 CFR 225.2(e)(1).
    \29\ The Board recently invited comment on a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to simplify and increase the transparency of the rules 
for determining control of a banking organization. Press Release: 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20190423a.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Modification of Name-Sharing Restriction

    Consistent with the proposal, the agencies are modifying the name-
sharing restriction in Sec.  _.11(a)(6)(i) of the 2013 final rule to 
conform that restriction to section 204 of EGRRCPA. Pursuant to this 
change, a hedge fund or private equity fund sponsored by a banking 
entity is permitted to share the same name or a variation of the same 
name with a banking entity that is an investment adviser to the fund, 
subject to the conditions specified in the statute.\30\ These 
conditions require that the investment adviser is not, and does not 
share the same name (or a variation of the same name) as, an insured 
depository institution, a company that controls an insured depository 
institution, or a company that is treated as a bank holding company for 
purposes of section 8 of the IBA,\31\ and that the investment adviser's 
name does not contain the word ``bank.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ EGRRCPA, section 204. While the statute applies these 
restrictions and conditions to ``hedge funds'' and ``private equity 
funds,'' the 2013 final rule applies to ``covered funds,'' as 
defined in Sec.  _.10 of the regulations. See supra footnote 10.
    \31\ 12 U.S.C. 1851(d)(1)(G)(vi)(I); 12 U.S.C. 
1851(d)(1)(G)(vi)(II).
    \32\ 12 U.S.C. 1851(d)(1)(G)(vi)(III). The requirement that the 
name not contain the word ``bank'' was included in the name-sharing 
restriction by section 204 of EGRRCPA but already is a condition 
under the 2013 final rule. Accordingly, the agencies did not make 
any additional modifications to the rule to reflect this condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies received four comments on these proposed changes to 
the name-sharing restriction. One commenter generally supported the 
proposed changes to the name-sharing restriction.\33\ Two commenters 
asked the agencies to provide relief from the name-sharing restriction 
for covered funds that are required or expected by regulators in a 
foreign jurisdiction to share the same name or a variation of the same 
name with a fund manager, and the fund manager shares a name or a 
variation of the same name as its banking entity affiliate.\34\ One of 
these commenters asserted that concerns regarding investor confusion 
about the role of the banking entity or perceived bailout risk would be 
mitigated because the funds would be required to comply with the 
written disclosure requirements under the 2013 final rule for 
organizing and offering a covered fund.\35\ Another commenter suggested 
that the agencies could use their exemptive authority under section 
13(d)(1)(J) of the BHC Act to implement this exemption.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Independent Community Bankers of America.
    \34\ American Bankers Association; Investment Adviser 
Association. Another commenter stated that the agencies should be 
mindful of any foreign requirements on name-sharing between covered 
funds and banking entities. See Matthew Thomas.
    \35\ See Investment Adviser Association; 12 CFR 44.11(a)(8); 12 
CFR 248.11(a)(8); 12 CFR 351.11(a)(8); 17 CFR 255.11(a)(8); 17 CFR 
75.11(a)(8).
    \36\ See American Bankers Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of these revisions to the 2013 final rule is to conform 
the amendments to section 204 of EGRRCPA. Section 204 of EGRRCPA did 
not provide an exclusion allowing banking entities to share a name with 
a covered fund if required or expected to by foreign regulators. 
Accordingly, the agencies have determined not to make the requested 
change to the name-sharing restriction, which goes beyond the scope of 
this rulemaking, and are adopting the changes implementing section 204 
as proposed.
    The agencies are also finalizing conforming changes to the 
definition of ``sponsor.'' \37\ Pursuant to these changes, the 
definition of the term ``sponsor'' includes a banking entity that 
shares the same name or a variation of the same name with a fund, for 
corporate, marketing, promotional, or other purposes, except as 
permitted under Sec.  __.11(a)(6)--i.e., the name-sharing restriction 
as amended by EGRRCPA. The agencies did not receive any comments on the 
proposed conforming changes to the definition of ``sponsor.'' The 
agencies are adopting this change as final in order to conform the rule 
to the EGRRCPA statutory revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ EGRRCPA section 204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Administrative Law Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Certain provisions of the final rule contain ``collection of 
information'' requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In accordance with 
the requirements of the PRA, the agencies may not conduct or sponsor, 
and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information 
collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) control number. The agencies reviewed and determined 
that the final would not change the current reporting, recordkeeping or 
third-party disclosure requirements associated with section 13 of the 
BHC Act under the PRA. However, the final rule would reduce the number 
of respondents for the Board (including OCC-, FDIC-, SEC-, and CFTC-
supervised institutions under a holding company), FDIC (with respect to 
supervised institutions not under a holding company), and OCC 
(supervised institutions not under a holding company), which will be 
addressed as a nonmaterial change to OMB.

B. Plain Language

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act \38\ requires the OCC, 
Board, and FDIC (Federal banking agencies) to use plain language in all 
proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Federal 
banking agencies have sought to present the proposed rule in a simple 
and straightforward manner and did not receive any comments on plain 
language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Public Law 106-102, section 722, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 
(1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    OCC: The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., (RFA), 
requires an agency, in connection with a final rule, to prepare a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing the impact of the rule on 
small entities (defined by the SBA for purposes of the RFA to include 
commercial banks and savings institutions with total assets of $550 
million or less and trust companies with total assets of $38.5 million 
of less) or to certify that the rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The OCC currently supervises approximately 758 small entities.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ We base our estimate of the number of small entities on the 
SBA's size thresholds for commercial banks and savings institutions, 
and trust companies, which are $550 million and $38.5 million, 
respectively. Consistent with the General Principles of Affiliation 
13 CFR 121.103(a), we count the assets of affiliated financial 
institutions when determining if we should classify an OCC-
supervised institution as a small entity. We use December 31, 2018, 
to determine size because a ``financial institution's assets are 
determined by averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly 
financial statements for the preceding year.'' See footnote 8 of the 
U.S. Small Business Administration's Table of Size Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the statutory provisions are already in effect, and this 
rule only revises the OCC's existing regulations to conform to this 
statutory change, this rule does not affect a substantial number of 
small entities. Section 204 of EGRRCPA generally does not apply to OCC-
supervised institutions.
    The OCC's threshold for a significant effect is whether cost 
increases associated with a proposed rule are greater than or equal to 
either 5 percent of a small bank's total annual salaries and benefits 
or 2.5 percent of a small bank's total non-interest expense. Even if 
the rule affected a substantial number

[[Page 35012]]

of small banks, the OCC does not believe that it would have a 
significant economic impact on small banks, because OCC-supervised 
institutions that qualify for the exclusion under section 203 of the 
EGRRCPA should not have compliance costs associated with 12 CFR part 
44. OCC-supervised institutions can determine their eligibility for the 
exclusion at the bank level based on information they are separately 
required to file in their Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income. 
Therefore, the OCC certifies that the rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of OCC-supervised small 
entities.
    Board: The RFA imposes certain requirements on the Board regarding 
any potential significant economic impact that a rule may have on a 
substantial number of small entities. The size standard to be 
considered a small business for banking entities subject to the rule is 
generally $550 million or less in consolidated assets.\40\ The Board 
has considered the potential economic impact of the final rule on 
Board-supervised small entities in accordance with the RFA. The Board 
believes that the final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons 
described below.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ U.S. SBA, Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to 
North American Industry Classification System Codes, available at 
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Pursuant to SBA regulations, the asset 
size of a concern includes the assets of the concern whose size is 
at issue and all of its domestic and foreign affiliates. 13 CFR 
121.103(6).
    \41\ The Board published an initial RFA analysis in connection 
with the proposal and received no public comments related to its 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Reason for the Final Rule
    As discussed in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the agencies are 
revising the regulations implementing section 13 of the BHC Act in 
conformance with EGRRCPA. The final rule therefore excludes from the 
definition of ``insured depository institution'' if an insured 
depository institution (and any company that controls such institution) 
has total consolidated assets equal to $10 billion or less and total 
trading assets and liabilities equal to five percent or less of total 
consolidated assets. Such institutions are exempt from the prohibitions 
and restrictions under section 13 of the BHC Act.
2. Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis
    As discussed above, the agencies' objective in finalizing 
amendments to the regulations implementing section 13 of the BHC Act is 
to conform the regulations to changes recently enacted by sections 203 
and 204 of EGRRCPA. The agencies are explicitly authorized under 
section 13(b)(2) of the BHC Act to adopt rules implementing section 
13.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 12 U.S.C. 1851(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Description of Small Entities to Which the Regulation Applies
    Section 203 of EGRRCPA exempted approximately 3,193 Board-
supervised small entities from section 13 of the BHC Act.\43\ The 
Board's final rule conforms its regulations implementing section 13 to 
the statutory changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Qualifying institutions eligible for this exclusion would 
consist of state member banks, bank holding companies, and savings 
and loan holding companies that meet the eligibility criteria for 
the exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
    Sections 203 and 204 of EGRRCPA were effective upon enactment, and, 
thus, any economic impacts on small entities associated with these 
changes were caused by the statutory changes. Section 203 of EGRRCPA 
exempted all Board-supervised small entities from the reporting, 
recordkeeping, and all other requirements associated with section 13 of 
the BHC Act. While section 203 of EGRRCPA, therefore, affects a 
substantial number of Board-supervised small entities, it is not 
expected to have a significant economic impact on such entities. This 
is because such small entities generally engage in limited activities 
subject to section 13 of the BHC Act and are subject to limited 
compliance requirements under the rule.
    The Board estimates that Board-supervised small entities that are 
no longer subject to section 13 of the BHC Act due to section 203 of 
EGRRCPA will save, on average, approximately $5,000 per year.\44\ This 
represents, on average, less than 1.25 percent of net income and less 
than 0.07 percent of total equity for such entities. For the reasons 
stated above, section 203 of EGRRCPA and the Board's final rule are not 
expected to have a significant economic impact on Board-supervised 
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ This estimate is based on the paperwork, recordkeeping, and 
disclosure-related compliance requirements associated with section 
13 of the BHC Act that the Board estimates for purposes of the PRA. 
Because community banks do not significantly engage in the types of 
activities subject to section 13's prohibitions and restrictions, 
the majority of the ongoing costs associated with section 13 for 
community banks prior to EGRRCPA were likely related to 
recordkeeping and should thus be captured by this data. The average 
estimated compliance cost savings would be $9,225, equal to 146 
hours multiplied by an estimated total hourly compensation rate of 
$63.36 per hour. According to the May 2017 National Industry-
Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for the 
Depository Credit Intermediation sector the 75th percentile wages 
for a compliance officer is $40.55 per hour. The wage information 
reported by the BLS in the Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 
Estimates does not include health benefits and other non-monetary 
benefits. According to the December 2018 Employer Cost of Employee 
Compensation data compensation rates for health and other benefits 
are 33.7 percent of total compensation. The wage is also inflation 
adjusted according to the BLS data on the Consumer Price Index for 
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) so that it is contemporaneous with the non-
wage compensation statistic. The inflation rate was 3.59 percent 
between May 2017 and December 2018. Therefore, the adjusted average 
wage for a compliance officer is $63.36 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 204 of EGRRCPA, which amends the restrictions related to 
the naming of covered funds, will likely only have direct economic 
impacts on investment advisory businesses subject to section 13 of the 
BHC Act. Because the Board is not the primary financial regulatory 
agency for investment advisers,\45\ section 204 of EGRRCPA not expected 
to have a significant economic impact on Board-supervised small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See 12 U.S.C. 1851(b)(2)(B)(i)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Identification of Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal 
Regulations
    The Board has not identified any federal statutes or regulations 
that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed revisions.
6. Discussion of Significant Alternatives
    The Board does not believe that this final rule will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number small entities. As 
a result, the Board has not adopted any alternatives to the final rule.
    FDIC: The RFA generally requires that, in connection with a final 
rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment a 
final regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the 
rulemaking on small entities.\46\ A regulatory flexibility analysis is 
not required, however, if the agency certifies that the rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The SBA has defined ``small entities'' to include banking 
organizations with total assets less than or equal to $550 million.\47\

[[Page 35013]]

Generally, the FDIC considers a significant effect to be a quantified 
effect in excess of 5 percent of total annual salaries and benefits per 
institution, or 2.5 percent of total non-interest expenses. The FDIC 
believes that effects in excess of these thresholds typically represent 
significant effects for FDIC-supervised institutions. The FDIC 
supervises 3,489 depository institutions,\48\ of which 2,674 are 
defined as small banking entities by the terms of the RFA.\49\ Of the 
2,674 small, FDIC-supervised institutions, all report having total 
consolidated assets less than or equal to $10 billion, and total 
trading assets and liabilities less than or equal to five percent of 
total consolidated assets, and are therefore, covered by the rule.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \47\ The SBA defines a small banking organization as having $550 
million or less in assets, where ``a financial institution's assets 
are determined by averaging the assets reported on its four 
quarterly financial statements for the preceding year.'' 13 CFR 
121.201 n.8 (2018). ``SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other 
measure of size of the concern whose size is at issue and all of its 
domestic and foreign affiliates . . .'' 13 CFR 121.103(a)(6) (2018). 
Following these regulations, the FDIC uses a covered entity's 
affiliated and acquired assets, averaged over the preceding four 
quarters, to determine whether the covered entity is ``small'' for 
the purposes of RFA.
    \48\ FDIC-supervised institutions are set forth in 12 U.S.C. 
1813(q)(2).
    \49\ Call Report: December 31, 2018.
    \50\ Call Report: December 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the rule applies to 2,674 small, FDIC-supervised 
institutions, the rule would not have a significant economic impact. 
The statutory changes established by EGRRCPA no longer prohibit certain 
institutions to engage in proprietary trading,\51\ thereby potentially 
increasing the volume of such activity for affected banking entities. 
The rule would amend the FDIC's regulations to conform to this 
exemption established in EGRRCPA. Therefore, this component of the rule 
would have no direct effect on small, FDIC-supervised institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 12 CFR 351.3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, even if the economic effects of the proposed rule were 
considered relative to a pre-statutory baseline the proposed changes 
that enable certain institutions to engage in proprietary trading are 
unlikely to have a significant effect on a substantial number of small, 
FDIC-supervised institutions. In the years prior to the enactment of 
the 2013 final rule (2006 to 2012) a maximum of 59 small, FDIC-
supervised institutions reported a nonzero value for trading assets, 
trading liabilities, or structured financial products. Additionally, in 
the years prior to the enactment of the 2013 final rule (2006 to 2012) 
trading assets as a percent of total assets ranged between 0.00013 and 
0.07 percent for small, FDIC-supervised institutions.\52\ According to 
the most recent Call Report data trading assets as a percent of total 
assets is 0.007 percent for small, FDIC-supervised institutions.\53\ 
Not all trading activity is necessarily proprietary trading, so only a 
subset of trading assets would be affected by this rule. Also, changes 
in the dollar volume of trading assets and their percentage of total 
assets are affected by market conditions, economic conditions, and the 
decisions of senior management at small, FDIC-supervised institutions, 
among other things. However, the small volume of pre-Volcker Rule 
trading assets and liabilities at small institutions suggests that the 
proposed rule is unlikely to have significant effects on small, FDIC-
supervised institutions, assuming that past behavior is indicative of 
the propensity of small, FDIC-supervised institutions to engage in 
trading activity that otherwise would have been prohibited under the 
Volcker Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Call Report: March 2006-December 2012.
    \53\ Call Report: December 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously stated, EGRRCPA permits a covered fund organized and 
offered by a banking entity to share the same name, or a variation of 
the same name, as a banking entity that is an affiliated investment 
adviser to the hedge fund or private equity fund, with some 
restrictions. By permitting a covered fund to share the name of a 
banking entity, or variation thereof, the fund can utilize the 
franchise value of the banking entity to more effectively market the 
fund to the bank's current account holders or the public. The size of 
this potential benefit is difficult to accurately estimate with 
available data because it depends on the business model of individual 
banks and funds, the propensity of those funds to advertise to 
particular groups, and the decisions of customers, among other things. 
However, since the rule would conform FDIC regulations with the 
statutory language enacted by EGRRCPA, this component of the rule would 
have no direct effect on small, FDIC-supervised institutions.
    Finally, the rule would introduce conforming changes that would 
reduce recordkeeping, reporting, and disclosure costs for affected 
FDIC-supervised institutions. EGRRCPA states that certain institutions 
with total consolidated assets less than or equal to $10 billion, and 
total trading assets and liabilities less than or equal to five percent 
of total consolidated assets, are excluded from restrictions on 
engaging in proprietary trading activity. The rule would amend the 
FDIC's regulations to conform to this exclusion established in EGRRCPA. 
In so doing, the rule would make conforming changes to reduce the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for small, FDIC-supervised 
institutions that were excluded from proprietary trading restriction by 
EGRRCPA. Although the vast majority of small, FDIC-supervised 
institutions are not currently required to comply with the 
recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements associated with 
proprietary trading, the rule would introduce conforming changes that 
would exclude some small, FDIC-supervised institutions. Of these newly 
excluded institutions, the rule would conform to Section 203 of 
EGRRCPA, which reduced recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure 
requirements by up to an estimated 8 hours per institution, or 
approximately $506.88 per year.54 55 The estimated reduction 
in recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure costs per institution 
represents less than 0.01 percent of non-interest expenses, on average, 
for small, FDIC-supervised institution.\56\ Thus, the FDIC believes the 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on small, FDIC-
supervised institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 8 hours * $63.36 per hour = $506.88.
    \55\ The estimated reduction in costs is calculated by 
multiplying 8 hours by an estimated total hourly compensation rate 
of $63.36 per hour. According to the May 2017 National Industry-
Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for the 
Depository Credit Intermediation sector the 75th percentile wages 
for a compliance officer is $40.55 per hour. The wage information 
reported by the BLS in the Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 
Estimates does not include health benefits and other non-monetary 
benefits. According to the December 2018 Employer Cost of Employee 
Compensation data compensation rates for health and other benefits 
are 33.7 percent of total compensation. The wage is also inflation 
adjusted according to the BLS data on the Consumer Price Index for 
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) so that it is contemporaneous with the non-
wage compensation statistic. The inflation rate was 3.59 percent 
between May 2017 and December 2018. Therefore, the adjusted average 
wage for a compliance officer is $63.36 per hour.
    \56\ Call Report, December 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described above and under section 605(b) of the 
RFA, the FDIC certifies that the rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    CFTC: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the CFTC hereby certifies that 
the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities for which the CFTC is the primary financial 
regulatory agency.
    As discussed in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the agencies are 
revising the 2013 final rule in order to be consistent with statutory 
amendments made by EGRRCPA to section 13 of the BHC Act. The statutory 
amendments (a) modified the scope of the term ``banking entity'' to 
exclude certain community banks and their affiliates and (b) permitted 
any banking entity to share a name with a hedge fund or private equity 
fund that it organizes and offers under certain circumstances.

[[Page 35014]]

    The revisions generally apply to banking entities, including 
certain CFTC-registered entities. These entities include bank-
affiliated CFTC-registered swap dealers, futures commission merchants, 
commodity trading advisors and commodity pool operators.\57\ The CFTC 
has previously determined that swap dealers, futures commission 
merchants and commodity pool operators are not small entities for 
purposes of the RFA and, therefore, the requirements of the RFA do not 
apply to those entities.\58\ As for commodity trading advisors, the 
CFTC has found it appropriate to consider whether such registrants 
should be deemed small entities for purposes of the RFA on a case-by-
case basis, in the context of the particular regulation at issue.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The rule may also apply to other types of CFTC registrants 
that are banking entities, such as introducing brokers, but the CFTC 
believes it is unlikely that such other registrants will have 
significant activities that would implicate the rule. See 79 FR 
5808, 5813 (Jan. 31, 2014) (CFTC version of 2013 final rule).
    \58\ See Policy Statement and Establishment of Definitions of 
``Small Entities'' for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
47 FR 18618 (Apr. 30, 1982) (futures commission merchants and 
commodity pool operators); Registration of Swap Dealers and Major 
Swap Participants, 77 FR 2613, 2620 (Jan. 19, 2012) (swap dealers 
and major swap participants).
    \59\ See Policy Statement and Establishment of Definitions of 
``Small Entities'' for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
47 FR 18618, 18620 (Apr. 30, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the context of the rule, the CFTC believes it is unlikely that a 
substantial number of the commodity trading advisors that are 
potentially affected are small entities for purposes of the RFA. In 
this regard, the CFTC notes that only commodity trading advisors that 
are registered with the CFTC are potentially covered by the rule, and 
generally those that are registered have larger businesses. Similarly, 
the rule applies to only those commodity trading advisors that are 
affiliated with banks, which the CFTC expects are larger businesses.
    Because the CFTC believes that there are not a substantial number 
of registered, banking entity-affiliated commodity trading advisors 
that are small entities for purposes of the RFA, and the other CFTC 
registrants that may be affected by the rule have been determined not 
to be small entities, the CFTC believes that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
for which the CFTC is the primary financial regulatory agency.
    SEC: In the proposal, the SEC certified that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), the proposal would not, if adopted, have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although the SEC 
solicited written comments regarding this certification, no commenters 
responded to this request.
    As discussed in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the agencies are 
adopting the proposal as final without change, in order to be 
consistent with statutory amendments made by EGRRCPA to section 13 of 
the BHC Act. The statutory amendments (a) modified the scope of the 
term ``banking entity'' to exclude certain community banks and their 
affiliates and (b) permitted any banking entity to share a name with a 
hedge fund or private equity fund that it organizes and offers under 
certain circumstances.
    The revisions the agencies are adopting will generally apply to 
banking entities, including certain SEC-registered entities.\60\ These 
entities include bank-affiliated SEC-registered broker-dealers, 
investment advisers, security-based swap dealers, and major security-
based swap participants. Based on information in filings submitted by 
these entities, the SEC believes that there are no banking entity 
registered investment advisers,\61\ broker-dealers,\62\ security-based 
swap dealers, or major security-based swap participants that are small 
entities for purposes of the RFA.\63\ For this reason, the SEC 
certifies that the rule, as adopted, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The SEC's Economic Analysis, below, discusses the economic 
effects of the final amendments. See SEC Economic Analysis, section 
III.F.
    \61\ For the purposes of an SEC rulemaking in connection with 
the RFA, an investment adviser generally is a small entity if it: 
(1) Has assets under management having a total value of less than 
$25 million; (2) did not have total assets of $5 million or more on 
the last day of the most recent fiscal year; and (3) does not 
control, is not controlled by, and is not under common control with 
another investment adviser that has assets under management of $25 
million or more, or any person (other than a natural person) that 
had total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of its most 
recent fiscal year. See 17 CFR 275.0-7.
    \62\ For the purposes of an SEC rulemaking in connection with 
the RFA, a broker-dealer will be deemed a small entity if it: (1) 
Had total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less 
than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its 
audited financial statements were prepared pursuant to 17 CFR 
240.17a-5(d), or, if not required to file such statements, had total 
capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than 
$500,000 on the last day of the preceding fiscal year (or in the 
time that it has been in business, if shorter); and (2) is not 
affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) that is not 
a small business or small organization. See 17 CFR 240.0-10(c). 
Under the standards adopted by the SBA, small entities also include 
entities engaged in financial investments and related activities 
with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. See 13 CFR 121.201 
(Subsector 523).
    \63\ Based on SEC analysis of Form ADV data, the SEC believes 
that there are not a substantial number of registered investment 
advisers affected by the proposal that qualify as small entities 
under RFA. Based on SEC analysis of broker-dealer FOCUS filings and 
NIC relationship data, the SEC believes that there are no SEC-
registered broker-dealers affected by the proposal that qualify as 
small entities under RFA. With respect to security-based swap 
dealers and major security-based swap participants, based on 
feedback from market participants and information about the 
security-based swap markets, the Commission believes that the types 
of entities that would engage in more than a de minimis amount of 
dealing activity involving security-based swaps--which generally 
would be large financial institutions--would not be ``small 
entities'' for purposes of the RFA. See Regulation SBSR--Reporting 
and Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, 81 FR 53546, 
53553 (Aug. 12, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act

    Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and 
Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA),\64\ in determining the effective 
date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations 
that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on 
insured depository institutions, each Federal banking agency must 
consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the 
public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would 
place on depository institutions, including small depository 
institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the 
benefits of such regulations. In addition, section 302(b) of RCDRIA 
requires new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose 
additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured 
depository institutions generally to take effect on the first day of a 
calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the 
regulations are published in final form.\65\ The rule reduces burden 
and does not impose any reporting, disclosure, or other new 
requirements on insured depository institutions. Accordingly, the 
agencies are not required by RCDRIA to consider the administrative 
burdens and benefits of the rule or delay its effective date.\66\ 
Because delaying the effective date of the rule is not required and 
would serve no purpose, the final rule will be effective on the date of 
publication in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Additionally, the 30-day delayed effective date requirement 
under the Administrative Procedure Act is not applicable to a rule, 
such as the one herein, that grants or recognizes an exemption or 
relieves a burden. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 35015]]

E. OCC Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Determination

    The OCC has analyzed the rule under the factors set forth in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this 
analysis, the OCC considered whether the rule includes a Federal 
mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation). The rule does 
not impose new mandates. Therefore, the OCC has determined that the 
rule would not result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year. Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared a written statement to 
accompany this rule.

F. SEC Economic Analysis

    The agencies are adopting amendments to the 2013 final rule to 
implement the statutory mandates of sections 203 and 204 of EGRRCPA. In 
accordance with section 203 of EGRRCPA,\67\ the final rules amend the 
definition of ``insured depository institution'' in Sec.  __.2(r) of 
the 2013 final rule to exclude an institution so long as it, and every 
company that controls it, has both (1) $10 billion or less in total 
consolidated assets and (2) total consolidated trading assets and 
liabilities that are 5 percent or less of total consolidated assets. 
The final rule also amends the 2013 final rule to reflect the changes 
made by section 204 of EGRRCPA. That provision modified section 13 of 
the BHC Act to permit, in certain circumstances, bank-affiliated 
investment advisers to share their name with the hedge funds or private 
equity funds they organize and offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Specifically, Section 203 of EGRRCPA provides that the term 
``insured depository institution,'' for purposes of the definition 
of ``banking entity'' in section 13(h)(1) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C 
1851(h)(1)), does not include an insured depository institution that 
does not have, and is not controlled by a company that has: (1) More 
than $10 billion in total consolidated assets; and (2) total trading 
assets and trading liabilities, as reported on the most recent 
applicable regulatory filing filed by the institution, that are more 
than 5 percent of total consolidated assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to the 2013 final rule reflect the statutory 
provisions of EGRRCPA that are already in effect, and the SEC continues 
to believe that market participants are already responding to the 
statutory changes. Thus, the baseline against which the SEC is 
assessing the effects of these amendments incorporates both: (i) The 
enacted statutory provisions of sections 203 and 204 of EGRRCPA, and 
(ii) the SEC's understanding that banking entities with both total 
consolidated assets of $10 billion or less and total consolidated 
trading assets and liabilities (henceforth, ``TAL'') that are 5 percent 
or less of total consolidated assets are, consistent with EGRRCPA, no 
longer complying with the 2013 final rule. The SEC continues to believe 
that any costs, benefits, and economic effects of the final rules, 
including those on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, stem 
entirely from these statutory provisions and not from the conforming 
amendments to the 2013 final rule.
    The SEC is mindful of the costs and benefits imposed by its rules. 
In the proposal, the SEC solicited comment on the economic effects of 
the amendments on SEC registrants and on efficiency, competition, and 
capital formation in securities markets. The SEC has considered these 
comments, as discussed below.
    This analysis is limited to areas within the scope of the SEC's 
function as the primary regulator of U.S. securities markets. In 
particular, the SEC's economic analysis is focused on the effects of 
the final amendments on registrants the SEC oversees for purposes of 
section 13 of the BHC Act, investors and issuers in securities markets, 
and the functioning and efficiency of such markets.
    As discussed in more detail below, the enactment of the statutory 
exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA: (i) Eliminated the costs of 
compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act for certain banking entities, 
with the cost savings potentially being passed along to customers and 
counterparties; (ii) was not followed by significant changes in trading 
activity by broker-dealers (``BDs'') that qualify for the statutory 
exemption, and such trading activity remains extremely limited in 
absolute terms by year-end 2018; (iii) may have created incentives for 
entities that do not qualify for the statutory exemption but are close 
to the relevant thresholds to decrease their asset size or trading 
activity to become subject to the statutory exemption, though such an 
effect had not materialized by year-end 2018; and (iv) may have 
improved the competitive position of entities that qualify for the 
statutory exemption relative to those that are not, and the competitive 
position of U.S. entities that qualify for the statutory exemption 
relative to certain foreign banking entities.
    The statutory exemption in section 204 of EGRRCPA may also have: 
(i) Improved the ability of certain bank-affiliated registered 
investment advisers (``RIAs'') to compete for investor capital with 
RIAs that are not affiliated with banks; (ii) provided bank-affiliated 
RIAs that can share a name with a fund with a competitive advantage 
over those bank-affiliated RIAs that cannot share a name with a fund 
because they do not meet the statutory conditions for name sharing; and 
(iii) reduced some investors' search costs in the capital allocation 
process by making it easier for some investors to identify bank-
affiliated advisers of funds, to the extent that such advisers could 
share a name with a fund as a result of the statutory exemption.
    The SEC continues to believe that these economic effects stem from 
the statutory provisions of EGRRCPA that are fully in effect, and that 
the conforming amendments will not result in any additional costs, 
benefits, or effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
    Certain SEC-regulated entities, such as BDs and RIAs, that fell 
under the definition of ``banking entity'' for the purposes of section 
13 of the BHC Act before the enactment of EGRRCPA qualify for the final 
amendments implementing sections 203 and 204 of EGRRCPA.\68\ As 
presented in Panel A of Table 1,\69\ the SEC estimates that there are 
as many as 114 bank-affiliated BDs with aggregate assets of 
approximately $101 billion and aggregate holdings of approximately $16 
billion that are within the scope of these final amendments.\70\ The 
SEC estimates that, at most, 296 bank-affiliated RIAs are within the 
scope of the final

[[Page 35016]]

amendments and no longer subject to section 13 of the BHC Act.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The SEC believes that all bank-affiliated entities that may 
register with the SEC as security-based swap dealers and major 
security-based swap participants are unaffected by the amendments 
due to the size of the balance sheet and the amount of trading 
activity of their affiliated banking entities. The SEC's analysis is 
based on DTCC Derivatives Repository Limited Trade Information 
Warehouse data on single-name credit-default swaps. Throughout this 
economic analysis, the term ``banking entity'' generally refers only 
to banking entities that are subject to section 13 of the BHC Act 
and for which the SEC is the primary financial regulatory agency as 
defined in section 2(12)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act. See 12 U.S.C. 
1851(b)(2); 12 U.S.C. 5301(12)(B).
    \69\ In the proposal (84 FR at 2786) the SEC used data from the 
release for the recently proposed amendments to these rules to 
provide clarity about what activities are prohibited, and to improve 
supervision and implementation of section 13 of the BHC Act (83 FR 
at 33525) as of Q3 2017. In this release, we update the estimates 
and use data as of Q4 2018 and Q4 2017. Data sources for Table 1 
include Reporting Form FR Y-9C data for domestic bank holding 
companies and Reports of Condition and Income data for banks that 
are not bank holding companies. BD bank affiliations were obtained 
from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's 
National Information Center. BD assets and holdings were obtained 
from FOCUS Reports data.
    \70\ As of Q4 2018, these 114 BDs were affiliated with 98 banks 
or holding companies.
    \71\ As estimated in the release for the recently proposed 
amendments to these rules to provide clarity about what activities 
are prohibited, and to improve supervision and implementation of 
section 13 of the BHC Act (83 FR at 33525), there were 308 bank-
affiliated RIAs based on data as of March 31, 2018. Using data as of 
March 31, 2019, the SEC is updating the estimate to approximately 
296 bank-affiliated RIAs. The SEC does not have information or data 
that would allow us to estimate how many of these bank-affiliated 
RIAs would have preferred to share a name with funds they advise. 
For the purposes of this analysis, the SEC estimates that these 296 
bank-affiliated RIAs and 114 bank-affiliated BDs may be able to 
engage in covered fund activities as a result of section 203 of 
EGRRCPA. The SEC does not have information or data that would allow 
us to estimate how many of these entities would have preferred to 
engage in covered fund activities.

                             Table 1--BD Count, Assets, and Holdings by Affiliation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Total assets,    Holdings, $mln   Holdings (alt.),
             BD affiliation                    Number           $mln \72\           \73\            $mln \74\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Panel A. After the enactment of EGRRCPA: BD statistics as of Q4 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bank BDs, affiliated bank total assets >                61         2,826,909           709,534           548,426
 $10bln & TAL > 5% of total assets......
Bank BDs, affiliated bank total assets >                74           198,380            43,450            15,393
 $10bln & TAL <= 5% of total assets.....
Bank BDs, affiliated bank total assets                   0                 0                 0                 0
 <= $10bln & TAL > 5% of total assets...
Bank BDs subject to section 203 of                     114           100,518            16,379             5,376
 EGRRCPA \75\...........................
Non-bank BDs............................             3,545         1,196,845           374,597           223,844
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................             3,794         4,322,651         1,143,960           793,038
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                                                              Total assets,                     Holdings (alt.),
             BD affiliation                    Number             $mln         Holdings, $mln         $mln
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Panel B. Before the enactment of EGRRCPA: BD statistics as of Q4 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bank BDs, affiliated bank total assets >                57         2,711,033           615,206           489,964
 $10bln & TAL > 5% of total assets......
Bank BDs, affiliated bank total assets >                83           223,474            42,684            11,749
 $10bln & TAL <= 5% of total assets.....
Bank BDs, affiliated bank total assets                   0                 0                 0                 0
 <= $10bln & TAL > 5% of total assets...
Bank BDs subject to section 203 of                     113           108,457            17,743             6,463
 EGRRCPA \76\...........................
Non-bank BDs............................             3,642         1,001,819           316,691           202,668
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................             3,895         4,044,782           992,324           710,844
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of the 2013 final rule no longer apply to the entities 
that qualify for the statutory exemption, which, as discussed above, is 
already fully in effect.\77\ To the extent that the compliance costs 
related to section 13 of the BHC Act and the relevant implementing 
regulations would otherwise have been passed along to customers and 
counterparties of the affected entities, the cost reductions associated 
with section 203 of EGRRCPA may be flowing through to customers and 
counterparties in the form of reduced transaction costs and increased 
willingness to engage in trading activity, including intermediation 
that facilitates risk-sharing, as well as covered fund activities.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ BD total assets are based on FOCUS report data for ``Total 
Assets.''
    \73\ BD holdings are based on FOCUS reports data for securities 
and spot commodities owned at market value, including bankers' 
acceptances, certificates of deposit and commercial paper, state and 
municipal government obligations, corporate obligations, stocks and 
warrants, options, arbitrage, other securities, U.S. and Canadian 
government obligations, and spot commodities.
    \74\ This measure excludes U.S. and Canadian government 
obligations and spot commodities.
    \75\ This category includes all bank-affiliated BDs affiliated 
with holding companies that have both consolidated total assets less 
than or equal to $10 billion and TAL less than or equal to 5% of 
total assets, as well as bank-affiliated BDs for which parent firm 
TAL data was not available. Based on a manual search of regulatory 
filings for holding companies with missing assets and liabilities 
data and current FR Y-9C and FR Y-9SP reporting requirements, the 
SEC believes that entities with missing data have low levels of 
trading activity and likely qualify for the exemption in section 203 
of EGRRCPA. To the degree that this may not be the case for some 
bank-affiliated BDs, these figures may overestimate the number of 
affected entities.
    \76\ Id.
    \77\ In the proposal, the SEC estimated based on data as of Q3 
2017 that annual compliance cost savings for SEC-regulated entities 
due to section 203 of EGRRCPA may be as high as approximately 
$16,626,385 (= 2,035 hours x 0.18 x (Attorney at $409 per hour) x 
111). Based on data as of Q4 2018 we now estimate these annual 
compliance cost savings may be as high as approximately $14,682,037 
(= 2,035 hours x 0.18 x (Attorney at $409 per hour) x 98).
    \78\ See 79 FR 5778 for the agencies' estimated ongoing 
compliance and recordkeeping burdens related to the requirements of 
the 2013 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statutory exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA provided entities 
thereby excluded from section 13 of the BHC Act with greater 
flexibility in pursuing certain types of potentially profitable trading 
and covered fund activities. Additionally, to the extent that section 
13 of the BHC Act may have previously reduced the ability or 
willingness of such entities to engage in permitted hedging, 
underwriting or market-making due to compliance costs, the statutory 
exemption may have facilitated access to capital and trading activity.
    In the proposal, the SEC stated that some entities with $10 billion 
or less in total consolidated assets and TAL equal to or less than 5 
percent of its total consolidated assets may have responded to the 
statutory exemption by increasing or planning to increase their trading 
activity and covered funds activities, while still remaining under the 
applicable thresholds at the consolidated holding company level. Using 
Q4 2018 data, the SEC estimates that 21 such holding companies with 22

[[Page 35017]]

BD affiliates and available information about TAL have, on aggregate, 
total consolidated assets of approximately $74.5 billion and gross TAL 
of approximately $688 million.\79\ The SEC further estimates that the 
gross TAL of these 21 holding companies that qualify for the exemption 
in section 203 of EGRRCPA and for which data is available increased by 
approximately $98 million between Q4 2017 and Q4 2018 (from $590 
million in Q4 2017 to approximately $688 million in Q4 2018). The SEC 
does not have information about the remaining banks and holding 
companies. However, the SEC is aware that, in total, 98 banks and 
holding companies that qualify for the exemption in section 203 of 
EGRRCPA and have affiliated BDs, can have, on aggregate, total gross 
TAL of no more than $49 billion without exceeding either threshold and 
becoming subject to section 13 of the BHC Act.\80\ Therefore, the SEC 
estimates that the increase in the aggregate TAL of all 98 affected 
banks and holding companies with SEC-regulated affiliates is likely no 
more than $48.3 billion.\81\ The SEC continues to note that, if an 
increase in risk-taking by such affected entities is observed by market 
participants that provide capital to them, these capital providers may 
demand additional compensation for bearing more financial risk, which 
may decrease the profitability of the entity's trading and covered fund 
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ The current FR Y-9C and FR Y-9SP filing requirements limit 
data availability. As of Q4 2018, the SEC has information about TAL 
of 21 holding companies with 22 BD affiliates.
    \80\ This figure is based on a maximum of $10 bln of total 
consolidated assets and a maximum TAL of 5 percent of total 
consolidated assets and is calculated as follows: 98 holding 
companies x $10 bln total assets x 0.05 = $49 bln.
    \81\ This figure is calculated as follows: $49 bln-$0.688 bln = 
$48.312 bln. The SEC recognizes that these estimates may under- or 
overestimate the increases in trading activity that may occur as a 
result of section 203 of EGRRCPA for four primary reasons. First, 
the profitability of trading activity is likely to strongly 
influence incentives to engage in trading activity and may vary 
depending on trading strategy, market sector, and time period 
measured. Second, growth in a holding company's total consolidated 
assets is influenced by business models, prevailing market 
conditions, industry competition, bank merger and acquisition 
activity, among other factors. Third, this estimate assumes that no 
affected entity will enter or exit the industry as a result of the 
statutory exclusion. Fourth, this estimate assumes for purposes of 
this economic analysis that small holding companies that file form 
FR Y-9SP, which does not contain data on TAL, do not currently have 
any TAL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because EGRRCPA was enacted relatively recently (on May 24, 2018) 
and a realignment of a BD's balance sheet may necessarily be gradual, 
it is not yet clear if the economic effects of sections 203 and 204 are 
fully realized in the relevant securities markets. However, Table 1 
reports changes in the size and trading activity of different groups of 
BDs within an approximate 12 month window around the enactment of 
section 203 of EGRRCPA. Comparing BD statistics in Q4 2017 against Q4 
2018, the number of bank-affiliated BDs that qualify for the exemption 
in section 203 of EGRRCPA increased by one. BDs that qualify for the 
exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA decreased their assets by 
approximately $8 billion, and their holdings by between approximately 
$1.1 billion (using a measure of holdings that excludes U.S. and 
Canadian government obligations and spot commodities) and approximately 
$1.4 billion (using an inclusive measure of holdings).\82\ In 
comparison, although the number of bank-affiliated BDs that do not 
qualify for the exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA decreased by 5, 
such BDs experienced in the aggregate an approximately $90.8 billion 
increase in total assets, and an increase in holdings between $62.1 
billion (excluding U.S. and Canadian government obligations and spot 
commodities) and approximately $95.1 billion (using an inclusive 
measure of holdings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ This discussion describes changes in assets and holdings in 
absolute terms since percentage measures magnify changes when 
initial levels of a measure are extremely low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is difficult to draw meaningful causal inference from these 
trends in assets and holdings due to a number of methodological 
considerations. First, the effect of enactment of section 203 of 
EGRRCPA is confounded by other changes, notably the market 
participants' potential reaction to other statutory relief for small 
banking entities in EGRRCPA (such as sections 201, 207, and 210 of 
EGRRCPA) and to the agencies' proposed amendments to the 2013 final 
rule that affected bank-affiliated BDs that do not qualify for the 
exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA. Second, there is a lack of 
``control'' and ``treatment'' groups that are likely to satisfy the 
``parallel trends'' assumption required for a difference-in-difference 
analysis.\83\ Third, quarterly reporting of FOCUS data is 
insufficiently frequent to perform an announcement effect analysis of 
BD risk taking and asset size in the days immediately before and 
immediately after the enactment of EGRRCPA. Fourth, as discussed in the 
proposal, certain entities can influence whether they qualify for the 
statutory exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA by adjusting their 
balance sheets and trading books, which is likely to confound 
inference. Fifth, the relief in section 203 of EGRRCPA may have been at 
least partly anticipated by market participants.\84\ In addition, in 
the proposal, the SEC anticipated spillover effects between bank-
affiliated BDs that qualify for the exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA 
and bank-affiliated BDs that do not. Both anticipation and spillover 
effects contaminate the estimation of regulatory effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Causal inference using difference-in-difference generally 
requires that differences between treatment and control groups along 
the dimension of interest (e.g., risk-taking) are constant in the 
absence of regulatory intervention.
    \84\ See U.S. Department of the Treasury, ``A Financial System 
that Creates Economic Opportunities: Banks and Credit Unions'' (June 
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the SEC cannot conclusively determine whether the above 
changes in BD characteristics arose as a result of the passage of 
EGRRCPA. However, the above statistics indicate that bank-affiliated 
BDs that qualify for the exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA slightly 
decreased their balance sheet and trading activity.\85\ This group of 
BDs continues to represent a very small fraction of the BD industry, 
representing approximately 2.3% of all BD assets and between 0.7% and 
1.4% of all BD holdings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ As discussed above, BDs that qualify for the exemption in 
section 203 of EGRRCPA exhibited a decrease in holdings by 
approximately $1.4 billion when including the holdings of U.S. and 
Canadian government obligations and spot commodities, and by 
approximately $1.1 billion when excluding them. Thus, such 
government obligations and spot commodities accounted for 
approximately $277 million or 20% of the decrease in the inclusive 
measure of holdings by BDs that qualify for the exemption in section 
203 of EGRRCPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposal, the SEC noted that certain banking entities with 
more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets and/or TAL greater 
than 5 percent of total consolidated assets may be incentivized to 
shrink their balance sheets or trading activity under the thresholds. 
The SEC recognized that this may reduce the willingness of such banking 
entities to serve as intermediaries, and may also reduce the potential 
for market impacts from the failure of a given entity.
    As can be seen in Table 1, the number of bank-affiliated BDs not 
subject to section 203 of EGRRCPA has declined by five between Q4 2017 
and Q4 2018. These counts are impacted by the fact that holding 
companies may have multiple BD subsidiaries, and by occurrences of 
mergers and other changes in the organizational structure within 
holding companies. Bank-affiliated BDs that do not qualify for the 
exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA have experienced an increase in 
assets (by $91 billion) and holdings (by between $62.1 billion and 
$95.1 billion

[[Page 35018]]

depending on the measure). BDs unaffiliated with banks or bank holding 
companies have also increased their assets (by $195 billion) and 
holdings (by between $21.2 billion and $57.9 billion depending on the 
measure), despite the backdrop of the aggregate decline in the number 
of BDs in the industry.
    These observations suggest that aggregate industry and 
macroeconomic factors may be driving a general increase in the size and 
trading books of BDs. Such observations may also indicate that banking 
entities not subject to section 203 of EGRRCPA may currently be unable 
or unwilling to shrink their balance sheets and trading books in order 
to fall under the relevant thresholds in section 203 of EGRRCPA. The 
SEC continues to believe that banking entities not excluded from 
section 13 of the BHC Act pursuant to section 203 of EGRRCPA may weigh 
the size and complexity of each banking entity's trading activities and 
organizational structure, and the profitability of their banking and 
trading books, against the magnitude of expected compliance savings 
from not being subject to section 13 of the BHC Act. The SEC continues 
to note that, similar to the discussion above, due to methodological 
limitations (including, among others, confounding events and the likely 
violation of the parallel trends assumption), these observations of 
trends do not allow us to draw a causal inference. It is also possible 
that the effects of section 203 of EGRRCPA are still being realized, 
and the observed trends may under- or overestimate potential long-term 
shifts in risk-taking by entities that qualify for the exemption in 
section 203 and those that do not.
    In the proposal, the SEC stated that to the degree that statutory 
changes in section 203 of EGRRCPA may have contributed to an increase 
in the gross volume of TAL, there may be an increase in risk-taking 
among entities no longer subject to section 13 of the BHC Act. However, 
this need not necessarily be the case. For example, a hedging 
transaction that offsets a risk exposure from an existing asset would 
increase the reported gross TAL without necessarily producing a net 
increase in the risk born by the entity. As described above, bank 
affiliated BDs that qualify for the exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA 
have not increased their gross volume of TAL over the analyzed time 
period. The SEC continues to recognize that bank-affiliated BDs that 
qualify for the exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA account only for 
approximately 2.3% of aggregate BD assets and between 0.7% and 1.4% of 
aggregate BD holdings. Thus, the statutory exemption affects only a 
small fraction of the BD industry. Moreover, the SEC continues to 
recognize that both the risks and the returns from newly permissible 
trading and covered fund activities by individual bank-affiliated BDs 
are likely to be passed along to their customers and counterparties.
    In the proposal, the SEC recognized that potential shifts in risk-
taking due to section 203 of EGRRCPA, as discussed above, may lead to 
two competing effects. On the one hand, if affected entities are now 
able to bear risk at a lower cost than their customers (i.e., because 
such entities are no longer subject to section 13 of the BHC Act), 
increased risk-taking could promote secondary market trading activity 
and capital formation in primary markets, and thus increase access to 
capital for issuers. Similarly, the statutory exemption may increase 
banking entities' covered fund activities, which may broaden investment 
opportunities for investors in covered funds and facilitate access to 
capital by companies in which those funds invest. On the other hand, 
the statutory exemption may increase risk-taking by individual SEC-
regulated entities, the amount of covered fund activity in which they 
engage, as well as total risk in the financial system, which may 
ultimately negatively impact issuers and investors. However, as noted 
above, the maximum potential increase in aggregate trading activity of 
entities that qualify for the exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA that 
would not trigger section 13 of the BHC Act compliance is likely 
limited to $48.3 billion.\86\ Moreover, as shown above, empirically 
such changes in risk-taking by SEC registrants that qualify for the 
exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA so far remain very low in absolute 
terms, and such BDs continue to represent a very small fraction of the 
industry as measured by both assets and trading book size. The SEC 
continues to recognize that an increase in risk-taking by entities that 
qualify for the exemption in section 203 of EGRRCPA, to the degree that 
it is observed by providers of capital, may increase their cost of 
capital and reduce the profitability of such risk-taking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See supra footnote 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposal, the SEC outlined two primary effects of section 
203 of EGRRCPA on competition. First, entities exempt from section 13 
of the BHC Act under EGRRCPA are no longer required to incur related 
compliance costs and, thus, may have a competitive advantage relative 
to similarly situated entities above the thresholds. The availability 
of the statutory exemption may incentivize entities near the thresholds 
to decrease the size of their balance sheet, trading activity, or both 
in order to become exempt from section 13 of the BHC Act, resulting in 
greater competition between entities with consolidated assets and TAL 
near the thresholds. As demonstrated in Table 1 and the discussion 
above, the number of BDs above the thresholds in section 203 of EGRRCPA 
has declined only by five, while their assets and trading activity have 
actually increased. Thus, to date the above competition effects may 
have been muted.
    Second, section 203 of EGRRCPA may have placed domestic entities 
subject to the statutory exemption on a more even competitive footing 
with foreign firms that are not subject to the substantive prohibitions 
and compliance costs related to section 13 of the BHC Act and its 
implementing regulations. In addition, section 203 of EGRRCPA may have 
improved the competitive position of affected domestic entities 
relative to foreign banking entities that are subject to section 13 of 
the BHC Act as a result of such foreign banking entities utilizing the 
exemptions related to activity outside of the United States.\87\ The 
SEC has no data on the activity or risk-taking of foreign BDs that are 
not registered with the SEC and are affiliated with banks or bank 
holding companies. No such data is publicly available and commenters 
did not provide data enabling such quantification. As a result, the SEC 
is unable to empirically evaluate this effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See 12 U.S.C. 1851(d)(1)(H) and (I) (2017); See Sec. Sec.  
_.6(e) and _.13(b) of the 2013 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the enactment of EGRRCPA, a bank-affiliated RIA could not 
share the same name or a variation of the same name as a hedge fund or 
private equity fund that it organized and offered under an exemption in 
section 13 of the BHC Act.\88\ Section 204 of EGRRCPA changed this 
condition for bank-affiliated RIAs that meet certain requirements and 
provided them with flexibility in name sharing for corporate, 
marketing, promotional, or other purposes. To the extent that name 
sharing effectively and easily conveys the identity of a fund's RIA and 
preserves the brand value, section 204 of EGRRCPA improved bank-
affiliated RIAs' ability to compete for investor capital with RIAs that 
are not affiliated with banks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See Sec.  _.11 of the 2013 final rule; 12 U.S.C. 
1851(d)(1)(G) (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 204 also provided bank-affiliated RIAs that can share a 
name with a fund with a competitive

[[Page 35019]]

advantage over those bank-affiliated RIAs that cannot share a name with 
a fund because they do not meet the statutory conditions for name 
sharing. This competitive effect can be attenuated since bank-
affiliated RIAs in the latter group may change their names to avoid 
sharing the same name or a variation of the same name as a depository 
institution, any company that controls it, or any bank holding company. 
However, such a name change by bank-affiliated RIAs may have associated 
costs that would not apply to bank-affiliated RIAs that do not have the 
name of a depository institution, any company that controls it, or any 
bank holding company in their names.
    In addition, the statutory name-sharing provision may have reduced 
some investors' search costs in the capital allocation process by 
making it easier for some investors to identify the bank-affiliated RIA 
of funds, to the extent that such advisers and funds could share names 
as a result of the statutory exemption.
    The SEC reiterates that the economic effects discussed above stem 
from the statutory provisions of EGRRCPA that are fully in effect, and, 
therefore, the SEC believes that these effects may be already partly 
realized. The SEC believes that the conforming amendments to the 
implementing regulations will have no additional costs, benefits, or 
effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
    The agencies have received a number of comments on the proposal, 
some supporting \89\ and others questioning \90\ the agencies' 
codification of section 203 of EGRRCPA, and comments opposing the 
statutory exemption for community banks.\91\ As discussed above, the 
agencies believe that the final amendments conform the regulations 
implementing section 13 of the BHC Act with the statutory amendments 
made pursuant to sections 203 and 204 of EGRRCPA with no exercise of 
agency discretion. As such, the SEC believes there are no reasonable 
alternatives to the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See ICBA Letter; IAA Letter; LosHuertos and Mount Letter; 
NAFCU Letter. See also section II.
    \90\ See Competitive Enterprise Institute Letter; Competitive 
Enterprise Institute et. al. Letter; Luetkemeyer Letter. See also 
section II.
    \91\ See Tinee Carraker Letter, Rodger Cunningham Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,\92\ the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated these rules as not a 
``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Effective Date

    Pursuant to Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act,\93\ 
the required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made 
not less than 30 days before its effective date, except, among other 
things, as provided by the agency for good cause found and published 
with the rule or if the rule is a substantive rule which grants or 
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction. The agencies find 
that there is good cause for setting an effective date that is less 
than 30 days after publication of this substantive rule because this 
final rule merely conforms the 2013 final rule to the EGRRCPA statutory 
amendments. Furthermore, the final rule recognizes a statutory 
exemption from the definition of ``banking entity,'' and relieves 
restrictions applicable to the naming of a hedge fund or private equity 
fund. Accordingly, the final rules are effective as of July 22, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

12 CFR Part 44

    Banks, Banking, Compensation, Credit, Derivatives, Government 
securities, Insurance, Investments, National banks, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Risk, Risk retention, 
Securities, Trusts and trustees.

12 CFR Part 248

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Conflict of 
interests, Credit, Foreign banking, Government securities, Holding 
companies, Insurance, Insurance companies, Investments, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, State nonmember 
banks, State savings associations, Trusts and trustees.

12 CFR Part 351

    Banks, Banking, Capital, Compensation, Conflicts of interest, 
Credit, Derivatives, Government securities, Insurance, Insurance 
companies, Investments, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Risk, Risk retention, Securities, Trusts and trustees.

17 CFR Part 75

    Banks, Banking, Compensation, Credit, Derivatives, Federal branches 
and agencies, Federal savings associations, Government securities, 
Hedge funds, Insurance, Investments, National banks, Penalties, 
Proprietary trading, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Risk, 
Risk retention, Securities, Swap dealers, Trusts and trustees, Volcker 
rule.

17 CFR Part 255

    Banks, Brokers, Dealers, Investment advisers, Recordkeeping, 
Reporting, Securities.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Chapter I

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons stated in the Common Preamble, the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency amends chapter I of title 12, Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 44--PROPRIETARY TRADING AND CERTAIN INTERESTS IN AND 
RELATIONSHIPS WITH COVERED FUNDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 44 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 27 et seq., 12 U.S.C. 1, 24, 92a, 93a, 161, 
1461, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1813(q), 1818, 1851, 3101 3102, 
3108, 5412.

Subpart A--Authority and Definitions

0
2. In Sec.  44.1, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  44.1  Authority, purpose, scope, and relationship to other 
authorities.

* * * * *
    (c) Scope. This part implements section 13 of the Bank Holding 
Company Act with respect to banking entities for which the OCC is 
authorized to issue regulations under section 13(b)(2) of the Bank 
Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1851(b)(2)) and take actions under 
section 13(e) of that Act (12 U.S.C. 1851(e)). These include national 
banks, Federal branches and Federal agencies of foreign banks, Federal 
savings associations, Federal savings banks, and any of their 
respective subsidiaries (except a subsidiary for which there is a 
different primary financial regulatory agency, as that term is defined 
in this part), but do not include such entities to the extent they are 
not within the definition of banking entity in Sec.  44.2(c).
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  44.2, revise paragraph (r) to read as follows:

Sec.  44.2  Definitions.

* * * * *

[[Page 35020]]

    (r) Insured depository institution, unless otherwise indicated, has 
the same meaning as in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)), but does not include:
    (1) An insured depository institution that is described in section 
2(c)(2)(D) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)(D)); or
    (2) An insured depository institution if it has, and if every 
company that controls it has, total consolidated assets of $10 billion 
or less and total trading assets and trading liabilities, on a 
consolidated basis, that are 5 percent or less of total consolidated 
assets.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Covered Funds Activities and Investments

0
4. In Sec.  44.10, revise paragraph (d)(9)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec.  44.10  Prohibition on acquiring or retaining an ownership 
interest in and having certain relationships with a covered fund.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) To share with a covered fund, for corporate, marketing, 
promotional, or other purposes, the same name or a variation of the 
same name, except as permitted under Sec.  44.11(a)(6).
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  44.11, revise paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  44.11  Permitted organizing and offering, underwriting, and 
market making with respect to a covered fund.

    (a) * * *
    (6) The covered fund, for corporate, marketing, promotional, or 
other purposes:
    (i) Does not share the same name or a variation of the same name 
with the banking entity (or an affiliate thereof) except that a covered 
fund may share the same name or a variation of the same name with a 
banking entity that is an investment adviser to the covered fund if:
    (A) The investment adviser is not an insured depository 
institution, a company that controls an insured depository institution, 
or a company that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of 
section 8 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); 
and
    (B) The investment adviser does not share the same name or a 
variation of the same name as an insured depository institution, a 
company that controls an insured depository institution, or a company 
that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of section 8 of 
the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); and
    (ii) Does not use the word ``bank'' in its name;
* * * * *

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

12 CFR Chapter II

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the Common Preamble the Board amends 
chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 248--PROPRIETARY TRADING AND CERTAIN INTERESTS IN AND 
RELATIONSHIPS WITH COVERED FUNDS (REGULATION VV)

0
6. The authority citation for part 248 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1851, 12 U.S.C. 221 et seq., 12 U.S.C. 
1818, 12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq., and 12 U.S.C. 3103 et seq.

0
7. The heading for part 248 is revised as set forth above.

Subpart A--Authority and Definitions

0
8. In Sec.  248.1, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  248.1  Authority, purpose, scope, and relationship to other 
authorities.

* * * * *
    (c) Scope. This part implements section 13 of the Bank Holding 
Company Act with respect to banking entities for which the Board is 
authorized to issue regulations under section 13(b)(2) of the Bank 
Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1851(b)(2)) and take actions under 
section 13(e) of that Act (12 U.S.C. 1851(e)). These include any state 
bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System, any company that 
controls an insured depository institution (including a bank holding 
company and savings and loan holding company), any company that is 
treated as a bank holding company for purposes of section 8 of the 
International Banking Act (12 U.S.C. 3106), and any subsidiary of the 
foregoing other than a subsidiary for which the OCC, FDIC, CFTC, or SEC 
is the primary financial regulatory agency (as defined in section 2(12) 
of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 
2010 (12 U.S.C. 5301(12)), but do not include such entities to the 
extent they are not within the definition of banking entity in Sec.  
248.2(c).
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  248.2, revise paragraph (r) to read as follows:

Sec.  248.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (r) Insured depository institution, unless otherwise indicated, has 
the same meaning as in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)), but does not include:
    (1) An insured depository institution that is described in section 
2(c)(2)(D) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)(D)); or
    (2) An insured depository institution if it has, and if every 
company that controls it has, total consolidated assets of $10 billion 
or less and total trading assets and trading liabilities, on a 
consolidated basis, that are 5 percent or less of total consolidated 
assets.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Covered Funds Activities and Investments

0
 10. In Sec.  248.10, revise paragraph (d)(9)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec.  248.10   Prohibition on acquiring or retaining an ownership 
interest in and having certain relationships with a covered fund.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) To share with a covered fund, for corporate, marketing, 
promotional, or other purposes, the same name or a variation of the 
same name, except as permitted under Sec.  248.11(a)(6).
* * * * *

0
11. In Sec.  248.11, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  248.11   Permitted organizing and offering, underwriting, and 
market making with respect to a covered fund.

    (a) * * *
    (6) The covered fund, for corporate, marketing, promotional, or 
other purposes:
    (i) Does not share the same name or a variation of the same name 
with the banking entity (or an affiliate thereof) except that a covered 
fund may share the same name or a variation of the same name with a 
banking entity that is an investment adviser to the covered fund if:
    (A) The investment adviser is not an insured depository 
institution, a company that controls an insured depository institution, 
or a company that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of 
section 8 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); 
and
    (B) The investment adviser does not share the same name or a 
variation of the same name as an insured depository institution, a 
company that controls an

[[Page 35021]]

insured depository institution, or a company that is treated as a bank 
holding company for purposes of section 8 of the International Banking 
Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); and
    (ii) Does not use the word ``bank'' in its name;
* * * * *

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Chapter III

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the Common Preamble, the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation amends chapter III of title 12, Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 351--PROPRIETARY TRADING AND CERTAIN INTERESTS IN AND 
RELATIONSHIPS WITH COVERED FUNDS

0
12. The authority citation for part 351 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1851; 1811 et seq.; 3101 et seq.; and 5412.

Subpart A--Authority and Definitions

0
13. In Sec.  351.1, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  351.1  Authority, purpose, scope and relationship to other 
authorities.

* * * * *
    (c) Scope. This part implements section 13 of the Bank Holding 
Company Act with respect to insured depository institutions for which 
the FDIC is the appropriate Federal banking agency, as defined in 
section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and certain 
subsidiaries of the foregoing, but does not include such entities to 
the extent they are not within the definition of banking entity in 
Sec.  351.2(c).
* * * * *

0
14. In Sec.  351.2, revise paragraph (r) to read as follows:

Sec.  351.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (r) Insured depository institution, unless otherwise indicated, has 
the same meaning as in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)), but does not include:
    (1) An insured depository institution that is described in section 
2(c)(2)(D) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841(c)(2)(D)); or
    (2) An insured depository institution if it has, and if every 
company that controls it has, total consolidated assets of $10 billion 
or less and total trading assets and trading liabilities, on a 
consolidated basis, that are 5 percent or less of total consolidated 
assets.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Covered Funds Activities and Investments

0
15. In Sec.  351.10, revise paragraph (d)(9)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec.  351.10  Prohibitions on acquiring or retaining an ownership 
interest in and having certain relationships with a covered fund.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) To share with a covered fund, for corporate, marketing, 
promotional, or other purposes, the same name or a variation of the 
same name, except as permitted under Sec.  351.11(a)(6).
* * * * *

0
16. In Sec.  351.11, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  351.11  Permitted organizing and offering, underwriting, and 
market making with respect to a covered fund.

    (a) * * *
    (6) The covered fund, for corporate, marketing, promotional, or 
other purposes:
    (i) Does not share the same name or a variation of the same name 
with the banking entity (or an affiliate thereof), except that a 
covered fund may share the same name or a variation of the same name 
with a banking entity that is an investment adviser to the covered fund 
if:
    (A) The investment adviser is not an insured depository 
institution, a company that controls an insured depository institution, 
or a company that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of 
section 8 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); 
and
    (B) The investment adviser does not share the same name or a 
variation of the same name as an insured depository institution, a 
company that controls an insured depository institution, or a company 
that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of section 8 of 
the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); and
    (ii) Does not use the word ``bank'' in its name;
* * * * *

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Chapter I

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the Common Preamble, the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission amends part 75 to chapter I of title 17 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 75 -- PROPRIETARY TRADING AND CERTAIN INTERESTS IN AND 
RELATIONSHIPS WITH COVERED FUNDS

0
17. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1851.

Subpart A--Authority and Definitions

0
18. In Sec.  75.1, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  75.1  Authority, purpose, scope and relationship to other 
authorities.

* * * * *
    (c) Scope. This part implements section 13 of the Bank Holding 
Company Act with respect to banking entities for which the CFTC is the 
primary financial regulatory agency, as defined in section 2(12) of the 
Dodd-Frank Act, but does not include such entities to the extent they 
are not within the definition of banking entity in Sec.  75.2(c).
* * * * *

0
19. In Sec.  75.2, revise paragraph (r) to read as follows:

Sec.  75.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (r) Insured depository institution, unless otherwise indicated, has 
the same meaning as in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)), but does not include:
    (1) An insured depository institution that is described in section 
2(c)(2)(D) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841(c)(2)(D)); or
    (2) An insured depository institution if it has, and if every 
company that controls it has, total consolidated assets of $10 billion 
or less and total trading assets and trading liabilities, on a 
consolidated basis, that are 5 percent or less of total consolidated 
assets.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Covered Funds Activities and Investments

0
20. In Sec.  75.10, revise paragraph (d)(9)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec.  75.10  Prohibitions on acquiring or retaining an ownership 
interest in and having certain relationships with a covered fund.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) To share with a covered fund, for corporate, marketing, 
promotional, or

[[Page 35022]]

other purposes, the same name or a variation of the same name, except 
as permitted under Sec.  75.11(a)(6).
* * * * *

0
21. In Sec.  75.11, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  75.11  Permitted organizing and offering, underwriting, and 
market making with respect to a covered fund.

    (a) * * *
    (6) The covered fund, for corporate, marketing, promotional, or 
other purposes:
    (i) Does not share the same name or a variation of the same name 
with the banking entity (or an affiliate thereof), except that a 
covered fund may share the same name or a variation of the same name 
with a banking entity that is an investment adviser to the covered fund 
if:
    (A) The investment adviser is not an insured depository 
institution, a company that controls an insured depository institution, 
or a company that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of 
section 8 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); 
and
    (B) The investment adviser does not share the same name or a 
variation of the same name as an insured depository institution, a 
company that controls an insured depository institution, or a company 
that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of section 8 of 
the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); and
    (ii) Does not use the word ``bank'' in its name;
* * * * *

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Chapter II

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the Common Preamble, the Securities 
and Exchange Commission amends part 255 to chapter II of title 17 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 255--PROPRIETARY TRADING AND CERTAIN INTERESTS IN AND 
RELATIONSHIPS WITH COVERED FUNDS

0
22. The authority for part 255 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1851.

Subpart A--Authority and Definitions

0
23. In Sec.  255.1, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  255.1  Authority, purpose, scope and relationship to other 
authorities.

* * * * *
    (c) Scope. This part implements section 13 of the Bank Holding 
Company Act with respect to banking entities for which the SEC is the 
primary financial regulatory agency, as defined in this part, but does 
not include such entities to the extent they are not within the 
definition of banking entity in Sec.  255.2(c).
* * * * *

0
24. In Sec.  255.2, revise paragraph (r) to read as follows:

Sec.  255.2  Definitions

* * * * *
    (r) Insured depository institution, unless otherwise indicated, has 
the same meaning as in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)), but does not include:
    (1) An insured depository institution that is described in section 
2(c)(2)(D) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)(D)); or
    (2) An insured depository institution if it has, and if every 
company that controls it has, total consolidated assets of $10 billion 
or less and total trading assets and trading liabilities, on a 
consolidated basis, that are 5 percent or less of total consolidated 
assets.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Covered Funds Activities and Investments

0
25. In Sec.  255.10, revise paragraph (d)(9)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec.  255.10  Prohibition on acquiring or retaining an ownership 
interest in and having certain relationships with a covered fund.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) To share with a covered fund, for corporate, marketing, 
promotional, or other purposes, the same name or a variation of the 
same name, except as permitted under Sec.  255.11(a)(6).
* * * * *

0
26. In Sec.  255.11, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  255.11  Permitted organizing and offering, underwriting, and 
market making with respect to a covered fund.

    (a) * * *
    (6) The covered fund, for corporate, marketing, promotional, or 
other purposes:
    (i) Does not share the same name or a variation of the same name 
with the banking entity (or an affiliate thereof) except that a covered 
fund may share the same name or a variation of the same name with a 
banking entity that is an investment adviser to the covered fund if:
    (A) The investment adviser is not an insured depository 
institution, a company that controls an insured depository institution, 
or a company that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of 
section 8 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); 
and
    (B) The investment adviser does not share the same name or a 
variation of the same name as an insured depository institution, a 
company that controls an insured depository institution, or a company 
that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of section 8 of 
the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); and
    (ii) Does not use the word ``bank'' in its name;
* * * * *

    Dated: June 26, 2019.
Morris Morgan,
Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Operating Officer.
    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, July 8, 2019.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    By Order of the Board of Directors.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on June 18, 2019.
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2019, by the Commission.
Christopher Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.

Securities and Exchange Commission
    Dated: July 5, 2019.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15019 Filed 7-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P