[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 96353-96361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31572]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Part 7

[Docket ID OCC-2016-0022]
RIN 1557-AD93


Industrial and Commercial Metals

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The OCC is finalizing a rule to prohibit national banks and 
federal savings associations from dealing or investing in industrial or 
commercial metals.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Casey Scott Laxton, Counsel, or Margo 
Dey, Counsel, Securities and Corporate Practices Division, (202) 649-
5510; Carl Kaminski, Special Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory 
Activities Division, (202) 649-5490; or, for persons who are deaf or 
hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, 
DC 22019.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In September 2016, the OCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) to prohibit national banks from dealing or investing in 
industrial or commercial metals.\1\ The OCC proposed to: (i) Exclude 
industrial and commercial metals from the terms ``exchange,'' ``coin,'' 
and ``bullion'' in the ``powers clause'' of the National Bank Act at 12 
U.S.C. 24(Seventh); and (ii) provide that dealing or investing in 
industrial or commercial metal is not part of, or incidental to, the 
business of banking. The proposed prohibitions were generally 
consistent with recommendations made by the U.S. Senate Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations in 2014,\2\ as well as recommendations 
described in a September 2016 report to the U.S. Congress and the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) prepared by the OCC, the 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Board''), and the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation pursuant to section 620 of the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank 
Act'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 81 FR 63428 (Sept. 15, 2016).
    \2\ ``Wall Street Bank Involvement with Physical Commodities,'' 
U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, available at: 
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/report-wall-street-involvement-with-physical-commodities (``PSI Report'').
    \3\ ``Report to Congress and the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council Pursuant to Section 620 of the Dodd-Frank Act,'' at 86-90 
(September 2016), available at: https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2016/nr-ia-2016-107a.pdf (``620 Study''). Section 620 
of the Dodd-Frank Act required the federal banking agencies to 
conduct a study and prepare a report, including recommendations, on 
the types of activities and investments permissible for banking 
entities, the associated risks, and how banking entities mitigate 
those risks. In a parallel action, the Board also issued a proposed 
rule in September 2016. The proposed Board rule addressed the 
physical commodities activities and investments of banking holding 
companies and financial holding companies, including copper. Risk-
Based Capital and Other Regulatory Requirements for Activities of 
Financial Holding Companies Related to Physical Commodities and 
Risk-Based Capital Requirements for Merchant Banking Investments, 81 
FR 67220 (Sept. 30, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A national bank may engage in activities that are part of, or 
incidental to, the business of banking under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh). 
Section 24(Seventh) lists several activities that are part of the 
business of banking; for example, it expressly provides that national 
banks may buy and sell exchange, coin, and bullion. In addition to 
these enumerated powers, section 24(Seventh) authorizes national banks 
to exercise all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry 
on the business of banking. National banks also are authorized to 
engage in any other activities not expressly enumerated in the statute 
that the Comptroller of the Currency

[[Page 96354]]

reasonably determines are part of the business of banking.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NationsBank of N.C., N.A. v. Var. Ann. Life. Ins. Co. 
(VALIC), 513 U.S. 251, 258-59 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Interpretive Letter 693,\5\ issued approximately twenty-one 
years ago, the OCC authorized national banks to buy and sell copper on 
the grounds that trading copper was becoming increasingly similar to 
trading gold, silver, platinum, and palladium. The letter observed that 
copper was traded in liquid markets; that it was traded in a form 
standardized as to weight and purity; and that the bank seeking 
authority to engage in the activity traded copper under policies and 
procedures similar to those that governed the bank's trading of 
precious metals. The letter concluded that national banks could buy and 
sell copper under the express authority to buy and sell coin and 
bullion and as part of or incidental to the business of banking. The 
scope of the authorization in Interpretive Letter 693 was sufficiently 
broad to permit national banks to buy and sell copper in the form of 
cathodes, which are used for industrial purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 1995 WL 788816 (Nov. 14, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, the OCC proposed to reconsider the interpretation set 
forth in Interpretive Letter 693.
    Now, the OCC is finalizing the NPRM and revising its regulations to 
prohibit national banks from dealing and investing in a metal (or 
alloy), including copper, in a form primarily suited to industrial or 
commercial use (industrial or commercial metal).\6\ The OCC has added a 
divestiture period to the final rule, provided clarifying language to 
the dealing and investing prohibition for national banks, and clarified 
federal savings associations' (FSA) authority to engage in activity 
that is not dealing or investing, but is otherwise finalizing the NPRM 
as proposed. The final rule: (i) Excludes industrial and commercial 
metals from the terms ``exchange,'' ``coin,'' and ``bullion'' in 12 
U.S.C. 24(Seventh); and (ii) provides that dealing or investing in 
industrial or commercial metal is not part of, or incidental to, the 
business of banking. Examples of metals and alloys in a form primarily 
suited for industrial or commercial use include copper cathodes, 
aluminum T-bars, and gold jewelry. For the reasons stated in this 
preamble, the OCC has concluded that dealing or investing in these 
metals is not appropriate for national banks. The final rule supersedes 
Interpretive Letter 693.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The OCC considers the definition of industrial or commercial 
metal to include a warehouse receipt for such metal.
    \7\ See Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet 
Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981-82 (2005) (agency reconsiderations of 
prior interpretations entitled to judicial deference so long as the 
agency adequately explains the reasons for the change); Motor 
Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm 
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) 
(``agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a 
satisfactory explanation for its action including a `rational 
connection between the facts found and the choice made' '').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule also applies to FSAs. The Home Owners' Loan Act does 
not expressly authorize FSAs to buy or sell exchange, coin, and 
bullion.\8\ While FSAs have incidental authority to buy and sell 
precious metals in certain cases and to sell gold and silver coins 
minted by the U.S. Treasury, the OCC has not identified any precedent 
authorizing FSAs to buy and sell any industrial or commercial metal.\9\ 
The OCC does not interpret FSAs' powers to buy and sell metals to be 
broader than those of national banks.\10\ To avoid doubt, and to 
further integrate national bank and FSA regulations, the final rule 
prohibits FSAs from dealing or investing in industrial or commercial 
metal.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 12 U.S.C. 1464(c).
    \9\ See, e.g., OTS Op. Ch. Couns. P-2006-1 (Mar. 6, 2006), 2006 
WL 6195026 (engaging in precious metal transactions on behalf of 
customers); Gold Bullion Coin Transactions, 51 FR 34950 (Oct. 1, 
1986); Letter from Jack D. Smith, Deputy General Counsel, Federal 
Home Loan Bank Board, 1988 WL 1021651 (May 18, 1988). All precedents 
(orders, resolutions, determinations, agreements, regulations, 
interpretive rules, interpretations, guidelines, procedures, and 
other advisory materials) made, prescribed, or allowed to become 
effective by the former Office of Thrift Supervision or its Director 
that apply to FSAs remain effective until the OCC modifies, 
terminates, sets aside, or supersedes those precedents. 12 U.S.C. 
5414(b).
    \10\ See OTS Op. Ch. Couns. P-2006-1 (Mar. 6, 2006), 2006 WL 
6195026 (permissibility of FSA metal activity is evaluated under a 
four-part test referencing the activities of national banks).
    \11\ The final rule indirectly applies to federal branches and 
agencies of foreign banks because they operate with the same rights 
and privileges (and subject to the same duties, restrictions, 
penalties, liabilities, conditions, and limitations) as national 
banks. 12 CFR 28.13(a)(1). The final rule also indirectly applies to 
insured state banks and state savings associations. See 12 U.S.C. 
1831a, 1831e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    The OCC received four comments on the NPRM. Two comments were from 
financial industry trade associations and two were from individuals. 
While the comments generally were supportive of the NPRM, the trade 
association commenters requested that the OCC confirm the 
permissibility of certain lending and leasing transactions involving 
physical metals and expressed concern about the potential impact of the 
rulemaking on the liquidity of the copper market. A detailed discussion 
of the commenters' concerns and the OCC's response follows.

A. Prohibition on Dealing and Investing for Industrial and Commercial 
Metal (Including Copper)

    Two commenters offered general views on the proposed dealing and 
investing prohibition for industrial and commercial metal, including 
copper, under the proposed rule. One was generally supportive of the 
NPRM's treatment of copper cathodes as an industrial and commercial 
metal. This commenter noted the proposal was consistent with banks' 
treatment of copper, as banks currently buy and sell copper based on 
its value for industrial and commercial purposes rather than as a store 
of value. The commenter also offered additional support for the 
rulemaking, noting that banks that own copper are exposed to large 
fluctuations in copper prices, encounter potential conflicts of 
interest between house positions and client positions, and may be able 
to manipulate copper markets through large physical positions. This 
commenter asserted that the proposed treatment is appropriate because 
bank copper trading activities more closely resemble commercial 
enterprises rather than a banking business. The commenter pointed to 
the PSI Report and 620 Study to support these comments.
    The second commenter expressed concern that the OCC has not 
demonstrated a compelling reason to change its 1995 copper 
interpretation. The commenter argued that the reasons the OCC approved 
copper activities in Interpretive Letter 693 are still valid today and 
that the OCC should not pursue the rulemaking in the absence of a 
compelling need or corresponding regulatory benefit. After carefully 
considering these comments, the OCC continues to believe that dealing 
or investing in copper cathodes, and other industrial or commercial 
metal, is not appropriate for national banks. As the OCC explained in 
the NPRM, events subsequent to Interpretive Letter 693 have confirmed 
copper is a base metal and thus, should be distinguished from precious 
metals that are not held in industrial or commercial form.\12\ For 
example, in 2000, the London Metals Exchange (``LME'') introduced a 
futures contract on a base metal index containing copper, aluminum, and

[[Page 96355]]

zinc.\13\ In 2006, the LME followed with ``mini'' futures for copper, 
aluminum and zinc. By contrast, firms have launched exchange-traded 
funds (ETFs) that invest solely in gold, silver, palladium, platinum, 
or some combination thereof, indicating a widespread belief that these 
metals are a store of value. The OCC notes there are no copper ETFs. In 
addition, the OCC understands that national banks that trade copper 
treat it as a base metal and trade it alongside aluminum and zinc 
rather than gold and silver. Finally, the OCC considered the issues and 
risks identified in the PSI Report with respect to physical copper.\14\ 
The commenter's observations do not negate the information provided in 
the NPRM and these facts demonstrate that the OCC has adequately 
described its reasons for changing its 1995 interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 81 FR 63430, n.21.
    \13\ The LME describes itself as ``the world centre for 
industrial metals trading.'' See https://www.lme.com/.
    \14\ See, e.g., PSI Report at 362-396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Physical Holdings

    The preamble to the NPRM explained that the OCC did not consider 
the proposed rule to prohibit national banks from buying or selling 
metal through a transitory title transfer entered into as part of a 
customer-driven financial intermediation business.\15\ The OCC 
explained that metal owned through a transitory title transfer 
typically does not entail physical possession of a commodity; the 
ownership occurs solely to facilitate the underlying transaction and 
lasts only for a moment in time. However, the OCC invited comment on 
whether transitory title transfers involving metals present risks that 
warrant treating such transactions as physical holdings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 81 FR 63431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three commenters addressed transitory title transfers. Two 
commenters generally supported the OCC's proposed treatment of 
transitory title transfers. One of these commenters agreed with the 
assertion in the NPRM that there is no physical possession of the metal 
in transitory title transfers. This commenter noted that the risks of 
legal liability typically associated with physical commodity positions 
are not present in transitory title transfers and that these 
transactions more closely resemble customer-driven, cash-settled 
commodity derivatives than physical positions. Another commenter also 
supported the treatment of transitory title transfers, but suggested 
the final rule text should limit transitory title transfers to 
customer-driven financial intermediation transactions that are part of 
the business of banking. A third commenter disagreed that transitory 
title transfers are different from dealing and investing in physical 
metal just because the bank holds the metal for a legal instant. As 
discussed in detail below, the OCC continues to believe that transitory 
title transfers do not entail physical possession of industrial and 
commercial metals. The OCC also notes that relevant precedent already 
provides that transitory title transfers must be part of a customer-
driven financial intermediation business.\16\ Therefore, the OCC is 
finalizing the rule as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Interpretive Letter 1073, 26 OCC Q.J. 46, 2007 WL 5122911 
(Oct. 19, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to addressing transitory title transfers, one of the 
commenters also requested that the OCC confirm that interests in 
unallocated metal accounts are not physical holdings under the final 
rule. The commenter identified various activities in which national 
banks are engaged that could involve an interest in an unallocated 
metals account. The OCC notes that these activities are fact specific, 
and determinations about fact-specific activities need to be evaluated 
on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the OCC believes it is appropriate 
to address the applicability of the final rule to these activities on a 
case-by-case basis. National banks with questions regarding the 
permissibility of transactions that involve unallocated metals accounts 
should discuss the issue with the OCC. The OCC is willing to entertain 
requests for such determinations, consistent with its historical 
practice of providing interpretive opinions in cases where there is 
doubt about the permissibility of particular activities.

C. Reverse Repurchase Agreements

    The NPRM explained that the OCC views national banks' lending 
authority to include reverse repurchase agreements that are the 
functional and economic equivalent of secured loans.\17\ Banks may use 
commodity reverse repurchase agreements to finance customer 
inventory.\18\ Using a standard reverse repurchase agreement for metal 
to provide financing for a bank customer rather than a traditional bank 
loan ordinarily does not indicate dealing or investing in the metal. 
However, the NPRM noted that the facts and circumstances of a 
particular transaction may warrant a different conclusion. For example, 
if a bank incurs commodity price risk or pledges, sells, or 
rehypothecates metal acquired under reverse repurchase agreements, the 
NPRM provided that the OCC may view the transaction to be dealing or 
investing in the metal. The OCC invited comment on the treatment of 
reverse repurchase agreements under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 81 FR 63431.
    \18\ 12 CFR 211.4(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters addressed the treatment of reverse repurchase 
agreements. One suggested the OCC prohibit all reverse repurchase 
agreements where there is commodity market or liquidity risk. This 
commenter wrote that a prohibition is a better approach than a facts 
and circumstances review in light of limited OCC resources. The other 
commenter asserted that OCC should confirm that these types of reverse 
repurchase agreements are permissible activities not affected by the 
rule. This commenter noted that the reuse of the collateral is a long-
standing practice in asset-based financing and therefore pledging, 
selling, or rehypothecating metal owned under a reverse repurchase 
agreement should not be viewed as indicia of dealing activity.
    The OCC continues to have concerns that reverse repurchase 
agreements that involve commodity price risk or that involve pledging, 
selling, or rehypothecating metal could be structured in some 
circumstances in a manner that constitutes dealing or investing 
activity. The OCC recognizes, as a commenter suggested, that banks may 
enter into hedges to mitigate price risk that exists at the conclusion 
of certain reverse repurchase agreements and may pledge collateral for 
the purpose of funding its customer financing activities. Structuring a 
transaction in these ways could, in some circumstances, reduce indicia 
of investing or dealing activity. However, the OCC does not believe it 
is appropriate to conclude that all reverse repurchase agreements that 
involve commodity price risk or pledging, etc. of collateral are 
permissible. Therefore, the OCC continues to believe that it is 
appropriate to evaluate reverse repurchase agreements that involve 
commodity price risk or pledging, etc. of collateral on a facts and 
circumstances basis, as appropriate. This approach will allow the OCC 
an opportunity to evaluate transactions in context and to consider 
relevant facts before reaching a determination as to whether a 
transaction involves dealing or investing. The OCC is therefore 
declining to make the changes the commenters have requested.

D. Other Permissible Transactions

    The proposed rule identified two incidental authorities under which

[[Page 96356]]

acquiring and selling metal would remain permissible for national 
banks: first, collateral foreclosure activities designed to mitigate 
loan losses; \19\ second, nominal physical hedges of customer-driven 
commodity derivatives. The OCC also explained in the preamble to the 
NPRM that a bank may buy and sell metal in conjunction with certain 
leasing authorities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 81 FR 63433.
    \20\ 81 FR 63431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter addressed the proposed treatment of nominal hedging 
activities. This commenter suggested that the OCC require banks to 
disclose hedging amounts to the OCC. This commenter also suggested that 
the OCC require the hedge be designed to reduce risk in order to 
prevent commodity speculation. The OCC notes that it monitors bank 
hedging activity through its regular course of bank supervision. 
Additionally, banks that engage in commodity hedging activities already 
must do so in accordance with applicable law, including requirements 
that the hedge be designed to reduce risk.\21\ For these reasons, the 
OCC does not believe that the changes this commenter suggested are 
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Interpretive Letter 684 (Aug. 4, 1995) 1995 WL 
550219; OCC Bulletin 2015-3 (Aug. 4, 2015); 12 CFR 44.3(b) and 
44.5(a) (Volcker Rule requirement that hedges be designed to reduce 
or otherwise significantly mitigate one or more specific 
identifiable risks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter asked that the OCC modify the final rule to 
expressly permit certain metals-based financing activities. The 
commenter described several metal leasing and metal consignment 
transactions. As explained in the NPRM and below, banks may not buy and 
sell industrial or commercial metal for the purposes of dealing or 
investing in that metal. However, banks may continue to buy and sell 
industrial or commercial metal under other incidental authorities that 
do not involve dealing or investing. To the extent a bank proposes to 
engage in a metals-based transaction that presents an interpretive 
issue(s) under the authorities provided for in 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh), 
the OCC will address permissibility on a facts and circumstances basis. 
The OCC may issue interpretive analysis, as appropriate.

E. Existing Holdings

    The OCC solicited comment in the NPRM on the treatment of existing 
holdings of industrial and commercial metals. Specifically, the OCC 
asked whether five years to divest non-conforming assets, with the 
possibility of a five-year extension, would be an appropriate period of 
time. The OCC also asked whether there were compelling reasons to 
grandfather existing industrial and commercial metal holdings 
indefinitely.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 81 FR 63432.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters addressed the issue of existing holdings of 
industrial and commercial metal. One commenter argued industrial and 
commercial metal held before the conformance date should be 
grandfathered because doing so would limit negative effects on copper 
markets and bank customers. This commenter also asked that the text of 
the rule include a minimum of five years to conform to the prohibition, 
arguing this would minimize the impact of the rule. Another commenter 
did not support allowing the banks additional time to divest their 
physical metals holdings.
    National banks do not currently engage in significant dealing or 
investing activities in relation to physical industrial and commercial 
metal. Nor do national banks currently hold significant stores of 
industrial and commercial metal. Therefore, the OCC finds no compelling 
reason to grandfather existing activities. However, the OCC does 
believe that a short divestiture period would be appropriate. Given 
national banks' limited industrial and commercial metal activities, the 
OCC concludes that a full five-year divestiture period is not 
necessary. The OCC is therefore including a provision in the final rule 
that requires national banks to divest existing holdings of industrial 
and commercial metal acquired through dealing or investing activities 
as soon as practicable, but not later than one year from the effective 
date of the rule.\23\ This provision enables the OCC to grant up to 
four separate one-year extensions of this divestiture period if the 
bank has made a good faith effort to dispose of the metal and the 
bank's retention of the metal is not inconsistent with its safe and 
sound operation. The OCC notes that the approach of granting a 
divestiture period with the possibility of an extension is consistent 
with the OCC's treatment of other types of nonconforming assets.\24\ 
This divestiture provision applies only to existing holdings; national 
banks may not acquire additional holdings of industrial and commercial 
metal through dealing or investing activities during, or after, the 
divestiture period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The final rule provides a divestiture period for both 
national banks and FSAs. The OCC does not expect that a divestiture 
period will be necessary for FSAs and most national banks. However, 
in order to ensure an orderly asset liquidation process for all 
institutions that hold metal subject to this prohibition, the 
divestiture provision is available to both national banks and FSAs.
    \24\ See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 29 (holding period for other real 
estate owned).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Impact of the Rule

    Three commenters discussed the impact of the proposed rule. Two 
commenters noted, very generally, that they expect the rule to increase 
cost for customers if finalized as proposed. One of these commenters 
also suggested the proposal would have a negative impact on the copper 
market as a whole, asserting that the costs of the rule will not be 
minimal. This commenter also argued there would be no regulatory 
benefit to this prohibition. Another commenter said the NPRM would 
reduce financial risk and conflicts of interests for banks while also 
allowing the OCC to impose limits on copper and other industrial and 
commercial metals.
    As noted above, national banks do not currently engage in 
significant dealing or investing activities in relation to physical 
industrial and commercial metal. Because these markets tend to be 
highly competitive, we expect that the removal of OCC-supervised 
institutions as just one class of potential investors/dealers will not 
have a material effect on these markets. Furthermore, as explained in 
more detail below, national banks may continue to buy and sell 
industrial and commercial metal under certain incidental authorities. 
The OCC expects these limited permissible activities will allow banks 
to continue to serve customers with interests in commercial and 
industrial metals in capacities that do not involve dealing or 
investing activities.

III. Description of the Final Rule

A. Industrial or Commercial Metal Is Not ``exchange, coin, and 
bullion''

    As noted above, the National Bank Act authorizes national banks to 
buy and sell exchange, coin, and bullion. In this final rule, the OCC 
is interpreting these terms to exclude metals in a form primarily 
suited to industrial or commercial use.
    Banking Circular 58 (BC-58) \25\ sets forth general guidelines that 
apply to national banks' coin and bullion activities. It defines 
``coin'' as ``coins held for their metallic value which are minted by a 
government, or exact restrikes of such coins minted at a later date by 
or under the authority of the issuing government.'' Contemporaneous OCC 
interpretive letters elaborated that ``coin'' referred only to media of 
exchange.\26\ BC-58 defines ``bullion'' as

[[Page 96357]]

``uncoined gold or silver in bar or ingot form.'' These definitions do 
not encompass industrial or commercial metal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ BC-58 (Rev.) (Nov. 3, 1981). The OCC published the original 
version in 1974.
    \26\ Interpretive Letter 326 (Jan. 17, 1985), 1985 WL 202590; 
Interpretive Letter 252 (Oct. 26, 1982), 1982 WL 54157; Letter from 
Peter Liebesman, Assistant Director, Legal Advisory Services 
Division (Feb. 18, 1982), 1982 WL 170844. But see Letter from 
Richard V. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Counsel (Nov. 4, 1983), 1983 WL 
145720 (concluding that national banks could purchase and sell the 
Department of Treasury's commemorative Olympic coins based on their 
metallic value even though it was unlikely that the coins would be 
used as a medium of exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interpretive letters published after BC-58 interpreted national 
banks' authority to buy coin and bullion to include other precious 
metals, namely platinum and palladium. Consistent with BC-58's 
definition of ``coin,'' the OCC in 1987 found that legal tender 
platinum coins held for their metallic value were ``coin.'' \27\ That 
same letter prohibited dealing in platinum bars. However, in 1991, the 
OCC concluded that market developments warranted treating platinum bars 
as bullion.\28\ The OCC also found trading in platinum bars to be 
incidental to trading in platinum coins.\29\ For similar reasons, the 
OCC concluded palladium was coin and bullion and national banks could 
trade and deal in palladium as part of the business of banking.\30\ In 
support of its position, the OCC noted that the London Platinum and 
Palladium Market had linked platinum and palladium for market making 
and regulatory purposes and that most of the Market's members were 
banks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Letter from William J. Stolte, Chief National Bank Examiner 
(July 29, 1987), 1987 WL 149775.
    \28\ Interpretive Letter 553 (May 2, 1991), 1991 WL 340660 
(noting that (i) the financial press considered platinum coins and 
bars to be bullion, and (ii) a state statute defined ``bullion'' to 
include platinum).
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Interpretive Letter 685 (Aug. 4, 1995), 1995 WL 550220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, other interpretive letters recognized that not every 
precious metal is coin or bullion. Jewelry, the OCC determined, is 
not.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See No-Objection Letter 88-8 (May 26, 1988), 1988 WL 284872 
(selling gold and silver jewelry is impermissible general 
merchandising); Letter from Madonna K. Starr, Attorney (Oct. 3, 
1986), 1986 WL 144029 (limited design jewelry is not exchange, coin, 
or bullion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OCC has long concluded that ``exchange, coin, and bullion'' 
does not encompass industrial or commercial metal. The OCC believes 
this conclusion is consistent with the National Bank Act and current 
market practice. For example, in the mid-19th century, when Congress 
passed the National Bank Act, ``bullion'' meant metal suitable for 
coining, not metal suitable for making wires.\32\ The contemporary 
understanding of ``bullion'' is broader--most currency is no longer 
made of precious metal--but the contemporary understanding does 
distinguish bullion from industrial or commercial metal. For example, 
modern bullion markets trade precious metals by the kilogram.\33\ By 
contrast, industrial and commercial metals markets trade base metals in 
quantities suitable for industrial or commercial use.\34\ In general, 
gold, silver, platinum, and palladium are bullion today because they:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Act of June 22, 1874, 18 Stat. 202 (authorizing the 
transfer from the U.S. bullion fund of refined gold bars bearing the 
United States stamp of fineness, weight, and value, or bars from any 
melt of foreign coin or bullion of standard equal to or above that 
of the United States); Act of Feb. 12, 1873 Sec.  31, 17 Stat. 429 
(``The bullion thus placed in the hands of the melter and refiner 
shall be subjected to the several processes which may be necessary 
to form it into ingots of the legal standard, and of a quality 
suitable for coinage.'').
    \33\ See, e.g., London Bullion Market Association, The Good 
Delivery Rules for Gold and Silver Bars 11 (Mar. 2015), available at 
http://www.lbma.org.uk/assets/market/gdl/GD_Rules_15_Final%2020160512.pdf; London Platinum & Palladium 
Market, ``The London/Zurich Good Delivery List,'' http://www.lppm.com/good-delivery/ (visited July 19, 2016).
    \34\ The LME describes itself as the ``world centre for the 
trading of industrial metals--more than three quarters of all non-
ferrous metal futures business is transacted on [its] platforms.'' 
LME, ``About us,'' http://www.lme.com/about-us (visited July 19, 
2016). The LME trades aluminum, aluminum alloys, copper, lead, 
nickel, tin, and zinc. LME, ``Metals,'' http://www.lme.com/metals 
(visited July 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Trade in troy ounces or grams rather than metric tons; 
\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, e.g., Bloomberg, ``Gold, Silver, and Industrial Metals 
Prices,'' http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/futures/metals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Trade in pure forms; \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See, e.g., London Bullion Market Association, The Good 
Delivery Rules for Gold and Silver Bars 6 (Mar. 2015) (minimum 
fineness for gold is 99.5 percent and for silver is 99.9 percent); 
London Platinum & Palladium Market, ``The London/Zurich Good 
Delivery List,'' http://www.lppm.com/good-delivery/ (minimum 
fineness for platinum and palladium is 99.95 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Trade in a form suitable for coining;
     Trade as precious metals in the world's major organized 
markets, including the London bullion markets; and
     Are considered currency by the International Organization 
for Standardization.\37\

    Gold, silver, platinum, and palladium in industrial or commercial 
form are not exchange, coin, or bullion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ ISO 4217 (Aug. 1, 2015), available at http://www.currency-iso.org/dam/downloads/lists/list_one.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Dealing or Investing in Industrial or Commercial Metal Is Neither 
Part of, nor Incidental to, the Business of Banking

    Interpretive Letter 693 concluded that national banks could buy and 
sell copper (including industrial copper) as a part of or incidental to 
the business of banking. The OCC has reviewed the bases for the 
conclusion in Interpretive Letter 693 that buying and selling 
industrial copper is part of the business of banking, including 
developments in copper markets that followed this letter. For the 
following reasons, the OCC has determined that buying and selling 
copper--or any other metal--in industrial or commercial form for the 
purpose of dealing or investing in that metal is not part of the 
business of banking.
    When the OCC issued Interpretive Letter 693 in 1995, the agency 
noted increasing similarity between transactions involving copper and 
those transactions already conducted by national banks with respect to 
gold, silver, platinum and palladium (precious metals). This increasing 
similarity informed the OCC's view at that time that buying and selling 
copper, including dealing and investing, was part of, or incidental to, 
the business of banking. However, copper markets have not increased in 
similarity to precious metal markets.\38\ Instead, as noted in detail 
above, copper is generally traded as a base metal.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Events subsequent to Interpretive Letter 693 have confirmed 
copper's status as a base metal. In 2000, the LME introduced a 
future on a base metal index containing copper, aluminum, lead, 
nickel, tin, and zinc. Then, in 2006, it introduced ``mini'' futures 
for copper, aluminum, and zinc. Similarly, many firms have launched 
ETFs that invest solely in gold, silver, palladium, platinum, or 
some combination thereof, indicating a widespread belief that these 
metals are a store of value. However, there is no copper ETF. 
Finally, the OCC understands that national banks that trade copper 
treat it as a base metal and trade it alongside aluminum and zinc 
rather than gold and silver.
    \39\ See generally PSI Report at 364 (2014) (identifying banks, 
trading firms, analysts, and exchanges that treat copper as a base 
metal for trading and risk management purposes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OCC believes that dealing or investing in industrial or 
commercial metals, including base and precious metals in this form, is 
not the functional equivalent of dealing or investing in coin and 
bullion. The paradigmatic example of functional equivalence is that a 
lease is in economic substance a secured loan.\40\ But the significant 
differences between dealing in industrial or commercial metals and 
dealing in coin and bullion demonstrate that the former is not, in 
economic substance, the same as the latter. Most importantly, 
industrial and commercial metals trade in base metal markets by the ton 
in cathode or other industrial form, while coin and bullion trade in 
precious metal markets by the troy ounce or kilogram in bar or ingot 
form.

[[Page 96358]]

In addition, banks' risk management systems distinguish between 
precious metals and base metals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See M&M Leasing Corp. v. Seattle First Nat'l Bank, 563 F.2d 
1377 (9th Cir. 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OCC has also considered other factors identified in relevant 
precedent for determining whether dealing in or investing in industrial 
or commercial metal is part of the business of banking.\41\ The OCC 
does not believe that analysis under these factors supports a 
conclusion that this activity is part of the business of banking. For 
example, the OCC has not seen evidence that this activity strengthens a 
bank by benefiting its customers or its business.\42\ Nor is the OCC 
aware of any state-chartered banks dealing in or investing in 
industrial or commercial metal.\43\ Indeed, the OCC has not identified 
any precedent authorizing that activity for state banks. Such activity 
would suggest dealing or investing in commercial metals may be part of 
the business of banking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See, e.g., Merchants' Nat'l Bank v. State Nat'l Bank, 77 
U.S. 604, 648 (1871) (holding that national banks could certify 
checks because the activity had ``grown out of the business needs of 
the country.'').
    \42\ Currently, national banks' dealing and investments in 
industrial or commercial metal are limited, suggesting that the 
business needs of the U.S. economy are not meaningfully affected by 
national banks' dealing in industrial or commercial metal. Nor is 
there evidence that the amount of revenue from industrial or 
commercial metal dealing and investing meaningfully improve national 
banks' financial strength. In any case, the prospect for additional 
revenue alone is not sufficient to deem an activity to be part of 
the business of banking. See VALIC, 513 U.S. at 258 n.2. See also 
No-objection Letter 88-8 (May 26, 1988), 1988 WL 284872 (concluding 
that it is impermissible for a national bank to make substantial 
profits from the sale of merchandise).
    \43\ See Colorado Nat'l Bank v. Bedford, 310 U.S. 41, 49-50 
(1940).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh), a national bank 
has the power to exercise all such incidental powers as shall be 
necessary to carry on the business of banking. An activity is 
incidental to the business of banking if it is convenient or useful to 
an activity that is part of the business of banking.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Interpretive Letter 1071 (Sept. 6, 2006), 26 OCC Q.J. 46, 
2007 WL 5122909 (citing Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp, 472 F.2d 427, 
431-32 (1st Cir. 1972)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OCC believes that dealing or investing in industrial or 
commercial metal is not incidental to the business of banking. Some 
customers may wish to trade industrial or commercial metal with 
national banks. However, because few banks buy or sell industrial or 
commercial metal in the ordinary course of business, it does not appear 
that dealing or investing in industrial or commercial metal 
significantly enhances national banks' ability to offer banking 
products and services, including those related to precious metals. 
Moreover, dealing or investing in industrial or commercial metal does 
not appear to enable national banks to use capacity acquired for 
banking operations or otherwise avoid economic loss or waste. 
Therefore, the OCC concludes national banks may not deal or invest in 
industrial or commercial metal under their incidental powers.

C. Transactions in Industrial or Commercial Metal That May Be 
Permissible

    National banks do have incidental authority to buy and sell 
industrial or commercial metal in limited cases. Buying or selling 
industrial or commercial metal could be incidental to lending 
activities. For example, a mining company could post a copper cathode 
as collateral for a loan. Pursuant to the national bank's authority to 
acquire property in satisfaction of debt previously contracted, the 
bank could seize and then sell the copper to mitigate loan losses if 
the borrower defaulted.\45\ National banks also have incidental 
authority to buy and sell nominal amounts of industrial or commercial 
metal to hedge customer-driven commodity derivatives.\46\ The final 
rule does not prohibit these purchases and sales because they are not 
dealing or investing.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Cf. Cooper v. Hill, 94 F. 582 (8th Cir. 1899) (foreclosure 
of a mine); First Nat'l Bank of Parker v. Peavy Elevator Co., 10 
S.D. 167, 170 (1897) (foreclosure of grain seed and subsequent 
sale).
    \46\ Interpretive Letter 684 (Aug. 4, 1995) (permitting physical 
delivery of commodities as hedges for customer-driven, non-
speculative transactions), 1995 WL 550219; OCC Bulletin 2015-35, 
Quantitative Limits on Physical Commodity Transactions (Aug. 4, 
2015) (explaining that ``nominal'' means 5 percent of the bank's 
short positions in a particular commodity). The final rule 
explicitly provides that national banks may continue to buy and sell 
physical metal to hedge a derivative. A similar provision is not 
necessary for FSAs because they do not engage in this activity. See 
620 Study at 88; OCC Bulletin 2015-35, n. 1.
    \47\ Cf. First Nat'l Bank v. Nat'l Exch. Bank, 92 U.S. 122, 128 
(1875) (``In the honest exercise of the power to compromise a 
doubtful debt owing to a bank, it can hardly be doubted that stocks 
may be accepted in payment and satisfaction, with a view to their 
subsequent sale or conversion into money so as to make good or 
reduce an anticipated loss. Such a transaction would not amount to a 
dealing in stocks. It was, in effect, so decided in Fleckner v. Bank 
U.S., 8 Wheat. 351 [22 U.S. 338 (1823)], where it was held that a 
prohibition against trading and dealing was nothing more than a 
prohibition against engaging in the ordinary business of buying and 
selling for profit, and did not include purchases resulting from 
ordinary banking transactions.'').
     Similarly, national banks may buy and sell industrial or 
commercial metal as part of their leasing business. 12 U.S.C. 
24(Seventh); 12 U.S.C. 24(Tenth); 12 CFR 23.4. A car, for example, 
contains metal in a commercial form, but buying a car to lease it is 
not dealing or investing in commercial metal. Rather, a lease, like 
a reverse repurchase transaction, is a secured loan in a different 
form. National banks may also buy and sell industrial or commercial 
metals to install pipes and electrical wiring in their physical 
premises. 12 U.S.C. 29(First); 12 CFR 7.1000. This activity is 
clearly not dealing or investing in industrial or commercial metal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In certain situations, national banks may buy and sell industrial 
and commercial metal as reverse repurchase agreements that are the 
functional and economic equivalent of secured loans.\48\ In a reverse 
repurchase agreement, a bank extends credit by simultaneously buying 
collateral from a client and agreeing to sell the collateral back to 
the client at a future date. The difference between the sale and 
purchase price is effectively the interest the client pays for the 
extension of credit. If the reverse repurchase agreement counterparty 
defaults, the bank can mitigate its losses by selling the collateral 
without first foreclosing on it. Financing customer inventory is a 
traditional bank activity; using reverse repurchase agreements rather 
than loans to provide the financing is merely a different way of 
providing financing.\49\ Financing customer inventory using reverse 
repurchase agreements in itself does not indicate dealing or investing 
in the metal. However, pledging, selling, or rehypothecating metal 
acquired under reverse repurchase agreements could suggest dealing or 
investing activity. So, too, could assuming commodity price risk. For 
example, an agreement in which the counterparty sells a metal at a 
certain price to the bank and then repurchases the metal at a price 
that depends on the metal's then-current market price could indicate 
dealing or investing activity: The bank is assuming the metal's price 
risk and, in some circumstances, could act to benefit from spot market 
price appreciation of the metal. On the other hand, setting the 
repurchase price at the sale price plus a spread based on the time 
value of money is equivalent to a secured loan. The determination of 
whether a reverse repurchase agreement that varies from this secured 
loan structure is dealing or investing is highly dependent upon the 
facts of each transaction. National banks with questions regarding the 
permissibility of reverse repurchase agreements that involve 
characteristics identified in this discussion should discuss the issue 
with the OCC. The

[[Page 96359]]

OCC is willing to entertain requests for such determinations, 
consistent with its historical practice of providing interpretive 
opinions in cases where there is doubt about the permissibility of 
particular activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See 12 CFR 211.4(a)(7)
    \49\ Under the National Bank Act, credit exposures from 
repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are loans and 
extensions of credit subject to a national bank's lending limits. 12 
U.S.C. 84(b)(1)(C). We note that Section 610 of the Dodd-Frank Act 
expanded the definition of ``loans and extensions of credit'' for 
purposes of lending limits to include credit exposure arising from 
repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements, among other 
transactions. The OCC amended its lending limits regulation, 12 CFR 
32, to implement the statutory change made by the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule does not prohibit national banks from buying and 
selling metal through transitory title transfers entered into as part 
of a customer-driven financial intermediation business.\50\ 
Interpretive Letter 1073 \51\ provides that national banks may hedge 
metal derivative transactions on a portfolio basis with over-the-
counter derivative transactions that settle in cash or transitory title 
transfer. Interpretive Letter 1073 also provides that a national bank 
may engage in transitory title transfers in metals for the 
accommodation of customers. The OCC concluded in Interpretive Letter 
1073 that transitory title transfers involving metals do not entail the 
physical possession of commodities.\52\ The OCC's analysis in this 
letter noted that transitory title transfers do not involve the 
customary activities relating to, or risks attendant to, commodity 
ownership, such as storage costs, insurance, and environmental 
protection. For these reasons, OCC believes that transitory title 
transfers do not constitute physical possession of commodities and 
therefore does not consider transitory title transfers to be dealing or 
investing in industrial or commercial metal for purposes of the final 
rule.\53\ The OCC recognizes that banks may have questions about the 
permissibility of specific transitory title transfer transactions. The 
fact-specific nature of these issues merits a case-by-case review to 
determine the permissibility of the transaction. The OCC will continue 
to review requests for interpretive opinions on the permissibility of 
individual transactions proposed by a bank. Should the OCC become aware 
of additional risks that suggest transitory title transfer activity 
presents risks more closely akin to the risks of physical metal 
holdings, the OCC may reconsider the treatment of transitory title 
transfer transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ For purposes of the final rule, the OCC considers a 
transitory title transfer to be back-to-back contracts providing for 
the receipt and immediate transfer of title to the metal. This means 
that a bank holds title to the metal for no more than a legal 
instant. See Interpretive Letter 962 (Apr. 21, 2003), 2003 WL 
21283155 (``[T]ransitory title transfers preclude actual delivery by 
passing title down the chain from the initial seller to the ultimate 
buyer in a series of instantaneous back-to-back transactions. Each 
party in the chain has title for an instant but does not take actual 
physical delivery (other than the ultimate buyer which, in no case, 
will be the Bank.'')).
    \51\ 26 OCC Q.J. 46, 2007 WL 5122911 (Oct. 19, 2006).
    \52\ See also OCC Bulletin 2015-35 (Aug. 4, 2015) (noting that a 
physical commodity that a bank acquired and then immediately sold by 
transitory title transfer would not be included in the bank's 
physical inventory of that commodity).
    \53\ In contrast to transitory title transfers, the OCC 
considers a commodity held by warehouse receipt for more than a 
legal instant to entail physical possession of the commodity. See 
OCC Bulletin 2015-35 (``[A] bank that satisfies certain conditions 
may engage in physical commodity transactions (for example, by 
buying or selling title to a commodity via a warehouse receipt or 
bill of lading) to manage the risks of commodity derivatives.''); 
Interpretive Letter 684 (Aug. 4, 1995), 1995 WL 550219 (recognizing 
physical possession of a commodity by warehouse receipt). The OCC 
notes that the customary activities relating to, or risks attendant 
to, commodity ownership by warehouse receipt are distinguishable 
from those involving transitory title transfer. For example, 
Interpretive Letter 684 provides that the OCC expects a bank engaged 
in physical commodity hedging, either through warehouse receipt or 
``pass-through'' delivery, to adopt and maintain ``safeguards 
designed to manage the risks associated with storing, transporting, 
and disposing of commodities of which the bank has taken delivery, 
including policies and procedures designed to ensure that the bank 
has adequate levels of insurance (including insurance for 
environmental liabilities) which, after deductions, are commensurate 
with the risks assumed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Divestiture Period

    The final rule prohibits banks from dealing or investing in 
industrial or commercial metal. However, in response to a request from 
a commenter, the final rule provides a divestiture period for banks 
that acquired industrial or commercial metal through dealing or 
investing in that metal before the effective date of the rule.\54\ 
Under the divestiture provision, banks must dispose of such metal as 
soon as practicable, but not later than one year from the effective 
date of the regulation. The OCC may grant up to four separate one-year 
extensions of this divestiture period for a national bank that makes a 
good faith effort to dispose of the metal and the bank's retention of 
the metal is not inconsistent with its safe and sound operation. The 
divestiture provision applies only to existing holdings; national banks 
may not acquire additional holdings of industrial and commercial metal 
through dealing or investing activities during, or after, the 
divestiture period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The final rule provides a divestiture period for both 
national banks and FSAs. The OCC does not expect that a divestiture 
period will be necessary for FSAs and most national banks. However, 
in order to ensure an orderly liquidation process for all 
institutions that hold metal subject to this prohibition, the 
divestiture provision is available to both national banks and FSAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This divestiture period is generally consistent with the OCC's 
approach to other nonconforming assets. Banks with questions about the 
permissibility of activities or holdings involving industrial or 
commercial metal should ask the OCC for a review of the specific 
holding or activity.

IV. Regulatory Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the OCC may 
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an 
information collection unless the information collection displays a 
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This final 
rule does not introduce any new collections of information, therefore, 
it does not require a submission to OMB.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 Small Business Administration (SBA) for 
purposes of the RFA to include banking entities with total assets of 
$550 million or less) or to certify that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    As of December 31, 2015, the OCC supervised 1,032 small 
entities.\55\ Although the rule applies to all OCC-supervised small 
entities, and thus affects a substantial number of small entities, no 
small entities supervised by the OCC currently buy or sell metal in a 
physical form primarily suited to commercial or industrial use for the 
purpose of dealing or investing in that metal. Thus, the rule will not 
have a substantial impact on any OCC-supervised small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The OCC calculated the number of small entities using 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), the OCC counted the assets of affiliated 
financial institutions when determining whether to classify a 
national bank or FSA as a small entity. The OCC used December 31, 
2015, 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 SBA's Table of Size Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the OCC certifies that the final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of OCC-supervised 
small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

    The OCC analyzed the final rule under the factors set forth in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this 
analysis, the

[[Page 96360]]

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 annually for inflation).
    Although the final rule would apply to all OCC-supervised 
institutions, very few of these institutions are currently involved in 
activities involving dealing or investing in copper or other metals in 
a physical form primarily suited to commercial or industrial use.
    While the final rule may prevent OCC-supervised institutions from 
realizing potential gains from prohibited investments in physical 
metals, the rule also may protect them from realizing potential losses 
from investments in physical metals. The OCC is not able to estimate 
these potential gains or losses because they will depend on future 
fluctuations in the prices of the various physical metals. However, the 
OCC does expect OCC-supervised institutions to be able to achieve 
comparable returns in alternative non-prohibited investment 
opportunities. Thus, the OCC estimates that the opportunity cost of the 
final rule will be near zero.
    The final rule may impose one-time costs on affected institutions 
with respect to the disposal of current physical metal inventory that a 
bank may not deal in or invest in under the rule. This cost will depend 
to some extent on the amount of physical metal inventory that affected 
institutions must dispose of. Given the divestiture period in the final 
rule, a gradual sell-off should not affect market prices and the 
affected institutions would receive fair value for their metals. Under 
these circumstances, the OCC estimates that the disposal costs will 
also be minimal.
    Finally, by establishing that buying and selling physical metal in 
commercial or industrial form is generally not part of the business of 
banking, the rule implies that customers of OCC-supervised institutions 
will have to identify another reliable source of supply of physical 
metals and that OCC-supervised institutions will be less able to 
compete with non-bank metals dealers. Given how technology has made the 
physical metals markets more accessible, the OCC expects bank customers 
will face minimal costs associated with identifying another supplier of 
physical metals. The OCC also expects that losing the ability to 
compete with non-bank metal dealers will not significantly detract from 
the strength of OCC-supervised institutions, especially given that the 
final rule would recognize several business-of-banking incidental 
exceptions to the prohibition on buying and selling physical metal. 
These permissible activities should enable OCC-supervised institutions 
to continue to provide metals related services to bank customers that 
do not involve dealing or investing in commercial and industrial 
metals.
    For the reasons described above, the OCC has determined that the 
final rule would not result in expenditures by state, local, and Tribal 
governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more. 
Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared a written statement to accompany 
the final rule.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 7

    Banks, banking, Computer technology, Credit, Federal savings 
associations, Insurance, Investments, Metals, National banks, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Surety bonds.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OCC amends 12 CFR part 7 
as follows:

PART 7--ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 7 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 25b, 71, 71a, 92, 92a, 93, 93a, 
371, 371a, 481, 484, 1463, 1464, 1818, and 5412(b)(2)(B).

0
2. Add Sec.  7.1022 to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  7.1022   National banks' authority to buy and sell exchange, 
coin, and bullion.

    (a) In this section, industrial or commercial metal means metal 
(including an alloy) in a physical form primarily suited to industrial 
or commercial use, for example, copper cathodes.
    (b) Scope of authorization. Section 24(Seventh) of the National 
Bank Act authorizes national banks to buy and sell exchange, coin, and 
bullion. Industrial or commercial metal is not exchange, coin, and 
bullion within the meaning of this authorization.
    (c) Buying and selling metal as part of or incidental to the 
business of banking. Section 24(Seventh) authorizes national banks to 
engage in activities that are part of, or incidental to, the business 
of banking. Buying and selling industrial or commercial metal for the 
purpose of dealing or investing in that metal is not part of or 
incidental to the business of banking pursuant to section 24(Seventh). 
Accordingly, national banks may not acquire industrial or commercial 
metal for purposes of dealing or investing.
    (d) Other authorities not affected. This section shall not be 
construed to preclude a national bank from acquiring or selling metal 
in connection with its incidental authority to foreclose on loan 
collateral, compromise doubtful claims, or avoid loss in connection 
with a debt previously contracted. This section also shall not be 
construed to preclude a national bank from buying and selling physical 
metal to hedge a derivative for which that metal is the reference asset 
so long as the amount of the physical metal used for hedging purposes 
is nominal.
    (e) Nonconforming holdings. National banks that hold industrial or 
commercial metal as a result of dealing or investing in that metal 
shall dispose of such metal as soon as practicable, but not later than 
one year from the effective date of this regulation. The OCC may grant 
up to four separate one-year extensions to dispose of industrial or 
commercial metal if a national bank makes a good faith effort to 
dispose of the metal and retention of the metal for an additional year 
is not inconsistent with the safe and sound operation of the bank.

0
3. Add Sec.  7.1023 to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  7.1023   Federal savings associations, prohibition on industrial 
or commercial metal dealing or investing.

    (a) In this section, industrial or commercial metal means metal 
(including an alloy) in a physical form primarily suited to industrial 
or commercial use, for example, copper cathodes.
    (b) Federal savings associations may not deal or invest in 
industrial or commercial metal.
    (c) Other authorities not affected. This section shall not be 
construed to preclude a federal savings association from acquiring or 
selling metal in connection with its authority to foreclose on loan 
collateral, compromise doubtful claims, or avoid loss in connection 
with a debt previously contracted.
    (d) Nonconforming holdings. Federal savings associations that hold 
industrial or commercial metal as a result of dealing or investing in 
that metal shall dispose of such metal as soon as practicable, but not 
later than one year from the effective date of this regulation. The OCC 
may grant up to four separate one-year extensions to dispose of 
industrial or commercial metal if a federal savings association makes a 
good faith effort to dispose of the metal and retention of the metal 
for an additional year is not inconsistent with safe and sound 
operation of the association.


[[Page 96361]]


    Dated: December 15, 2016.
Thomas J. Curry,
Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 2016-31572 Filed 12-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4810-33-P