Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2023)

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70436-70513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20793]

[[Page 70435]]

Vol. 88

Wednesday,

No. 195

October 11, 2023

Part II

Securities and Exchange Commission

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

17 CFR Parts 230, 232, 239, Et al.

Investment Company Names; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 70436]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 230, 232, 239, 270 and 274

[Release No. 33-11238; 34-98438; IC-35000; File No. S7-16-22]
RIN 3235-AM72

Investment Company Names

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
amending the rule under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(``Investment Company Act'' or ``Act'') that addresses certain broad
categories of investment company names that are likely to mislead
investors about an investment company's investments and risks. The
amendments to this rule are designed to increase investor protection by
improving, and broadening the scope of, the requirement for certain
funds to adopt a policy to invest at least 80 percent of the value of
their assets in accordance with the investment focus that the fund's
name suggests, updating the rule's notice requirements, and
establishing recordkeeping requirements. The Commission is also
adopting enhanced prospectus disclosure requirements for terminology
used in fund names, and additional requirements for funds to report
information on Form N-PORT regarding compliance with the names-related
regulatory requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective December 11, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blair Burnett, Mykaila DeLesDernier,
Pamela Ellis, Senior Counsels; Bradley Gude, Branch Chief; Amanda
Hollander Wagner, Senior Special Counsel, or Brian McLaughlin Johnson,
Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6792, Investment Company Regulation
Office, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is adopting amendments to 17
CFR 270.35d-1 (``rule 35d-1'') under the Investment Company Act;
amendments to Form N-1A [referenced in 17 CFR 239.15A and 17 CFR
274.11A], Form N-2 [referenced in 17 CFR 239.14 and 17 CFR 274.11a-1],
Form N-8B-2 [referenced in 17 CFR 274.12], and Form S-6 [referenced in
17 CFR 239.16] under the Investment Company Act and the Securities Act
of 1933 (``Securities Act'') [15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.]; amendments to
Form N-PORT [referenced in 17 CFR 274.150] under the Investment Company
Act; amendments to 17 CFR 232.11 (``rule 11 of Regulation S-T'') and 17
CFR 232.405 (``rule 405 of Regulation S-T'') under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') [15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.];
amendments to 17 CFR 230.485 (``rule 485'') under the Securities Act;
and amendments to 17 CFR 230.497 (``rule 497'') under the Securities
Act.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Background
A. Regulatory Context
B. Developments and Analysis Informing Final Rule Amendments
C. Overview of the Final Rules
1. Final Rules' Principal Elements
2. Other Aspects of the Proposal
II. Discussion
A. 80% Investment Policy Requirement
1. Names Suggesting an Investment Focus
2. Temporary Departures From the 80% Investment Requirement
3. Considerations Regarding Derivatives in Assessing Names Rule
Compliance
4. Unlisted Registered Closed-End Funds and BDCs
5. Effect of Compliance With an 80% Investment Policy
B. Prospectus Disclosure Defining Terms Used in Fund Name
C. Plain English/Established Industry Use Requirement
D. Modernizing the Rule's Notice Requirement
E. Form N-PORT Reporting
1. Investments To Be Included in a Fund's 80% Basket
2. Investment Company Act Names Rule Investment Policy
F. Recordkeeping
G. Unit Investment Trusts
H. Compliance Dates
III. Other Matters
IV. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Broad Economic Considerations
C. Economic Baseline
1. Fund Industry Overview
2. Market Practice
3. Current Regulatory Framework
D. Benefits, Costs, and Effects on Efficiency, Competition and
Capital Formation
1. Benefits
2. Costs
3. Effects on Efficiency, Competition and Capital Formation
E. Reasonable Alternatives Considered
1. Disclosure-Based Framework
2. Alternatives to 90-Day Temporary Departure Limit
3. Permit But Not Require the Use of Derivatives' Notional
Values for Purposes of Names Rule Compliance
4. Exclude Unit Investment Trusts From Requirements for Tagging
Prospectus Disclosure
V. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Rule 35d-1
C. Prospectus Disclosure
1. Form N-1A
2. Form N-2
3. Form N-8B-2
4. Form S-6
D. Form N-PORT Reporting Requirements
E. Investment Company Interactive Data
VI. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
A. Need for and Objectives of the Rule and Form Amendments
B. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments
C. Small Entities Subject to Rule Amendments
D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
1. 80% Investment Policy Requirements--Scope Expansion and Other
Amendments
2. Effect of Compliance With an 80% Investment Policy
3. Recordkeeping Requirements
4. Disclosure and Reporting Requirements
5. Treatment of UITs
E. Agency Action To Minimize Effect on Small Entities
Statutory Authority

I. Introduction and Background

The Commission is adopting rule and form amendments that are
designed to modernize and enhance the protections that rule 35d-1 under
the Investment Company Act, the ``names rule,'' provides. This rule
addresses the names of registered investment companies and business
development companies (``BDCs'') that the Commission defines as
materially misleading or deceptive.\1\ The amendments the Commission is
adopting update the rule and other names-related regulatory
requirements to improve the protections that the rule provides, and to
address changes in the fund industry in the approximately 20 years
since the rule was adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ This release refers to registered investment companies and
BDCs collectively as ``funds.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In May 2022, the Commission proposed rule and form amendments that
would update the regulatory requirements associated with funds'
names.\2\ The proposed amendments included an expansion of the names
rule's scope, improvements to the requirements for funds' investment
policies adopted under the names rule (including, among other things,
specific requirements addressing temporary departures from these
policies' requirements), updated notice requirements, and new
recordkeeping requirements. The proposed amendments also effectively
would

[[Page 70437]]

have required that terms in a fund's name be consistent with those
terms' plain English meaning or established industry use, and addressed
materially deceptive and misleading use of environmental, social, or
governance (``ESG'') terminology in fund names. Finally, the 2022
Proposal included amendments that would require a fund to define the
terms used in its name in its prospectus, and amendments to Form N-PORT
to add several new names-rule-related reporting items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See Investment Company Names, Investment Company Act Release
No. 34593 (May 25, 2022) [87 FR 36594 (June 17, 2022)] (``Proposing
Release'' or the ``2022 Proposal''). The Commission voted to issue
the Proposing Release on May 25, 2022. The release was posted on the
Commission website that day, and comment letters were received
beginning the following day. The comment period closed on August 16,
2022. We have considered all comments received since May 25, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission received comment letters on the 2022 Proposal from a
variety of commenters, including funds, law firms, investor advocacy
groups, environmental advocacy groups, professional and trade
associations, public policy research institutes, academics, and
interested individuals.\3\ Many commenters expressed support for the
names rule generally, and the overall goals of improving and clarifying
the regulatory framework related to fund names, with some commenters
recognizing that the names rule has not been revisited since its
implementation in 2001.\4\ Comments on specific aspects of the proposed
amendments, however, were mixed. While some commenters generally
supported the proposed scope expansion, as well as the amendments
addressing the operation of investment policies adopted under the names
rule, many others expressed concerns with these aspects of the proposal
or suggested certain modifications.\5\ Comments on the proposed
prospectus disclosure requirements were generally supportive, but
comments on the proposed new Form N-PORT reporting items were mixed,
with some largely objecting to these requirements or suggesting
modifications and others arguing that the proposed new reporting items
would help promote transparency and accountability.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The comment letters on the Proposing Release are available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-22/s71622.htm.
\4\ See, e.g., Comment Letter of Better Markets (Aug. 16, 2022)
(``Better Markets Comment Letter''); Comment Letter of the Consumer
Federation of America (Aug. 16, 2022) (``Consumer Federation of
America Comment Letter'') (each expressing support for the
Commission's efforts to modernize the names rule, stating,
respectively, that the rule has not been revisited since 2001, and
it is ``well past time'' for the Commission to revisit and update
the names rule); see also Comment Letter of the CFA Institute (Aug.
22, 2022) (``CFA Institute Comment Letter''); Comment Letter of the
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of American and Nuveen,
LLC (Aug. 16, 2022) (``TIAA-Nuveen Comment Letter'').
\5\ See infra discussion at sections II.A.1-II.A.4.
\6\ See infra discussion at sections II.B and II.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering the comments on the 2022 Proposal and as
discussed in more detail below, we are adopting amendments to the names
rule, with some modifications based on the comments we received.

A. Regulatory Context

Congress provided the Commission with rulemaking authority to
address materially deceptive or misleading fund names, recognizing the
concern that investors may focus on a fund's name to determine its
investments and risks.\7\ The names rule, in turn, responds to this
concern by helping to ensure that investors' assets in funds are
invested in accordance with investors' reasonable expectations based on
the fund's name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-34(d); Public Law 104-290, 208, 110 Stat.
3416, 3432 (1996).; see also S. Rep. No. 293, 104th Cong., 2d Sess.
8-9 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The role of the names rule remains important and distinct from
other disclosure requirements. A fund's name is not meant to supplant
other required fund disclosure, and a name cannot communicate
everything about a fund's investments, risks, and other features. The
Commission has historically stated that investors should not rely on an
investment company's name as the sole source of information about a
company's investments and risks.\8\ We continue to encourage investors
to look beyond a fund's name to other information, such as disclosure
included in a fund's registration statement, to obtain a complete
understanding of a fund's investment objective, policies, strategies,
and risks, as several commenters suggested.\9\ A fund's name, however,
is unique in several respects. It is typically the first piece of
information that investors receive about a fund.\10\ Fund names offer
important signaling for investors in assessing their investment
options.\11\ Relatedly, incentives exist for asset managers to include
terminology in fund names that is designed to attract investor
assets.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See Investment Company Names, Investment Company Act Release
No. 24828 (Jan. 17, 2001) [66 FR 8509 (Feb. 1, 2001)] (``2001 Names
Rule Adopting Release'') at nn.4-5 and accompanying text.
\9\ See, e.g., Comment Letter of Massachusetts Financial
Services Company (Aug. 16, 2022) (``MFS Comment Letter''); Comment
Letter of Capital Research and Management Company (Aug. 16, 2022)
(``Capital Group Comment Letter''); Comment Letter of the Cato
Institute (Aug. 12, 2022) (``Cato Institute Comment Letter'').
\10\ See Comment Letter of the North American Securities
Administrators Association, Inc. (Aug. 16, 2022) (``NASAA Comment
Letter''); see also Comment Letter of the Public Investors Advocate
Bar Association (Aug. 15, 2022) (``PIABA Comment Letter'') (stating
that retail investors frequently base their purchase of funds solely
upon the name of the fund and ``do little to investigate'' the
portfolio holdings or the specific strategy of a fund beyond relying
on the fund's name).
\11\ See Comment Letter of U.S. SIF: The Forum for Sustainable
and Responsible Investment (Aug. 16, 2022) (``U.S. SIF Comment
Letter'').
\12\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.6; see also,
e.g., Comment Letter of the Center for American Progress (Aug. 16,
2022) (``Center for American Progress Comment Letter'') (stating
that the current investing environment creates strong incentives for
investment companies to name funds in ways that will attract
investors). But see Comment Letter of Benjamin Zycher, Senior
Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (Nov. 1, 2022) (``Zycher
Comment Letter'') (arguing that ``the implicit argument that firms
or funds have incentives to mislead or to adopt deceptive names is
not correct'' because funds' reputations for honesty are in funds'
long-term interests).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 35(d) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company
from adopting as part of its name or title any word or words that the
Commission finds are materially deceptive or misleading.\13\ This
section of the Act further authorizes the Commission to define such
names or titles as are materially deceptive or misleading. The
Commission adopted the names rule in 2001 in exercise of this
authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-34(d). BDCs, which are not registered
investment companies, are subject to the requirements of section
35(d) pursuant to section 59 of the Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-58].
\14\ See 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current names rule generally requires that if a fund's name
suggests a focus in a particular type of investment, or in investments
in a particular industry or geographic focus, the fund must adopt a
policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in the type of
investment, or in investments in the industry, country, or geographic
region suggested by its name.\15\ Under the current rule, a fund
generally may elect to make its 80% investment policy a fundamental
policy (i.e., a policy that may not be changed without shareholder
approval) or instead provide shareholders notice at least 60 days prior
to any change in the 80% investment policy.\16\ An 80% investment
policy relating to a tax-

[[Page 70438]]

exempt fund, however, must be a fundamental policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The rule imposes a similar requirement for funds that have
names suggesting that a fund's distributions are exempt from federal
income tax or from both federal and state income tax (``tax-exempt
funds'').
\16\ Under the Act, a fund may not deviate from a fundamental
policy unless it has been authorized by the vote of a majority of
its outstanding shareholders. 15 U.S.C. 80a-13(a)(3). In this
release, we refer to a policy that a fund must adopt under the names
rule as an ``80% investment policy'' and the fund's investments
invested in accordance with this policy, the fund's ``80% basket.''
We are adopting a parallel definition of ``80% basket'' in the final
amendments to the names rule, and when referring to the final
amendments, references to a fund's ``80% basket'' refer to this
definition. See final rule 35d-1(g) (defining ``eighty percent (80%)
basket''); see also proposed rule 35d-1(g)(1) (defining ``80%
basket,'' but otherwise identical to definition in final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, a fund is required to invest in accordance with its 80%
investment policy ``under normal circumstances,'' and a fund must apply
its policy at the time the fund invests its assets. If, subsequent to
an investment, the fund's assets are no longer invested in accordance
with the policy, the fund's future investments must be made in a manner
that will bring it into compliance. The current rule also includes
certain requirements for the notices that funds must send prior to a
change in an 80% investment policy that is not a fundamental policy.
In adopting the names rule, the Commission made clear that it is
not a safe harbor for materially deceptive or misleading names.\17\ The
prohibitions of section 35(d) and the anti-fraud provisions of the
Federal securities laws regarding disclosures to investors continue to
apply to funds notwithstanding their compliance with the names
rule.\18\ In addition, a fund must adopt and implement written
compliance policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent
violations of the Federal securities laws generally, which--both
currently, and following the Commission's adoption of amendments to the
names rule--would include section 35(d) and the names rule.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8, at
paragraph accompanying n.16; see also Proposing Release, supra
footnote 2, at nn.13-15 and accompanying text.
\18\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.14 and
accompanying text.
\19\ See id. at nn.16-17 and accompanying text (also addressing
the requirement for fund compliance officers to discuss any material
compliance matter involving the names rule in annual reports to the
board on the operation of funds' compliance policies and
procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Developments and Analysis Informing Final Rule Amendments

The names rule has not been amended since its adoption in 2001. In
past years, the Commission and staff have received input about the
operation of the names rule, as well as areas for potential
improvement, through a variety of venues. The Commission published a
Request for Comment on Fund Names in March 2020.\20\ The 2020 Request
for Comment sought public comment on the framework for addressing
funds' names, particularly in light of market and other developments
since the rule's adoption. The Commission received broad comments in
response to the 2020 Request for Comment and, as described above, in
response to the 2022 Proposal. In addition, staff in the Commission's
Division of Investment Management, particularly the Division's
Disclosure Review and Accounting Office, receive input from funds on
names rule compliance issues regularly, for example during the course
of staff's review of fund registration statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See Request for Comments on Fund Names, Investment Company
Act Release No. 33809 (Mar. 2, 2020) [85 FR 13221 (Mar. 6, 2020)]
(``2020 Request for Comment''); see also Proposing Release, supra
footnote 2, at section I.B (describing the input commenters provided
in response to the 2020 Request for Comment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters generally recognized that investors view a fund's name
as an important piece of information that communicates the fund's
objectives.\21\ Several commenters expressed that asset managers have
an incentive to create fund names that are designed to attract
investors.\22\ Many commenters, including funds and others, expressed
their general agreement that the names rule provides important investor
protections and that the rule has been largely effective in addressing
misleading and deceptive fund names.\23\ Commenters expressed support
for a requirement, such as the rule's 80% investment policy provision,
that requires a fund's underlying investments to correspond with the
focus its name suggests in light of reasonable investor
expectations.\24\ One, for example, with respect to funds' use of ESG
related terminology in their names, stated that a naming requirement
where ``the underlying strategy and data must significantly support the
name'' is a ``basic consumer protection.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ See, e.g., Comment Letter of the Asset Management Group of
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (Aug. 16,
2022) (``SIFMA AMG Comment Letter''); NASAA Comment Letter; Consumer
Federation of America Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Wellington
Management Company (Aug. 16, 2022) (``Wellington Comment Letter'');
Comment Letter of Adriana Z. Robertson and Jill E. Fisch (Apr. 20,
2023) (``Robertson-Fisch Comment Letter''); see also PIABA Comment
Letter (asserting fund names are particularly important for 401(k)
plan investments, which employers make available from a pre-
determined list of options and comprise the entirety of retirement
savings for many Americans).
\22\ See, e.g., Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter;
Center for American Progress Comment Letter; CFA Institute Comment
Letter.
\23\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.20 and
accompanying text; see also, e.g., Comment Letter of Invesco Ltd.
(Aug. 16, 2022) (``Invesco Comment Letter'') (``Since its adoption
in 2001, the Names Rule has provided an effective regulatory
framework for ensuring that fund names are not materially deceptive
or misleading and has served to help investors understand what they
can expect when they invest in a fund.''); Comment Letter of the
Investment Company Institute (Aug. 16, 2022) (``ICI Comment Letter
I'') The Investment Company Institute also submitted a separate
comment letter dated December 6, 2022 (``ICI Comment Letter II''), a
comment letter dated May 22, 2023 (``ICI Comment Letter III''), and
a comment letter dated July 31, 2023 (``ICI Comment Letter IV'').
Unless otherwise indicated, these letters are referred to
collectively as if they were a single letter (``ICI Comment
Letter'').
\24\ See, e.g., Comment Letter of T. Rowe Price (Aug. 16, 2022)
(``T. Rowe Comment Letter'') (discussing effectiveness of current
80% investment policy requirement in aligning fund names with
investor expectations); CFA Institute Comment Letter (stating that
the terms used in fund names should reflect the fund's ``investment
objective, strategies, and types of securities held'' and that the
current names rule ``provide[s] a level of assurance to
investors'').
\25\ See Comment Letter of Amalgamated Financial Corp. (Aug. 16,
2022) (``Amalgamated Comment Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters expressed that certain changes to the names rule
would be beneficial to ensure that the rule continues to serve its
investor protection purposes. Some of these commenters expressed the
view that the current scope of the rule does not cover all instances in
which fund names create the reasonable expectation that a fund will
invest in a certain way.\26\ Some also expressed concern that the
current rule's ``under normal circumstances'' standard increases the
risk that a fund's investments will not be consistent with its name
over an extended period and that investors will be misled.\27\
Commenters also suggested other, more technical updates to the names
rule, such as addressing how funds that use derivatives calculate
compliance with their 80% investment policies, and updating the rule's
notice provision to reflect technological changes over the past two
decades.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ See, e.g., Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter
(stating that ``significant gaps and loopholes'' exist in the
current rule); Center for American Progress Comment Letter; see also
infra section IV.D (estimating that approximately 62% of funds have
names that implicate the current 80% investment policy requirement).
\27\ See, e.g., NASAA Comment Letter; Comment Letter of the
Environmental Defense Fund (Aug. 16, 2022) (``Environmental Defense
Fund Comment Letter'').
\28\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at section I.B;
see also, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Comment Letter of J.P. Morgan
Asset Management (Aug. 16, 2022) (``J.P. Morgan Asset Management
Comment Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In considering updates to the names rule, both the Commission and
commenters have taken into account developments in the fund industry
since the rule was originally adopted. Registered investment companies
manage considerably more assets today than they did in 2001 (with this
amount nearly quadrupling), and the number of registered investment
companies has also increased--by close to 20%--in the two decades
following the names rule's adoption.\29\ Similarly, over this time

[[Page 70439]]

period, it has become more likely that retail investors access the
markets through registered investment companies than through direct
ownership of stocks and bonds.\30\ Although the increase in the number
of registered investment companies is modest compared to the increase
in registered investment companies' assets under management, the number
of funds tells only part of the story about the breadth of fund
investment options currently available. The range of fund investment
strategies has become notably more diverse over the past two
decades.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ See Investment Company Institute, 2022 Fact Book (2022)
(``2022 ICI Fact Book''), available at https://www.icifactbook.org/pdf/2022_factbook.pdf. In 2001, there were 8,860 registered open-end
and closed-end management investment companies, representing
approximately $7.15 trillion in assets under management. In 2021,
there were 10,450 registered open-end and closed-end management
investment companies, representing approximately $28.2 trillion in
assets under management. See also Fund Industry Overview at infra
section IV.C.1 (discussing fund industry statistics as of Dec.
2022).
\30\ See Federal Reserve Bulletin, Changes in U.S. Family
Finances from 2016 to 2019: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer
Finances (Sept. 2020), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf; Federal Reserve Bulletin, Recent
Changes in U.S. Family Finances: Evidence from the 1998 and 2001
Survey of Consumer Finances, available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/files/2001_bull0103.pdf. The
percentage of U.S. families holding stocks and bonds directly
decreased from 24.9% in 1992 to 16.3% in 2019. The percentage of
U.S. families holding pooled investment funds and retirement
accounts (including individual retirement accounts, Keogh accounts,
and certain employer-sponsored accounts such as 401(k) and 403(b)
accounts) increased from 33.3% in 1992 to 59.5% in 2019. Mutual
funds made up a significant portion of defined contribution plan
assets (58%) and IRA assets (45%) at year-end 2021. In addition, the
share of defined contribution plan assets held in mutual funds has
grown over the past two decades, from 44% at year-end 2001 to 58% at
year-end 2021. See 2022 ICI Fact Book.
\31\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at nn.21-22 at
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, the number of equity mutual funds and exchange-traded
funds (``ETFs'') that are sector funds (e.g., consumer, financial,
utilities) increased by nearly 70% from 2001 to 2021.\32\ Mutual fund
and ETF assets in ``thematic'' strategies have surged over the past
three years, with data from Morningstar Direct identifying a record 589
thematic mutual funds and ETFs debuting globally in 2021.\33\ As of
December 2022, Morningstar data categorized 334 domestic funds
(including mutual funds, ETFs, and registered closed-end funds) as
thematic funds, comprising 4 ``broad themes'' (broad thematic, physical
world, social, and technology), 27 ``themes'' (e.g., artificial
intelligence and big data, food, space, and wellness), and 150
``subthemes'' (e.g., health innovation, next gen auto, millennials and
``Generation Z,'' cannabis, robotics, and travel/tourism).\34\ While
fund managers and others understand certain of these thematic names to
be included in the current scope of the names rule, there can be
questions about whether certain thematic terms suggest a focus in a
particular type of investment, or in investments in a particular
industry or group of industries. As fund managers have incentives to
include ``buzzwords'' in their names to attract assets, and the current
market for funds includes a substantially broader variety of names
suggesting a particular focus than two decades ago, a rule providing
specific requirements to address deceptive and misleading fund names
for any fund name that suggests a particular investment focus is even
more relevant now than it was when it was adopted.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ See 2022 ICI Fact Book, supra footnote 29. In 2001, there
were 452 sector equity mutual funds and ETFs; in 2021, there were
757.
\33\ See Sonya Swink, Thematic Assets Have Surged--And Are Here
to Stay, Ignites (Dec. 22, 2022), available at https://www.ignites.com/c/3870954/500734/thematic_assets_have_surged_here_stay?referrer_module=issueHeadline&module_order=1. These strategies are dominated by technology-related
themes, such as internet, blockchain, cloud computing, and
cybersecurity (based on staff analysis of data obtained from
Morningstar Direct as of Dec. 15, 2022).
\34\ Id.
\35\ See supra footnote 12; see also NASAA Comment Letter
(discussing the application of the names rule to names suggesting a
focus on ``trendy `thematic areas,' . . . including cybersecurity,
blockchain/digital assets, and artificial intelligence'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds that consider ESG factors in their investment strategies
comprise a thematic area that entails unique considerations, and that
involves the use of terminology that may be especially powerful in fund
names to attract investors. The use of ESG or similar terminology (such
as ``sustainable,'' ``green,'' or ``socially responsible'') in fund
names may present particular investor protection concerns for several
reasons. Investor interest in--and funds that offer--ESG strategies
have rapidly increased in recent years.\36\ Asset managers have created
and marketed funds that consider ESG factors in their selection
process, and these funds can attract significant interest and stand out
to investors by using ESG and related terms in their names. Approaches
to ESG investing vary, however, and funds that consider ESG factors
have strategies that vary in the extent to which ESG factors are
considered versus other factors. The breadth of ESG-related terms, as
well as evolving investor expectations around terms like
``sustainable'' or ``socially responsible,'' compound the possibility
of investor confusion and potential ``greenwashing'' in fund names.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.120 and
accompanying text. See also, e.g., Letter from Morningstar to Chair
Gary Gensler (June 9, 2021) attaching, Sustainable Funds U.S.
Landscape Report--More funds, more flows, and impressive returns in
2020, Morningstar Manager Research (Feb. 10, 2021), available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/climate-disclosure/cll12-8899329-241650.pdf; ESG in 2021 So Far: An Update, M. Gerber, G. Norman, and
S. Toms, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (Sept. 18,
2021), available at http://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/09/18/esg-in-2021-so-far-an-update/; ESG assets may hit $53 trillion by 2025,
a third of global AUM, Bloomberg Intelligence (Feb. 23, 2021),
available at https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/esg-assets-may-hit-53-trillion-by-2025-a-third-of-global-aum/; Amalgamated
Comment Letter, NASAA Comment Letter, U.S. SIF Comment Letter, CFA
Institute Comment Letter (all discussing investor interest in funds
with ESG strategies and names).
\37\ ``Greenwashing'' involves the risk that funds marketing ESG
strategies may exaggerate their ESG practices or the extent to which
their investment products take into account ESG factors. See, e.g.,
Comment Letter of Public Citizen (Aug. 15, 2022) (``Public Citizen
Comment Letter'') (discussing evolving investor expectations around
ESG terms). But see Robertson-Fisch Comment Letter (``interrogating
the concept of greenwashing'' and comparing the portfolios of funds
with ESG terminology in their names to the portfolios of ``sister
funds''--``the non-ESG fund in the same fund family most comparable
to the ESG fund''--with the authors concluding that little evidence
of greenwashing exists).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In consideration of the broad public input the Commission has
received on fund names, our analysis of this input, the Commission and
staff's experience with the names rule over the past two decades,
developments in the fund industry, and the growth of the fund industry
and families' investments in funds during this time period, we are
adopting amendments to the names rule (and related disclosure and
reporting requirements) to modernize the rule and to enhance the
investor protections it currently provides. First, it is in investors'
interests to align the rule's scope and requirements better with the
policies and purposes underlying the rule. The Commission has stated
that the 80% investment policy requirement ``will provide an investor
greater assurance that a [fund's] investments will be consistent with
its name.'' \38\ This requirement addresses circumstances in which a
fund's name may be materially deceptive or misleading, in exercise of
the Commission's rulemaking authority under section 35(d). The
amendments we are adopting address fund names that are not currently
within the scope of the rule, or where the current scope of the rule
has created interpretive issues.\39\ These names may entail a

[[Page 70440]]

capacity to deceive or mislead because they suggest a particular
investment focus, which in turn offers an important signal, or entry
point, to investors that are researching their investment options.\40\
For these names--like the names currently within the rule's scope--the
80% investment policy requirement would provide investors greater
assurance that these funds' investments are consistent with the manner
in which a fund defines the terms in its name, which must be consistent
with plain English or established industry use and disclosed in its
prospectus. We therefore anticipate that including these names in the
names rule's scope will bring more discipline to fund naming practices
and more meaningful names that convey the funds' investment focuses,
while allowing funds the flexibility to ascribe reasonable definitions
for the terms used in their names.\41\ That is, the decision to include
terms in a fund's name that suggest an investment focus, including a
focus in investments that have or whose issuers have particular
characteristics, will now require the fund to adopt an 80% investment
policy and to define the terms used in its name.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ See 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8.
\39\ For example, the Commission has previously taken the
position that fund names that incorporate terms such as ``growth''
and ``value'' connote an investment objective, strategy, or policy
(i.e., ``investment strategies'') and are therefore not within the
scope of the 80% investment policy requirement. This has resulted in
some fund names being excluded from this requirement because the
name contains a term suggesting an investment strategy, even if the
name also suggests an investment focus to investors. See Proposing
Release, supra footnote 2, at paragraph accompanying n.23; see also
infra section II.A.1.
\40\ See In the Matter of the Private Investment Fund for
Governmental Personnel, Inc., Investment Company Act Release No.
2474 (Jan. 18, 1957) (the Commission has historically expressed
that, in considering whether a name is deceptive or misleading,
``[a]ctual deception of investors need not be shown, it is
sufficient if the name of the company is found to have a tendency or
capacity to deceive or mislead'').
\41\ See NASAA Comment Letter; see also CFA Institute Comment
Letter. But see, e.g., infra footnote 75 and accompanying text.
\42\ See infra sections II.A.1 and II.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, these amendments are designed to promote greater
specificity in the operation of funds' 80% investment policies to
enhance investor protection by helping to ensure that funds' names are
not misleading as their portfolios may shift over time--either because
of inadvertent portfolio ``drift'' or intentional departures from the
80% requirement.\43\ When an investor chooses to invest in a fund, that
person has made an intentional decision to invest in, for example, the
type of asset class, industry, or sector in which the fund's name
suggests an investment focus. That investor has a reasonable
expectation that the fund's investments will generally remain focused
in the area that the fund's name indicates.\44\ We appreciate, however,
that a naming rule that requires unwavering adherence to a particular
investment threshold risks harming funds and investors.\45\ This
rigidity ultimately could result in investor harm if portfolio managers
were not permitted to depart from their 80% investment policy for a
limited time to manage their funds appropriately in response to
changing circumstances.\46\ The amended rule enhances investor
protection by requiring funds to conduct at least quarterly reviews of
their portfolio investments for consistency with the 80% investment
policy requirement, and by adopting time frames to remedy departures
from 80% that seek to balance investors' reasonable expectations with
appropriate flexibility for advisers, consistent with their fiduciary
duty, to manage funds' portfolios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ See, e.g., Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter
(discussing the risk of funds changing their portfolios such that
the portfolios are no longer accurately reflected by the funds'
names).
\44\ See, e.g., Center for American Progress Comment Letter
(stating that investors' expectations and investment practices often
assume that investments in a fund will remain consistent with the
name over the longer term, and investors who wish to change their
own mix of investments typically do so by changing funds).
\45\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management
Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Dimensional Fund Advisors LP (Aug.
16, 2022) (``Dimensional Comment Letter''); Comment Letter of
Dechert LLP (Aug. 16, 2022) (``Dechert Comment Letter''); see also
infra section II.A.2.
\46\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our disclosure and reporting framework can provide additional
tools, in connection with technological developments over the past two
decades, to augment investors' and other market participants'
understanding of fund names and to increase transparency of how a
fund's investment portfolio reflects the investment focus that its name
suggests. In the years since the names rule was adopted, the Commission
has adopted requirements to modernize reporting requirements for
registered investment companies, which build on significant advances in
the technology that can be used to report and analyze information--
namely, the use of structured data language.\47\ We recognize that
there are many types of fund names for which understanding additional
detail about how name terms are defined, and about the types of
investments that the term describes, would provide greater clarity to
an investor about the fund's investment focus. This may be helpful if,
for example, fund names that incorporate terms that may reflect new
themes or technologies become more prevalent. The final rules' enhanced
prospectus disclosure and reporting provisions, which require
information to be disclosed in structured data language, are designed
to address this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ Investment Company Reporting Modernization, Investment
Company Act Release No. 32314 (Oct. 13, 2016) [81 FR 81870 (Nov. 18,
2016)] (``Investment Company Reporting Modernization Adopting
Release''); see also Amendments to the Timing Requirements for
Filing Reports on Form N-PORT, Investment Company Act Release No.
33384 (Feb. 27, 2019) [84 FR 7980 (Mar. 6, 2019)]; Proposing
Release, supra footnote 2, at n.115 and accompanying text (generally
discussing rules requiring funds registering on Forms N-1A and N-2
to submit certain information using Inline XBRL format).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, we are incorporating certain updates to the names rule to
address industry and technological developments over the past two
decades, and to address names-rule-related recordkeeping.

C. Overview of the Final Rules

1. Final Rules' Principal Elements
We are adopting amendments to the names rule, as well as related
disclosure and reporting requirements, in consideration of the issues
discussed above.
Expansion of Scope. We are adopting, substantially as
proposed, amendments to the names rule that expand the rule's 80%
investment policy requirement beyond its current scope, to apply to any
fund name with terms suggesting that the fund focuses in investments
that have, or investments whose issuers have, particular
characteristics. This coverage will include, for example, fund names
with terms such as ``growth'' or ``value,'' or terms indicating that
the fund's investment decisions incorporate one or more ESG factors.
These names will be added to the names that are currently within the
scope of the 80% investment policy requirement--that is, generally,
fund names that suggest a focus in a particular type of investment, or
investments in a particular industry or geographic focus, and fund
names suggesting that a fund's distributions are tax-exempt.
Temporary Departures from the 80% Investment Requirement.
In a change from the proposal, under which funds would have been
permitted to depart from the fund's 80% investment policy only under
certain specified circumstances, the final amendments retain the names
rule's current requirements for a fund to invest in accordance with its
80% investment policy ``under normal circumstances'' (the ``80%
investment requirement''), and for the 80% investment requirement to
apply at the time a fund invests its

[[Page 70441]]

assets. Also, in a change from the proposal, the final amendments add a
new provision that requires a fund to review its portfolio assets'
inclusion in its ``80% basket'' at least quarterly.\48\ Like the
proposal, the final amendments include specific time frames--generally
90 days, as opposed to 30 days as proposed--for getting back into
compliance if a fund departs from the 80% requirement as a result of
drift or in other-than-normal circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ See final rule 35d-1(g) (defining ``80% basket'' generally
as investments that are invested in accordance with the investment
focus that the fund's name suggests).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Derivatives. Consistent with the proposal, the final
amendments generally require funds to use a derivatives instrument's
notional amount to determine the fund's compliance with its 80%
investment policy, with certain adjustments. In a change from the
proposal, the final amendments include a limited modification to this
approach that would exclude certain currency hedges from the names rule
compliance calculation. As proposed, we are also amending the names
rule to address the derivatives instruments that a fund may include in
its 80% basket.
Unlisted Registered Closed-End Funds and BDCs. Consistent
with the proposal, the final amendments generally prohibit an unlisted
registered closed-end fund or BDC that is required to adopt an 80%
investment policy from changing that policy without a shareholder vote.
In a modification from the proposal, the final amendments permit these
funds to change their 80% investment policies without such a vote if:
(1) the fund conducts a tender or repurchase offer with at least 60
days' prior notice of the policy change, (2) that offer is not
oversubscribed, and (3) the fund purchases shares at their net asset
value.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ See infra footnote 292 (discussing the use of net asset
value in the event of a tender offer, as well as a repurchase
offer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enhanced Prospectus Disclosure. Substantially as proposed,
we are adopting amendments to funds' prospectus disclosure requirements
that will require a fund to define the terms used in its name,
including the criteria the fund uses to select the investments that the
term describes.
Plain English Requirements for Terms Used in Fund Names.
The final amendments to the names rule, as proposed, effectively
require that any terms used in the fund's name that suggest either an
investment focus, or that the fund's distributions are tax-exempt, must
be consistent with those terms' plain English meaning or established
industry use.
Form N-PORT Reporting Requirements. Consistent with the
proposal, we are adopting amendments to Form N-PORT for funds to report
the value of the fund's 80% basket, and whether an investment is
included in the fund's 80% basket. In a change from the proposal, the
final amendments also include a new reporting item to include the
definition(s) of terms used in the fund's name. Funds will have to
report this information for the third month of every quarter, instead
of for each month as proposed.
Recordkeeping. Consistent with the proposal (but with
conforming changes to address the final rules' approach to temporary
departures from the 80% investment requirement), the final rules
include recordkeeping provisions related to a fund's compliance with
the rule's requirements. The final rules do not, however, include the
proposed requirement for funds that do not adopt an 80% investment
policy to maintain a record of their analysis that such a policy is not
required.
2. Other Aspects of the Proposal
We are not taking action on the proposed approach regarding the use
of ESG terms in the names of ESG ``integration funds'' at this time.
Under the proposed approach, the names of ESG ``integration funds''
would have been defined as materially deceptive and misleading if the
name includes terms indicating that the fund's investment decisions
incorporate one or more ESG factors.\50\ Under the proposal,
integration funds were described as funds that consider one or more ESG
factors alongside other, non-ESG factors in the fund's investment
decisions, but those ESG factors are generally no more significant than
other factors in the investment selection process, such that ESG
factors may not be determinative in deciding to include or exclude any
particular investment in the portfolio. Such funds may select
investments because those investments would meet other criteria applied
by the fund's adviser (e.g., investments selected on the basis of
macroeconomic trends or company-specific factors like price-to-earnings
ratio). This description of integration funds in the names rule
proposal mirrored the definition of an integration fund in the
Commission's ESG Disclosure Proposal.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ Proposed rule 35d-1(d).
\51\ See Enhanced Disclosures by Certain Investment Advisers and
Investment Companies about Environmental, Social, and Governance
Investment Practices, Investment Company Act Release No. 34594 (May
25, 2022) [87 FR 36654 (June 17, 2022)] (``ESG Disclosure
Proposal''), at section II.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed approach to integration funds in the names rule was
designed to target misleading fund names by making clear that it would
be materially misleading for a fund for which ESG factors are generally
no more significant than other factors in the investment selection
process to include ESG terminology in its name. The proposed approach
would have addressed the Commission's concern that such funds have the
potential to overstate the importance of ESG factors in the fund's
investment selection process.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at section II.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters offered mixed feedback on the names rule's proposed
approach to integration fund names. Some commenters that supported the
proposed approach stated that it would help prevent investors from
believing that ESG factors play a more significant role than they
actually do in the investment process--i.e., protect investors from
greenwashing.\53\ Other commenters, however, questioned the
Commission's proposed approach, stating that the proposed approach
could act as a disservice to investors because, for example, it could
result in investors believing that integration funds do not consider
ESG factors when they actually do, or that the proposed approach could
hinder innovation.\54\ Because the proposed provision in the names rule
mirrored the separate proposed definition of an integration fund in the
ESG Disclosure Proposal, we are continuing to consider comments and are
not adopting the proposed approach to integration fund names at this
time. As discussed above, however, the final amendments' expanded scope
of the 80% investment policy requirement includes fund names with terms
suggesting that the fund focuses in investments that have, or
investments whose issuers have, particular characteristics--including
terms

[[Page 70442]]

indicating that the fund's investment decisions incorporate one or more
ESG factors.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ See, e.g., Comment Letter of Ceres (Aug. 16, 2022) (``Ceres
Comment Letter''); Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter;
Comment Letter of Evergreen Action (Aug. 15, 2022) (``Evergreen
Action Comment Letter'').
\54\ See, e.g., Cato Institute Comment Letter; Comment Letter of
Mutual Fund Directors Forum (Aug. 16, 2022) (``MFDF Comment
Letter'') (suggesting that the marketplace has been dynamic in
developing different approaches to bringing an ESG lens to various
investment strategies, and that the proposed rule, as the commenter
understood it to largely limit the use of ESG terms in fund names to
funds that use inclusionary or exclusionary screens (as well as to
funds that employ impact or proxy-voting strategies), risks
hindering further innovation in the fund space as ESG strategies
continue to evolve); Comment Letter of Minerva Analytics (Aug. 16,
2022) (``Minerva Comment Letter'').
\55\ See supra section I.C.1; see also final rule 35d-1(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. 80% Investment Policy Requirement

1. Names Suggesting an Investment Focus
Consistent with the proposal, we are adopting amendments that
broaden the scope of the names rule's 80% investment policy requirement
to apply also to fund names that include terms suggesting that the fund
focuses in investments that have, or whose issuers have, particular
characteristics.\56\ These amendments will apply in addition to the
existing 80% investment policy requirement for funds whose name
suggests a focus in a particular type of investment, industry, country,
or geographic region, or those whose name suggests certain tax
treatment. The purpose of the names rule is to prevent fund names from
misrepresenting the fund's investments and risks.\57\ The expanded
scope of the final amendments furthers this objective by ensuring that
a fund's investment activity is consistent with the investment focus
its name communicates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ As used in this release, consistent with rule 35d-1(a)(2),
``investment focus'' means a focus in a particular type of
investment or investments, a particular industry or group of
industries, particular countries or geographic regions, or
investments that have, or whose issuers have, particular
characteristics.
\57\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.5 and
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a) General Discussion
The Commission proposed to expand the 80% investment policy
requirement to apply to fund names that include terms suggesting that
the fund focuses in investments that have, or whose issuers have,
particular characteristics, whether or not such terms connote an
investment strategy. In response to the proposal, commenters expressed
that the names rule, as currently constituted, fails to capture a large
segment of funds because the rule makes a distinction between terms
that reference a type of investment and an investment strategy.\58\
These commenters supported the proposed scope expansion, asserting that
terms in fund names that reference an investment strategy often
communicate to investors an investment focus, thus creating a
reasonable expectation among investors that the fund will hold
investments that support that focus.\59\ These commenters suggested
that expanding the scope of the rule to include any term in a fund's
name that communicates an investment focus, whether or not that term
references an investment strategy, is necessary to modernize the rule
and is a logical step to help ensure that investment companies cannot
circumvent the intent of the rule when naming funds.\60\ Some
commenters also asserted that the proposed expansion of the scope would
bring more ``discipline and clarity'' to fund naming practices and, in
turn, help investors make more informed investment decisions.\61\ In
particular, many commenters asserted that the expanded scope would
improve the ability of investors to discern between funds in the ESG
investment industry and better protect investors looking for exposure
to ESG investments.\62\ In addition, one commenter suggested that the
Commission provide more clarity on whether the expanded scope would
cover names suggesting a focus on ``thematic'' areas.'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ See, e.g., Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter;
Center for American Progress Comment Letter; NASAA Comment Letter;
see also Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.23 and
accompanying text (discussing that the Commission has historically
taken the position that fund names that incorporate terms that
connote an investment objective, strategy, or policy are not within
the scope of the 80% investment policy requirement).
\59\ See, e.g., NASAA Comment Letter; Comment Letter of
Principles for Responsible Investment (Aug. 16, 2022); (``PRI
Comment Letter''); Comment Letter of Soundboard Governance (Aug. 16,
2022) (``Soundboard Governance Comment Letter'') (focusing
particularly on the inclusion of ESG-related terms in the proposed
scope expansion).
\60\ See, e.g., Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter;
Center for American Progress Comment Letter.
\61\ See NASAA Comment Letter; Better Markets Comment Letter;
Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter.
\62\ See, e.g., Comment Letter of Sierra Club (Aug. 16, 2022)
(``Sierra Club Comment Letter''); Better Markets Comment Letter;
Evergreen Action Comment Letter.
\63\ See NASAA Comment Letter (expressing that funds with names
that suggest a focus on ``trendy'' thematic areas in particular
should be required to adopt an 80% investment policy and stating
that investors, funds, and regulators would ``be well served by
greater clarity'' on whether the proposed expansion would thematic
fund names); see also Comment Letter of Seward & Kissel LLP (Aug.
16, 2022) (``Seward & Kissel Comment Letter'') (stating that that
the tension between words suggesting a ``type of investment'' versus
those suggesting an ``investment strategy'' has resulted in the
[names rule] being inconsistently applied, especially with respect
to funds using thematic strategies.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In contrast, many commenters objected to the proposal because, in
their view, the expansion of the 80% investment policy requirement
would lead to interpretive challenges and added compliance costs for
fund advisers without providing commensurate benefit to investors.\64\
In particular, they stated that the expanded scope incorporates a vague
standard that is more subjective than the current scope of the names
rule which, in contrast with the proposal, they believed applies a more
objective and intuitive framework that sufficiently ensures that fund
assets are invested in accordance with reasonable expectations based on
a fund's name.\65\ They questioned whether the names included in the
expanded scope effectively communicate any real investment focus to
investors, absent further information about a fund's objectives.\66\
Because these names are vague, they asserted, investors would still
need to review a fund's disclosures to understand how the investment
strategy is executed for these newly included terms, limiting the value
of the rule.\67\ These commenters contended that the proposed expansion
of the 80% investment policy requirement has limited investor
protection benefits because it overemphasizes the importance of a
fund's name, and thus disincentivizes investors from looking beyond the
name to review information in fund prospectuses and related
disclosures.\68\ In addition, several commenters questioned whether the
Commission adequately articulated how terms that would be included in
the proposed scope have led to investor confusion, deception, or harm
such that they should be subject to the rule.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ See, e.g., Comment Letter of Stradley Ronon (Aug. 16, 2022)
(``Stradley Comment Letter''); SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; TIAA-Nuveen
Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Calamos Investments (Aug. 16,
2022) (``Calamos Comment Letter'').
\65\ See, e.g., Calamos Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter;
Comment Letter of Federated Hermes, Inc. (Aug. 16, 2022)
(``Federated Hermes Comment Letter''); MFS Comment Letter; Comment
Letter of Nationwide Funds Group (Aug. 16, 2022) (``Nationwide
Comment Letter''); Robertson-Fisch Comment Letter (discussing these
points in the context of ESG funds); T. Rowe Comment Letter; see
also PRI Comment Letter (supporting the proposed scope expansion,
but requesting that the Commission provide a definition of
``characteristics'' in the proposed language expanding the scope).
\66\ See, e.g., MFS Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter; Capital
Group Comment Letter; Cato Institute Comment Letter.
\67\ See SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter (comparing
the uniformity of an 80% investment policy for funds with ``equity''
in their name to the potential inconsistency in 80% investment
policies for funds with ``growth'' in their name).
\68\ See, e.g., MFS Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment
Letter; Cato Institute Comment Letter.
\69\ See, e.g., Comment Letter of WisdomTree Asset Management
(Aug. 16, 2022) (``WisdomTree Comment Letter''); SIFMA AMG Comment
Letter; Invesco Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter. Commenters
also pointed to the lack of enforcement cases charging rule 35d-1 or
shareholder suits in this area as a reason to not expand the scope.
See, e.g., Nationwide Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment Letter;
ICI Comment Letter IV.

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

[[Page 70443]]

Commenters also suggested that this vagueness would result in the
costs of implementation of the proposed amendments being high relative
to what they stated would be minimal value to investors. Commenters
stated that interpretive issues relating to the proposed scope's
vagueness would result in a number of adverse consequences, including
inconsistent application of the 80% investment policy requirement,
uncertainty in determining whether a term suggests a particular
investment focus, and, where a fund has adopted an 80% investment
policy, whether a particular investment is consistent with that
policy.\70\ Commenters also suggested that it would be challenging to
establish automated compliance monitoring solutions for terms in fund
names where subjective criteria are part of the decision-making
process.\71\ As a result, commenters expressed that funds would need
either to require portfolio managers to adhere to specific rigid
criteria, stifling innovative investment strategies, or to engage in
some level of manual review, significantly increasing the complexity
and compliance burdens for funds.\72\ Commenters also raised concerns
that, for funds that would be within the scope of the 80% investment
policy requirement, a portfolio manager's expectations with respect to
investments that would qualify for inclusion in the 80% basket may
ultimately prove wrong or change over time, which could make compliance
with the names rule challenging.\73\ Relatedly, commenters expressed
the concern that the expanded scope could lead to retroactive second-
guessing of portfolio managers' designations of investments by
Commission staff.\74\ To avoid these implementation problems,
commenters suggested funds may use broader, more generic names that
convey less information to investors in order to avoid adopting an 80%
investment policy.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
Invesco Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; Comment Letter of
Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (Aug. 16, 2022)
(``Fidelity Comment Letter''); Ceres Comment Letter.
\71\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter;
SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter. Scalable and
automatic compliance monitoring systems typically rely on third-
party data providers to tag investments but such providers could
vary their classification of investments and may not use the same
classification as the fund. See, e.g., Comment Letter of Freeman
Capital Management (July 24, 2022) (``Freeman Capital Management
Comment Letter''); Invesco Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter.
\72\ See, e.g., Dechert Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter;
TIAA-Nuveen Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment
Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; Wellington Comment Letter; ICI
Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter; Freeman Capital Management
Comment Letter.
\73\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment
Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter; Stradley
Comment Letter (stating that ```equity' and `fixed income'
investments do not change their categorization due to market
declines, cycles or volatility, as compared to a value stock, that,
if subjected to only objective criteria, can and does migrate from
one category to another'').
\74\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Federated Hermes Comment
Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
\75\ See, e.g., Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter
(asserting that the proposed amendments could also incentivize
longer, more complex fund names that seek to capture the full range
of investments reflected in a fund's investment strategy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many commenters expressed particular concern with the inclusion of
the terms ``growth'' and ``value'' in the proposed scope.\76\
Commenters asserted that there are no precise definitions or
standardized criteria used to classify these types of investments.\77\
Rather, commenters expressed that portfolio managers have unique
qualitative and quantitative criteria that they evaluate when selecting
growth or value investments, some of which rely on more subjective
determinations that may vary among portfolio managers.\78\ A few
commenters suggested that investors invest in certain growth or value
funds because they believe in a manager's unique analysis and
conclusions for selecting investments.\79\ Some commenters expressed
that requiring growth or value funds to define terms in their name and
disclose the criteria used to select investments would lead to more
rigidity in investment selection, resulting in less flexibility for
managers to implement investment strategies that traditionally have
been managed with more nuance.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; T.
Rowe Comment Letter.
\77\ See, e.g., Fidelity Comment Letter; Nationwide Comment
Letter; Stradley Comment Letter.
\78\ See, e.g., Wellington Comment Letter; MFS Comment Letter;
ICI Comment Letter.
\79\ See Stradley Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\80\ See, e.g., Wellington Comment Letter; Nationwide Comment
Letter; Stradley Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To avoid these interpretative challenges and compliance burdens, a
number of commenters suggested narrowing the scope of the final rule to
that of the current rule or to exclude terms that do not readily reduce
to measurable characteristics, and for which evaluations, opinions, and
views reasonably may vary.\81\ Separately, some commenters urged the
Commission to require enhanced disclosure in a fund's registration
statement when its name indicates an investment strategy, rather than
expanding the scope to mandate an 80% investment policy for these
funds.\82\ Several commenters expressed that investor access to
disclosures and information about funds is widespread and easily
accessible, making an investor's need to rely on a fund name to
evaluate the fund's strategy less necessary than when the Commission
adopted the names rule.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter;
Federated Hermes Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; TIAA-Nuveen
Comment Letter; see also Calamos Comment Letter (asserting that, if
the expanded scope is adopted, the Commission should consider
excluding existing funds from the rule's requirements because
compliance may be costly and have unanticipated effects for existing
funds that are not currently subject to the rule).
\82\ SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter; Comment
Letter of Calvert Research and Management (Aug. 16, 2022) (``Calvert
Comment Letter''); CFA Institute Comment Letter (recommending that
when a fund's name suggests an investment focus, the investment
focus must be consistent with the key factors in the principal
investment strategies that are disclosed in the fund's registration
statement). See also ICI Comment Letter IV (asserting that the
proposed amendments are unnecessary because existing prospectus
disclosure requirements and other regulatory obligations, such as
rules 482 and 156 under the Securities Act of 1933 and FINRA Rule
2210, provide a sufficient framework to ensure that fund
communications are clear and not misleading).
\83\ See SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; T.
Rowe Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering comments, we are adopting, substantially as
proposed, amendments that expand the rule's 80% investment policy
requirement to apply to any fund with terms in its name that suggest
that the fund focuses in investments that have, or investments whose
issuers have, particular characteristics. We recognize that some
commenters expressed concerns about perceived vagueness associated with
the ``particular characteristics'' language in the proposed rule.\84\
The amended rule provides, as proposed, an illustrative parenthetical
that is designed to give non-exclusive examples of terms that suggest
that the fund focuses in investments that have, or whose issuers have,
particular characteristics. The parenthetical provides as examples the
terms ``growth'' or ``value,'' or terms indicating that the fund's
investment decisions incorporate one or more ESG factors.\85\ We are
not defining the term ``particular characteristics'' in the rule, as
suggested by a commenter, because we believe that this term will be

[[Page 70444]]

adequately understood to mean any feature, quality, or attribute.\86\
We are adopting this approach, rather than an approach that provides an
enumerated list of terms included in the expanded scope, in light of
the broad diversity of fund investment strategies and fund names, and
to ensure that the rule remains evergreen. Based on our understanding
of the fund industry and current practice, however, we anticipate that
the primary types of names that the expanded scope will cover will be
names that include the terms ``growth'' and ``value,'' terms with ESG-
or sustainability-related characteristics, or terms that reference a
thematic investment focus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ See, e.g., Stradley Comment Letter; TIAA-Nuveen Comment
Letter; Cato Institute Comment Letter.
\85\ See infra sections II.A.1.d) and II.D.
\86\ See supra footnote 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We recognize that many commenters opposed expanding the scope of
the rule, and the inclusion of terms such as ``growth'' and ``value''
in particular. While we appreciate these commenters' concerns, it is
important to balance these concerns with the investor protection goals
that underlie the names rule and section 35(d) of the Investment
Company Act. Although there have been limited Commission enforcement
cases citing section 35(d) of the Act, Commission and staff's
experience with the names rule over the past two decades and
developments in the fund industry during this time period, including
the increase in fund assets under management and the proliferation of
diverse fund strategies, lead us to modernize and enhance the names
rule to further the investor protection goals of section 35(d).\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\87\ See infra at footnote 494 and accompanying text (asserting
that the lack of Commission enforcement actions citing section 35(d)
of the Act is evidence that the general framework of the rule is
effective, not that further enhancements to the rule are
unnecessary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are adopting amendments that do not distinguish between a type
of investment and an investment strategy because a fund name might
connote a particular investment focus and result in reasonable investor
expectations regardless of whether the fund's name describes a strategy
as opposed to a type of investment. We understand that funds typically
include certain terms in their name to communicate an investment focus
and to appeal to investors choosing among available investment
options.\88\ As some commenters believed, the names included in the
expanded scope can serve as the initial bases upon which investors make
investment decisions and create reasonable expectations that funds that
use those terms will focus on investments and issuers that have the
specified characteristics that a fund's name suggests.\89\ For example,
terms like ``growth'' and ``value'' create reasonable expectations
among investors that funds with those terms in their name will invest
predominantly in companies that exhibit ``growth'' or ``value''
characteristics. By expanding the scope of the 80% investment
requirement to include these names, the final amendments will help
ensure that these types of funds have portfolios that reflect the
investment focus their name suggests. Further, the expanded scope in
the final amendments will reduce the existing inconsistencies in the
application of the rule by eliminating the need for fund managers to
determine whether their name references a type of investment or an
investment strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\88\ For example, funds have increasingly chosen names that
include terms that reference popular industry themes, business
sectors, or investment strategies. See supra footnote 33 and
accompanying text (discussing the increase in filings over the last
few years by funds with names that reference popular industry themes
and business sectors, providing some evidence that investors are
attracted to these fund names). See also supra footnote 36
(suggesting that ESG terminology in fund names is effective in
attracting inflows).
\89\ See NASAA Comment Letter; Consumer Federation of America
Comment Letter; PIABA Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission staff has observed an increase in filings by funds
that use ``thematic'' terms in their name.\90\ We understand that fund
managers and others would consider certain of these thematic names to
be included in the current scope of the names rule. For instance,
certain terms may be viewed as clearly suggesting a focus in a type of
industry or group of industries (e.g., terms suggesting a focus in
cybersecurity, health and wellness, or travel and tourism).\91\ There
could be reasonable questions, however, about whether other thematic
terms suggest a focus in a particular type of investment, or in
investments in a particular industry or group of industries. This could
occur, for example, because a thematic term may be narrower or more
expansive than an ``industry'' may be commonly understood (e.g.,
drones, ``smart cities,'' metaverse, ``big data''). And there are
certain thematic terms that we believe most practitioners would not
consider to suggest a focus in a type of investment, or a focus in a
particular industry or group of industries (e.g., terms suggesting
demographic characteristics such as ``millennial'' or ``Gen Z,'' or
political, economic, or historical themes such as ``biothreat,'' ``gig
economy,'' ``meme stocks,'' or ``post-Corona''). The effect of the
scope of the final amendments is that, to the extent a fund uses a term
in its name that suggests an investment focus, including any term that
references a thematic investment focus, the fund will be required to
adopt an 80% investment policy, which in turn will help ensure it will
invest in accordance with the investment focus its name suggests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\90\ See supra footnote 33 and accompanying text.
\91\ In cases where certain terms that suggest a focus in a type
of industry have been coupled with the word ``strategy,'' some funds
have argued that the name suggests a focus in an investment strategy
and not a type of investment, and therefore should not be within the
scope of the 80% investment policy requirement. As discussed above,
the expansion of the scope of the 80% investment policy requirement
includes terms suggesting that the fund focuses in investments that
have, or whose issuers have, particular characteristics, whether or
not such terms connote an investment strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We understand that certain terms used in fund names may have more
objective or standardized criteria than other terms. For instance the
term ``equity'' generally has a more standardized definition, whether
based on plain English principles or established industry use, compared
to terms like ``growth'' and ``value.'' However, not all names that
fall within the scope of the current rule have precise definitions or
standardized, objective criteria. For instance, for fund names that
reference a particular region or country, it is often not immediately
apparent based on the terms in a fund's name whether the fund invests
in issuers that are domiciled in the specific region, have a large
presence in the region, or have some other nexus to the region. An
investor may generally understand what constitutes ``Latin America,''
and seek out a ``Latin American'' fund, but different portfolio
managers may apply different definitions of what specifically ``Latin
America'' means in practice for their fund because definitions of
``Latin America,'' using plain English or industry use of the term, can
reasonably differ.
This variation is evident based on the principal investment
strategies disclosed in fund prospectuses. For example, a ``Latin
America'' fund offered by one adviser has an 80% investment policy to
invest in securities of issuers that derive at least 50% of revenue
from Latin American markets (defined to include Spanish-speaking
islands in the Caribbean), without consideration of the issuers'
domicile, headquarters, or primary trading market. In contrast, another
``Latin America'' fund managed by a different adviser has a policy to
invest at least 80% in securities of issuers that are domiciled in
Latin America (defined to exclude Mexico and Caribbean islands), that
derive significant revenues from Latin America, or the securities trade
on

[[Page 70445]]

exchanges located in Latin America. Each of these examples is
consistent with the plain English or industry use of the term and
demonstrates the flexibility the final amendments will provide to fund
managers in developing definitions of the terms used in a fund's name.
Moreover, given the proliferation of the diversity of fund investment
strategies and fund names since the rule was originally adopted,
retaining the current rule's scope or excluding terms that do not
always neatly reduce to measurable characteristics, as suggested by
commenters, would undermine the investor protection purposes of the
rule.
The final rule also is not as rigid as many commenters seem to
contend when, for example, they suggested that a rule that requires
pre-determined definitions of certain terms could lead to retroactive
second-guessing by Commission staff and result in funds adopting more
generic names or could create incentives for longer, more complex
names. The amended rule provides fund managers with flexibility to
ascribe reasonable definitions for the terms used in a fund's name and
flexibility to determine the specific criteria the fund uses to select
the investments that the term describes.\92\ We understand that
different funds and various third-party data providers may use
different definitions for the same term in order to best reflect a
particular investment strategy. The amended rule is designed for funds
to retain reasonable discretion in establishing their 80% investment
policies, which allows funds to implement nuanced and innovative
investment strategies.\93\ We also appreciate, for many terms, there
will be various reasonable means of implementing an 80% investment
policy that incorporates a definition or understanding of terminology
that differs from another fund whose name incorporates the same
terminology. For example, different funds may have ``growth'' in their
name, and each of these funds may have portfolio managers who have
different approaches to selecting investments that have growth
characteristics. In such circumstances, two funds would naturally have
different policies that reflect their portfolio managers' distinct
approaches to growth investing. In this example, each of these funds
would describe to investors how it defines ``growth,'' provided the
definitions are consistent with the term's plain English meaning or
established industry use, and then invest 80% of their investments in
accordance with their description.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\92\ See infra section II.C. This flexibility also means a fund
would not be required to include proprietary information in its 80%
investment policy. See Stradley Comment Letter (asserting that
providing meaningful distinctions among funds may require over-
disclosing the criteria used to select investments, which investment
advisers may be hesitant to provide to avoid giving away proprietary
information).
\93\ As a result of this flexibility, we disagree with
commenters that asserted that the expanded scope would effectively
penalize funds that invest in a security that initially displays
particular characteristics but where those characteristics evolve
over time. See supra footnote 73. However, to the extent that a fund
identifies as part of the final rule's quarterly review requirement
that the characteristics of an existing investment in the fund's
portfolio are inconsistent with the fund's 80% investment policy as
a result of, for example, market declines, cycles, or volatility,
the fund must address this in accordance with the rule's
requirements for temporary departures from the 80% investment
requirement. See infra footnote 185 and accompanying paragraph; see
also section II.E.1.
\94\ See also infra paragraph accompanying footnotes 153-154;
infra paragraph accompanying footnotes 357-358.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, we understand that the expansion of the rule's scope
will involve operational costs for many funds, particularly those that
are not currently subject to the rule.\95\ In a modification from the
proposal, however, the amended rule will no longer require a fund to
re-assess its portfolio investments continuously to determine
compliance with its 80% investment policy, but will instead require
reassessment of each portfolio investment on an at-least quarterly
basis.\96\ This modification will address concerns commenters raised
related to cost burdens associated with the proposed scope expansion,
to the extent that those concerns largely related to the costs of
continuous monitoring and assessment of a fund's 80% investment
policy.\97\ Moreover, considering that not all terms that fall within
the scope of the current rule have standardized and objective
definitions (e.g., ``Latin America'' funds as discussed above),
existing compliance monitoring for these funds likely necessitates some
form of manual review to ensure that investments are consistent with
the manner in which the fund defines a given term. The assessment that
funds would have to undertake to ensure that portfolio investments are
consistent with their 80% investment policies under the final rules
would entail this same aspect of current fund practices.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ See infra sections IV and V.
\96\ See infra section II.A.2.
\97\ See infra section IV.D.2.
\98\ See infra section II.A.2.a) (discussing compliance
monitoring and portfolio investment assessment and re-assessment
requirements under the final amendments and how these requirements
compare to current names rule requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final amendments' approach, which combines an expanded 80%
investment policy requirement with additional disclosure and reporting
requirements, reflects that certain terms used in a fund's name can
simultaneously communicate an investment focus while also reflecting
nuance that should be further discerned after reviewing the fund's
prospectus disclosure.\99\ The Commission has historically encouraged
investors to look beyond a fund's name and to review a fund's
underlying disclosures to gather information about the fund's
investment activity and objectives, and we continue to encourage
this.\100\ We understand that such disclosures are easily accessible
for most investors and that the current regulatory framework is
designed to help ensure that fund disclosures, marketing materials, and
other communications are clear, informative, and not misleading. We
agree, however, with commenters who stated that, despite this
accessibility, fund names can play a critical role in investment
decisions. Congress provided the Commission with rulemaking authority
to address materially deceptive or misleading fund names, recognizing
the concern that investors may focus on a fund's name and what it
communicates about the fund's investments and risks despite the
information included in fund prospectuses and related disclosures.\101\
Accordingly, the final amendments require funds that use terms that
communicate an investment focus to adopt an 80% investment policy, in
furtherance of the investor protection objectives of the names rule, to
provide greater assurance that a fund's investments will be consistent
with its name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\99\ See infra sections II.B and II.E.
\100\ See supra footnote 9.
\101\ See supra footnote 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separately, a few commenters questioned the Commission's authority
to adopt the proposed amendments under section 35(d) of the Investment
Company Act.\102\ For instance, one commenter asserted that the
Commission lacks authority to adopt the amendments, as ``[t]here is a
significant difference between a name based on investors' reasonable
expectations and a name that is materially deceptive or misleading.''
\103\ Another commenter suggested that neither the current rule nor the
proposed amendments are

[[Page 70446]]

consistent with the authority that section 35(d) grants, as neither
incorporates a finding by the Commission that a particular and
identified word or words are materially deceptive or misleading.\104\
Lastly, one commenter asserted that the proposed amendments would have
associated costs and burdens, and suggested that Congress did not
intend for section 35(d) to authorize the Commission to impose
significant burdens that would have a material economic impact on funds
and their investors.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\102\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Stradley Comment Letter;
Seward & Kissel Comment Letter.
\103\ ICI Comment Letter I; see also ICI Comment Letter IV
(asserting that ``the Commission lacks authority to adopt the
[proposed amendments] under [section 35(d)]'' because the proposed
amendments are ``too vague and ambiguous,'' and do not satisfy the
``materiality'' requirement in section 35(d)).
\104\ Seward & Kissel Comment Letter (stating that ``[w]e think
the appropriate reading of Section 35(d) is that . . . funds subject
to the prohibitions of the statute (and any regulations adopted
thereunder) could provide, through the notice and comment process,
comments on the specific ``word or words'' proposed by the
Commission to be deemed materially deceptive or misleading'').
\105\ SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; see also Calamos Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We disagree with the views expressed by these commenters. Congress,
in enacting amended section 35(d) of the Act, reaffirmed its concern
that investors may focus on a fund's name to determine the fund's
investments and risks, and recognized that investor protection would be
improved by giving the Commission rulemaking authority to define
materially deceptive or misleading fund names.\106\ Before this
amendment, the Commission was required to ``declare by order that a
particular name was misleading and, if necessary, obtain a federal
court order prohibiting further use of the name.'' \107\ In light of
this ``cumbersome process,'' \108\ Congress gave the Commission the
power to act by ``rule, regulation, or order.'' \109\ Congress further
gave the Commission the authority to ``define such names or titles as
are materially deceptive or misleading,'' not ``list'' or another
similar word, and whether any ``word or words'' are materially
deceptive or misleading is a determination that necessarily is made
with reference to additional facts and circumstances.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\106\ 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8, at
section I.
\107\ See id. at text proceeding footnote 3.
\108\ S. Rep. No. 293, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 8-9 (1996)
(``Enforcing the Act entails a cumbersome process--the Commission
must first find, and declare by order, that a fund's name is
deceptive or misleading, and then bring an action in federal court
to enjoin the use of the name'').
\109\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-34(d).
\110\ Id. (emphasis added); see also 80a-34(a) & (b) (making it
unlawful for certain persons to ``represent or imply'' that a
security is guaranteed or approved by the U.S. government or a bank,
but not listing every specific statement that would do so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relying on this authority, the Commission in 2001 adopted the names
rule to ``address certain investment company names that are likely to
mislead an investor about a company's investment emphasis,'' which
would ``guard against the use of misleading investment company names,''
``provide an investor greater assurance that the company's investments
will be consistent with its name,'' and ``reduce confusion.'' \111\
Similarly here, the Commission in adopting rule amendments is
exercising its authority under section 35(d) to ``define,'' ``by
rule,'' ``such names or titles as are materially deceptive or
misleading'' and is doing so based on consideration of the broad public
input the Commission has received on fund names, our analysis of this
input, the Commission and staff's experience with the names rule over
the past two decades, and developments in the fund industry during this
time period.\112\ In the years since the Commission has adopted the
names rule, it has observed certain general trends--specifically as
discussed above, a significant broadening of fund investment options
currently available, the growth of fund assets in sector funds and
thematic strategies, and a growth in investor interest in funds with
ESG strategies--that have caused us to believe that targeted action in
this area is necessary.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ See id.
\112\ See supra section I.B; see also, e.g., Environmental
Defense Fund Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Sierra Club (Aug. 16,
2022) (``Sierra Club Comment Letter''); Ceres Comment Letter (all
discussing the proposed amendments as within the Commission's
authority to define materially deceptive and misleading names under
section 35(d) of the Act).
\113\ See supra footnote 33 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although we acknowledge that the final amendments may impose
additional costs and burdens relative to the current rule, we have made
changes to the proposed amendments that have the result of mitigating
the burdens associated with the final amendments compared to the
proposal. The costs and burdens associated with the final amendments
are carefully considered by the Commission, and such costs and burdens
are justified given the investor protection objectives that underlie
section 35(d) and that would be achieved through the amendments.
Further, another commenter asserted that application of the
proposed amendments to terms that suggest investments with particular
characteristics would violate the First Amendment, as this ``operates
as a restriction on funds' ability to speak through their names.''
\114\ We disagree that this aspect of the amendments violates the First
Amendment. As we have explained elsewhere in this release, as Congress
recognized by adopting section 35(d), fund names can provide important
information to investors regarding the nature of the fund and therefore
the nature of their potential investment. And names that do not
necessarily fall under the existing rule can create reasonable investor
expectations by suggesting a particular investment focus. The
amendments adopted today will help align fund names and investor
expectations by applying the 80% requirement to all names that suggest
a particular investment focus, reducing the extent to which funds can
choose names that are materially misleading or deceptive. Rather than
barring the use of any particular name, the amendment imposes certain
requirements when the name a fund has selected communicates specific
and important information about the fund. Further, the amendments allow
funds the flexibility to ascribe reasonable definitions for the terms
used in their names.\115\ The amendments are therefore appropriately
tailored to serve Congress's significant interest in preventing
investors from being deceived or misled.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\114\ ICI Comment Letter IV.
\115\ See supra footnote 92 and accompanying text.
\116\ For similar reasons, we disagree with the commenter who
asserted that certain proposed reporting requirements on Form N-PORT
violate the First Amendment. ICI Comment Letter IV. These
requirements do not require reporting of ``subjective information on
which investment managers may appropriately disagree,'' (id.) but
instead provide important information to investors regarding whether
and how a fund's investments align with reasonable expectations
created by the fund's name and 80% investment policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b) Names That Do Not Suggest an Investment Focus
The 2022 Proposal acknowledged that there would continue to be fund
names that would not require the fund to adopt an 80% investment policy
because the names would not connote an investment focus.\117\ In
particular, the Commission stated that terms in a fund's name that
reference characteristics of the fund's portfolio as a whole, such as a
name indicating the fund seeks to achieve a certain portfolio
``duration'' or that the fund is ``balanced,'' would not require the
fund to adopt an 80% investment policy.\118\ The Commission stated that
in such cases a term may indicate a fund's objectives without
communicating to investors the specific type of investments, or the
particular characteristics of investments, that the

[[Page 70447]]

fund will acquire.\119\ Commenters generally agreed that such terms
would not require an 80% investment policy under the proposal and that
this treatment was appropriate.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\117\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.49 and
accompanying text.
\118\ Id.
\119\ Regardless of whether a fund is required to adopt an 80%
investment policy under the rule, a fund must, consistent with rule
38a-1, adopt and implement written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Federal securities
laws, which includes section 35(d). Id. at n.50 and accompanying
text.
\120\ See, e.g., J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter;
Fidelity Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many commenters, however, sought additional clarity on terms--such
as ``growth'' and ``value''--that commenters stated can reference
either the characteristics of a fund's investments or the intended
result of a fund's portfolio investments in the aggregate.\121\ One
commenter focused in particular on ESG ``uplift'' funds, where the fund
begins with a given universe of investments and does not add new
investments to this universe but systematically over-or underweights
investments within the given universe based on ESG criteria, with the
objective of achieving a more favorable ESG profile at an aggregate
fund level as compared to the benchmark or investment universe, within
a specific tracking error target.\122\ The fund is investing on a
relative basis at the portfolio level, rather than focusing its
investment in companies that objectively exhibit strong ESG
characteristics, and includes terms in the fund's name intended to
communicate this investment approach to investors (such as ESG
``Aware''). Commenters also expressed concern with the proposal's
discussion of maturity-related terms that describe certain bond funds'
holdings.\123\ These commenters agreed with the Commission that the
term duration should not require an 80% investment policy because it
refers to a portfolio-wide analysis; however, they further asserted
that terms like ``intermediate-term (or similar) bond'' are likewise
used by funds and understood by investors similarly to refer to the
portfolio's duration (i.e., the portfolio's sensitivity to interest
rate changes). Commenters also suggested that terms like ``global'' and
``international'' should continue to be outside of the scope of the 80%
investment policy requirement because these terms reference the
portfolio as a whole.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\121\ See, e.g., TIAA-Nuveen Comment Letter; Calamos Comment
Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter; ICI
Comment Letter (stating that ``[t]erms that could refer to either a
particular investment or the portfolio as a whole are per se not
misleading or deceptive because they do not create an affirmative
impression in one way or another'').
\122\ See Comment Letter of BlackRock, Inc. (Dec. 19, 2022)
(``BlackRock Comment Letter''); see also Robertson-Fisch Comment
Letter (discussing ESG ``tilt'' strategies).
\123\ See ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Invesco
Comment Letter.
\124\ See, e.g., Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter;
Invesco Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversely, several commenters urged that certain terms may not
connote particular characteristics of a fund's portfolio investments,
but nonetheless should require an 80% investment policy when those
terms clearly communicate that the fund is managed in a particular way
(e.g., terms like ``balanced,'' ``hedged,'' and ``managed risk'').\125\
Relatedly, one commenter suggested that the rule should explicitly
subject funds with allocation designations in their name (e.g., 60/40
Target Allocation Fund) to the 80% investment policy requirement.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\125\ See Dogwhistle Comment Letter; PIABA Comment Letter (also
recommending that the rule prohibit the use of terms of well-known
organizations, affinity groups, or the reference to a specific
population of investors (e.g., ``veterans'' or ``municipal
employees'') in fund names). See also Consumer Federation of America
Comment Letter (additionally recommending that the rule should
prevent single-state tax exempt funds from investing substantially
in securities issued by another municipality). The Commission did
not propose amendments that addressed the scope of tax-exempt funds
whose names require them to adopt an 80% investment policy, or the
investments that would be included in a fund's 80% basket under such
policy, nor do the final amendments address these points. But see
infra footnote 155.
\126\ See Better Markets Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering comments, we continue to recognize that there are
certain terms that do not communicate to investors the particular
characteristics of investments that will make up the fund's portfolio
and for which an 80% investment policy will not be required. Such names
include, for instance, names that suggest a portfolio-wide result to be
achieved, such as ``real return,'' ``balanced,'' or ``managed risk,''
names that reference a particular investment technique, such as ``long/
short'' or ``hedged,'' and names that reference asset allocation
determinations that evolve over time, such as a retirement target date
or ``sector rotation'' funds.'' \127\ In each of these examples, the
fund's name communicates information to investors about the overall
characteristics of the fund's portfolio, rather than particular
investments in the portfolio, and therefore will not necessitate an 80%
investment policy under the amended rule. Likewise, terms like
``intermediate term (or similar),'' in describing a ``bond'' fund, also
will not require an 80% investment policy under the final amendments in
addition to the 80% investment policy that would be required due to the
fund's use of ``bond'' in its name in this example. We do not view
these types of names as being distinct from names that describe
portfolio-wide characteristics, such as names that describe portfolio
duration. Additionally, names including the terms ``global'' and
``international,'' without an additional term that suggests an
investment focus such as ``fixed income'' or ``growth,'' will not
require an 80% investment policy under the final rule. These terms
describe a fund's approach to constructing a portfolio, but do not
communicate the composition of the fund's portfolio with any
particularity (unlike, say, ``Japan'' or ``Europe'') and therefore on
their own suggest no particular investment focus.\128\ Therefore,
requiring such funds to adopt an 80% investment policy would produce
fewer investor protection benefits relative to names that communicate
to investors the particular characteristics of investments that will
compose the fund's portfolio. Names with terms that do not communicate
the particular characteristics of investments composing the fund's
portfolio will continue to be subject to section 35(d)'s prohibition on
materially misleading or deceptive names.\129\ Funds with these names
likewise will continue to be

[[Page 70448]]

subject to the anti-fraud provisions of the Federal securities laws
regarding disclosures to investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\127\ A target date fund's name communicates an investment
approach to investors, but does not communicate the composition of
the fund's portfolio at any particular point in time, as the fund's
investments will change over time in accordance with the fund's
glide path. Similarly, ``sector rotation'' funds seek to shift their
portfolio in and out of sectors over time as the economy moves
through the different phases of a business cycle. In each of these
cases, an 80% investment policy would not be appropriate for the
fund because the fund's name connotes portfolio-wide asset
allocation determinations that evolve continuously over time.
\128\ Similarly, funds that use terms in their name that
indicate that the fund uses a negative or exclusionary screening
process for investments (e.g., ``fossil fuel-free'') may not require
an 80% investment policy because such terms generally provide
insight into what is precluded from the fund's portfolio, but these
terms do not communicate to investors the particular investment
focus of the fund's portfolio. In any case, a fund with a name like
``fossil fuel-free'' that indicates the fund will not invest at all
in fossil fuels in this example will be materially deceptive or
misleading for purposes of section 35(d) if the fund invests in
companies that are not fossil fuel-free as defined by the fund in
its prospectus (e.g., issuers with fossil fuel reserves).
\129\ For instance, terms used in fund names that reference
well-known organizations, affinity groups, or that reference a
specific population of investors may not communicate the particular
characteristics of investments composing the fund's portfolio and
therefore may not require an 80% investment policy under the amended
rule. Such funds, however, will continue to be subject to section
35(d)'s prohibition on materially misleading or deceptive names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to commenters seeking additional clarity about the
terms growth and value, we understand, based on staff review of fund
disclosure, that it is not typical in current practice for growth and
value funds to implement their strategies on a portfolio-wide basis, as
opposed to a selection process based on the growth or value
characteristics of the fund's component portfolio investments. If terms
in a fund's name can reasonably be understood to reference either the
characteristics of a fund's individual investments or the intended
result of a fund's portfolio investments in the aggregate, the fund
will be required to adopt an 80% investment policy, consistent with the
proposal. We disagree with the commenter who asserted that such terms
are per se not misleading.\130\ It would be confusing to investors if
the same term in a fund's name required an 80% investment policy in
some cases and not in others. In addition, the rule provides funds
sufficient flexibility to design and implement an 80% investment policy
in these circumstances. We do not agree that the ESG uplift strategies
identified by one commenter require an 80% investment policy, however,
because the particular strategies identified by the commenter are
solely executed on a relative basis at the portfolio level, as
described in more detail above, and include terms in the fund's name
associated with this investment strategy to signal this different
approach to investors.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\130\ ICI Comment Letter.
\131\ BlackRock Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c) Investments Included in a Fund's 80% Basket
Regarding the application of the proposed amendments, the
Commission stated in the 2022 Proposal that when determining whether a
particular asset is invested in accordance with the investment focus
that the fund's name suggests (i.e., qualifies for inclusion in a
fund's 80% basket), there must be a meaningful nexus between the given
investment and the investment focus suggested by the name.\132\ The
Commission discussed that a fund may define the terms used in its name
in a reasonable way, allowing for flexibility in determining whether a
nexus exists between a given security and the focus the fund's name
suggests. For instance, the Commission stated it would be reasonable
for a fund to determine a sufficient nexus between certain securities
and a given industry if the securities are issued by companies that
derive more than 50% of their revenue or income from, or own
significant assets in, the industry. However, the Commission also
explained that the use of text analytics to assign issuers to
industries based on the frequency of particular terms in an issuer's
disclosures was not, in and of itself, sufficient to create a
reasonable nexus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\132\ See generally for this discussion Proposing Release, supra
footnote 2, at nn.51-52 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters expressed that a 50% revenue test is not always the most
appropriate way to determine whether a company is part of a given
industry, particularly for new companies and nascent industries and
business sectors.\133\ These commenters urged the Commission to clarify
the reasonableness standard as it applies to designating investments in
a fund's 80% basket, urging that advisers need the flexibility to
evaluate investments based on a totality of criteria beyond revenue
tests. Some commenters asserted that funds with certain business or
industry-adjacent investment strategies face particular difficulties
adopting an 80% investment policy because their investments often vary
in terms of industries, capitalization ranges, revenue sources, asset
classes, geographies, and other key characteristics, making it
challenging to pinpoint confidently a reasonable nexus between the
fund's investments and the investment focus suggested by its name.\134\
Moreover, one commenter expressed particular concern with the
proposal's discussion of the processing of text analytics, suggesting
that the tool is a useful method for facilitating forward-looking
analysis of companies and industries.\135\ Separately, two commenters
suggested that the Commission should permit fund managers to use
forward-looking assessments or future-based methodologies to analyze
investments when determining whether they fit in a given industry or
sector, on the condition that such funds use a modifying indicator like
``emergent'' or ``future'' in their names to signal to investors that
their analysis of investments is not completely based on current
characteristics of the issuer.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\133\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; BlackRock Comment
Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter.
\134\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter;
Minerva Comment Letter.
\135\ SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\136\ See SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; BlackRock Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We appreciate commenters' concerns regarding potential challenges
in determining whether a particular asset is invested in accordance
with the investment focus that the fund's name suggests, particularly
with respect to thematic investment strategies. Consistent with the
2022 Proposal, the plain English and established industry use
requirements in the final amendments are intended to provide
flexibility for funds to determine what qualifies as a reasonable nexus
between a security and a given investment focus.\137\ Similar to the
Commission's discussion in the Proposing Release regarding the
application of the final amendments, it would generally be reasonable
for a fund to determine that a sufficient nexus exists between certain
securities and a given industry if the securities are issued by
companies that derive more than 50% of their revenue or income from, or
own significant assets in, the industry. There also may be instances
where the percentage could be smaller, such as where a large company is
a dominant firm in a given industry (e.g., the firm is an acknowledged
leader in the industry). Further, the use of text analytics to assign
issuers to industries based on the frequency of particular terms in an
issuer's disclosures is not, in and of itself, sufficient to create a
reasonable nexus because it is not reasonable to conclude that an
issuer is in a given industry solely because the issuer's disclosure
documents frequently include words associated with the industry.\138\
These examples are not meant to serve as an exhaustive list of
acceptable methods of qualification in a fund's 80% basket. Given the
breadth of fund names and strategies, it is not possible to provide an
enumerated list of circumstances in which a nexus exists between a
security and an industry or a particular investment focus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\137\ See final rule 35d-1(a); see also infra section II.C.
\138\ The advent and growth of advanced technologies have made
increasing use of natural language processing that can significantly
enhance the scale and scope of text analytics. Funds may be able to
use these types of technologies to aid a determination that a nexus
exists between a given security and the focus that a fund's name
suggests that involves analysis going beyond the frequency with
which a word or phrase appears in a document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, as raised by commenters, advisers may offer funds with
strategies that seek exposure to long-term investment opportunities or
that seek to identify issuers that are likely to generate significant
amounts of revenue from certain industries or business sectors in the
future. As commenters expressed, it may be challenging for these types
of funds to find a reasonable

[[Page 70449]]

nexus between their investments and a given investment focus based on
current characteristics of the issuer. In these circumstances, funds
may signal to investors, through the use of ``emergent,'' ``future,''
or some other similar term in the fund's name, that the fund considers
some future-based methodology when assessing whether a nexus exists
between a given security and the investment focus suggested by the
fund's name (e.g., ``XYZ Emergent 3D Printing Technology Fund''). More
generally, we recognize that overall context is important in how an
investor interprets a fund's name. For instance, descriptive terms such
as ``aggressive,'' ``conservative,'' or ``strategic,'' when paired with
another term that is covered by the scope of the rule can modify an
investor's expectations with respect to the fund's investment focus.
The rule is designed to give fund managers reasonable discretion to
define terms in a fund's name, and to allocate investments reasonably
into the 80% basket in accordance with the investment focus the name
conveys, which can be dependent on the context of the terms in a name.
In particular, the final amended rule requires that terms within a
fund's name must be consistent with the plain English meaning or
established industry use. We are including these provisions in the
final amended rule to provide fund managers with sufficient
flexibility.
Separately, as discussed in the 2022 Proposal, when a fund's name
includes terms suggesting an investment focus that has multiple
elements, the fund's 80% investment policy must address all of the
elements in the name (as all of the elements would be reflected in the
investment focus that the fund's name suggests).\139\ The Commission
noted, however, that a fund can take a reasonable approach in
specifying how the fund's investments will incorporate each element.
Commenters expressed broad support for the Commission's approach,
asserting that it retains the appropriate level of flexibility for
advisers to determine how best to allocate investments under an 80%
investment policy.\140\ Where a fund's name suggests an investment
focus that has multiple elements, the fund's 80% investment policy must
address each of those elements. For instance, a fund with a name that
references two or more distinct investment focuses (e.g., ``XYZ
Technology and Growth Fund'') could have an investment policy that
provides that each security included in the 80% basket must be in both
the technology sector and meet the fund's growth criteria.
Alternatively, such a fund could instead have an investment policy that
provides that 80% of the value of the fund's assets will be invested in
a mix of technology investments and growth investments, with some
technology investments, some growth investments, and some investments
in both of these categories, with no minimum or maximum investment
requirements specified for either category. In addition, any fund that
has a name that suggests an investment focus would be required to adopt
an 80% investment policy even if the fund's name also contains a term
that does not suggest an investment focus. For example, the ``XYZ
Technology and Real Return Fund'' would be required to adopt an 80%
investment policy to invest 80% of the value of its assets in the
technology sector despite the phrase ``real return'' also appearing in
the name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\139\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at nn.50-51 and
accompanying text; see also final rule 35d-1(a)(2) (this provision
reflects that a fund's name may include multiple ``terms''
suggesting that the fund focuses its investments in a particular
way).
\140\ Fidelity Comment Letter; CFA Institute Comment Letter;
Seward & Kissel Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, it would generally be reasonable for a fund of funds or
other acquiring fund to include the entire value of its investment in
an appropriate acquired fund when calculating compliance with the 80%
investment requirement without looking through to the acquired fund's
underlying investments. For example, a fund of funds with the name
``XYZ Industrials Fund'' with an 80% investment policy to invest in the
industrials sector could count the entire value of its investments in
the ``ABC Automotive Fund'' when calculating compliance with the 80%
investment requirement, provided that the ABC Automotive Fund has an
80% investment policy to invest in its subsection of the industrials
sector. It would not be reasonable, however, for an acquiring fund in
these circumstances to ignore situations where the acquiring fund knows
that an underlying fund is not investing consistent with the acquiring
fund's investment focus.\141\ In such cases, the acquiring fund should
take actions to address this departure as it otherwise would to resolve
a temporary departure from the 80% requirement under the final
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\141\ An acquiring fund is not required to continuously monitor
the investments of the underlying fund for purposes of compliance
with the amended names rule. For example, the XYZ Industrials Fund
may rely on the ABC Automotive Fund to comply with the ABC
Automotive Fund's 80% policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d) ESG-Related Terms
Consistent with the proposal, the final amendments will apply the
requirement to adopt an 80% investment policy to fund names that
suggest an investment focus, including names with terms indicating that
the fund's investment decisions incorporate one or more ESG
factors.\142\ Many commenters supported the inclusion of ESG terms in
the expanded scope.\143\ Some of these commenters expressed concerns
related to ``greenwashing'' among funds that have, or purport to have,
ESG- or sustainability-related characteristics.\144\ Many of these
commenters asserted that given the developing market interest in, and
regulatory and public scrutiny of, funds that incorporate ESG factors
in their investment objectives, to the extent a fund uses an ESG-
related term in its name, the fund should be required to adopt an 80%
investment policy that ensures it will invest in accordance with the
investment focus its name suggests.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\142\ See final rule 35d-1(a)(2).
\143\ See, e.g., U.S. SIF Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment
Letter; Sierra Club Comment Letter; Public Citizen Comment Letter;
Comment Letter of Bonwood Social Investment (Aug. 16, 2022)
(``Bonwood Comment Letter'').
\144\ See NASAA Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management
Comment Letter; U.S. SIF Comment Letter; Comment Letter of LTSE
Services, Inc. (Aug. 16, 2022) (``LTSE Comment Letter''); CFA
Institute Comment Letter.
\145\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversely, several commenters opposed including names with ESG
terms in the expanded scope of the 80% investment policy
requirement.\146\ Many of these commenters expressed similar concerns
to those discussed above opposing the expanded scope in general,
including potential interpretive issues resulting from the perceived
subjectivity of certain ESG-related terms, and potential increased
compliance burdens.\147\ Some commenters also articulated concerns that
are unique to funds that use ESG terms. For instance, several
commenters expressed that the Commission's ESG Disclosure Proposal
would be better suited to address investor understanding of ESG
considerations than the proposed names rule scope

[[Page 70450]]

expansion.\148\ These commenters generally expressed more support for a
disclosure-based framework rather than a mandated 80% investment policy
for fund names that communicate an ESG focus. In addition, a few
commenters expressed that certain terms, depending on the context, may
not be solely used for ESG investment strategies (e.g., ``sustainable''
or ``impact''), or when read together may provide a different meaning
than when presented individually (e.g., ``XYZ Sustainable Growth
Fund'').\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\146\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Calvert Comment Letter;
Cato Institute Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter; Robertson-
Fisch Comment Letter.
\147\ See, e.g., TIAA-Nuveen Comment Letter; Calvert Comment
Letter; ICI Comment Letter, Robertson-Fisch Comment Letter. See
generally supra section II.A.1.a) (responding to concerns from
commenters related to interpretive challenges and compliance costs
connected to the proposed expansion of the 80% investment policy).
\148\ See ICI Comment Letter; TIAA-Nuveen Comment Letter.
\149\ See ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We recognize that ``ESG'' and similar terms are expansive,
incorporating three broad categories of interest (environmental,
social, and governance issues) for investors and asset managers, with
differing levels of focus on each particular issue, and different
perspectives on what attributes of an issuer or investment fit within
this terminology.\150\ The breadth of ESG-related terms, as well as
evolving investor expectations around terms like ``sustainable'' or
``socially responsible,'' compound the possibility of investor
confusion and potential ``greenwashing'' in fund names.\151\ Moreover,
concerns regarding materially deceptive and misleading fund names are
particularly important for funds that incorporate ESG factors in their
investment decisions because, unlike many other non-ESG investment
strategies, some ESG-related strategies are not well-established or
commonly understood to the investing public.\152\ ESG terms in fund
names communicate to investors that the fund will invest in issuers
that have particular characteristics, like other terms that are covered
by the expanded scope. Accordingly, there is not a principled basis to
treat ESG terms differently than other terms that have the potential to
be materially deceptive and misleading, as suggested by a few
commenters that requested a purely disclosure-based framework for funds
that use ESG terms in their name. The final amendments thus require
funds that use ESG terms in their name to adopt an 80% investment
policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\150\ See Robertson-Fisch Comment Letter (arguing that because
ESG is a ``big tent'' term, the use of ESG terminology in fund names
``does not convey very much information'' to investors).
\151\ See supra footnote 37 and accompanying discussion.
\152\ See Center for American Progress Comment Letter (stating
that ``[t]here is more variability in investors' understanding of
what many ESG terms mean than with terms like ``growth'' or
``global'' because the use of ESG terms is relatively new and their
use often is not tied to specific information about their
meaning.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We recognize, as with fund names that do not include ESG terms,
that the general context of a name with terminology that could connote
an ESG focus is critical in how an investor interprets such a
name.\153\ For instance, a name such as ``XYZ Sustainable Growth Fund''
could reasonably be interpreted as a fund that employs a strategy that
seeks growth that is sustainable over time (i.e., growth that will be
maintained at a certain level), or a fund that incorporates ESG factors
into its decision making. In this example, the fund would require an
80% investment policy regardless, but the fund manager has discretion
to reasonably define the terms in the fund's name, and to allocate
investments into the 80% basket in accordance with the investment focus
the name suggests.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\153\ See Robertson-Fisch Comment Letter (discussing different
hypothetical ESG-related funds that could deliver very different
results to investors, but could be presumably sold under the same
name).
\154\ See also supra footnote 94 and accompanying text; supra
paragraph accompanying footnote 132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Temporary Departures From the 80% Investment Requirement
The final rules we are adopting permit temporary departures from
the 80% investment requirement by allowing a fund temporarily to invest
less than the required 80% of the value of the fund's assets in
accordance with the investment focus or tax treatment its name
suggests.\155\ Under the final amendments, we are retaining the current
rule's requirement that a fund must determine at the time that it
invests whether the investment is in the fund's 80% basket (``time-of-
investment test'').\156\ We are adopting a new requirement that, at
least quarterly, funds subject to the 80% investment requirement must
review the fund's portfolio investments to determine whether the fund's
investments continue to be consistent with the fund's 80% investment
policy.\157\ Funds must comply with the 80% investment requirement
``under normal circumstances,'' leaving to funds the determination of
what constitutes something other than a normal circumstance. If,
subsequent to an investment, the 80% investment requirement is no
longer met, the fund's future investments (that is, any portfolio
assets it acquires) must be made in a manner that will bring the fund
into compliance with that requirement within the time period specified
in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\155\ The amendments to the temporary departure provision are
applicable not only to funds whose name suggest a particular
investment focus, but also to tax-exempt funds that are required to
invest their assets in accordance with the provisions of rule 35d-
1(a)(3).
\156\ See final rule 35d-1(b).
\157\ Final rule 35d-1(b)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A fund may, in other-than-normal circumstances, choose to invest in
a manner that is not consistent with the fund's 80% investment
requirement for a limited period of time.\158\ The final amendments
include specific time frames--generally 90 consecutive days, as opposed
to 30 days as proposed--for getting back into compliance if a fund
departs from the 80% requirement, either intentionally in other-than-
normal circumstances, or as identified by the fund as a part of its
quarterly review or otherwise. Funds are permitted under the final
rules to temporarily depart from the 80% investment requirement in
connection with a reorganization (for which the final rule does not
specify a required time frame for accompanying temporary departures) or
a fund launch (departure not to exceed the period of 180 consecutive
days) or when a notice of a change in a fund's policy in certain
circumstances has been provided to fund shareholders.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\158\ Final rule 35d-1(b)(1)(ii).
\159\ Final rule 35d-1(b)(1)(iii); see also rule 35d-1(g)
(defining ``launch'' as a period, not to exceed 180 consecutive
days, starting from the date the fund commences operations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the proposed amendments, funds would have been permitted to
depart from the fund's 80% investment policy only under certain
specified circumstances.\160\ When a fund departed under the specified
circumstances, the proposed amendments would have required funds to
come back into compliance with the 80% investment requirement within 30
consecutive days after the initial departure. Departures from names
rule compliance for fund launches would not have been permitted to
exceed a period of 180 consecutive days. The proposed amendments did
not specify a required time frame for temporary departures that were
the result of reorganizations or

[[Page 70451]]

where the 60-day notice has been provided to shareholders. In all
cases, the proposed amendments would have required that a fund would
have to come back into compliance as soon as reasonably practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\160\ Temporary departures under the proposed amendments would
have been permitted only: (1) as a result of market fluctuations, or
other circumstances, where the temporary departure is not caused by
the fund's purchase or sale of a security or the fund's entering
into or exiting an investment; (2) to address unusually large cash
inflows or unusually large redemptions; (3) to take a position in
cash and cash equivalents or government securities to avoid a loss
in response to adverse market, economic, political, or other
conditions; or (4) to reposition or liquidate a fund's assets in
connection with a reorganization, to launch the fund, or when notice
of a change in the fund's 80% investment policy has been provided to
fund shareholders at least 60 days before the change pursuant to the
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We received comment letters both supporting and opposing the
Commission's proposed approach for temporary departures. Among the
primary reasons commenters supported the proposal was their belief that
the proposed amendments brought more certainty to the current rule's
approach to temporary departures from 80% and would require funds to be
more vigilant with respect to their names rule compliance.\161\ In
particular, several commenters supported the goal of bringing the rule
in line with investors' expectations by ensuring that the investments
made by the fund remain consistent with the fund's name and the
investor's investment preferences over the long-term life of the
fund.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\161\ See, e.g., NASAA Comment Letter; PRI Comment Letter;
Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter; Environmental Defense
Fund Comment Letter.
\162\ See, e.g., Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter;
Center for American Progress Comment Letter; NASAA Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission, however, did receive many comments requesting that
we reconsider the proposed approach to temporary departures. The
Proposing Release sought to permit appropriate flexibility to depart
temporarily from the 80% investment requirement in particular, time-
limited circumstances when doing so would be beneficial to the fund and
its shareholders, while providing additional parameters designed to
prevent a fund from investing inconsistently with its 80% investment
policy for an extended period of time.\163\ Commenters, as discussed in
the next section, raised concerns that the proposed amendments were
overly prescriptive, lacked flexibility, and were too limited in the
amount of time funds would have to bring their investments back into
compliance. In response to comments received, we are adopting an
approach that modifies the proposed amendments, which seeks to balance
the concerns raised by commenters and the goals of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\163\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at paragraph
following n.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a) Time-of-Investment Test and Quarterly Review
Under the final amendments, as under the current names rule, a fund
is required to determine at the time it invests whether the security is
appropriately included in the fund's 80% basket.\164\ This ``time-of-
investment test'' was originally adopted to avoid requiring a fund to
rebalance its investments if the fund's portfolio were no longer
invested in accordance with the fund's 80% investment policy as a
result of, for example, market movements or an influx of cash from new
investors (``drift'').\165\ The proposal would have removed the time-
of-investment test and instead would have required that a fund remedy
drift within 30 days of the initial departure. In effect, the proposed
rule would have required that funds engage in continual compliance
testing to reassess the characteristics of investments in the fund's
80% basket--or even daily testing and reassessment for those funds
making investments each trading day--to ensure that they observe and
correct any drift quickly in order to comply with the proposed
requirement that the fund come back into compliance with the names rule
within 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\164\ See final rule 35d-1(b).
\165\ See 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8, at
n.32 and accompanying text; see also Investment Company Names,
Investment Company Act Release No. 22530 (Feb. 27, 1997) [62 FR
10955 (Mar. 10, 1997)], at n.28 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to comments we received, and as discussed in more
detail below, we are not adopting a requirement for continual or daily
monitoring to reassess the characteristics of the investments in the
fund's 80% basket and are instead maintaining a time-of-investment test
in the names rule. Under the final amendments, funds will instead be
required to reassess their portfolio assets' inclusion in the fund's
80% basket at least quarterly. This change means that portfolio
investments that are included in the 80% basket at the time of
investment will continue to be considered to be consistent with the
fund's 80% investment policy unless the fund identifies otherwise as
part of its required quarterly reassessments, or outside of its
required quarterly reassessments identifies that these investments'
characteristics are inconsistent with the fund's 80% investment policy.
This approach to assessing the characteristics of portfolio investments
in the 80% basket, however, does not change the requirement for funds
to maintain at least 80% of the value of their assets in 80% basket
assets (as determined at the time of investment), unless the fund
departs temporarily from 80% in accordance with the final amendments.
As an example, when a fund acquires Investment A, the fund must assess
the characteristics of that investment when the purchase is made to
determine whether it should be included in the 80% basket. When a fund
acquires a new investment, Investment B, the fund must assess the
characteristics of Investment B when it invests to determine whether it
should be included in the 80% basket. When determining whether 80% of
the fund's assets are invested in the 80% basket when Investment B is
made, the fund must consider the value of Investment A, but would not
have to re-assess the characteristics of Investment A. Each quarter,
the fund must re-assess the characteristics of Investments A and B for
consistency with the fund's 80% investment policy.
We received many comments supporting the retention of the time-of-
investment test and urging the Commission not to adopt an approach that
would require continual compliance monitoring.\166\ Several commenters
stated that the time-of-investment test is a standard that is used in
other portfolio compliance tests under the Investment Company Act and
that consistency with how fund holdings are measured across Investment
Company Act rules would therefore be a preferable approach in the
context of the names rule.\167\ The proposed approach, which would have
removed the time-of-investment test, would instead have effectively
required that fund managers reassess portfolio investments'
characteristics for consistency with the fund's 80% investment policy
every time the fund makes a new investment, and to take corrective
action almost immediately upon identifying any departure from 80%. The
time-of-investment test affords some flexibility to fund managers by
focusing on whether an asset is consistent with the fund's 80%
investment policy at the time of investment, rather than requiring
ongoing reassessments. In addition, commenters expressed concern that
limitations on fund manager discretion prevent investors from having
access to actively-managed funds that are subject

[[Page 70452]]

to the names rule.\168\ Commenters also supported retaining the time-
of-investment test so that in the event that a fund's portfolio
inadvertently drifts out of compliance with the 80% investment
requirement because the characteristics of portfolio investments
change, the fund would not be forced to sell a security that was
originally purchased in compliance with the names rule in order to come
back into compliance within a specific time frame (as proposed,
generally 30 days).\169\ Commenters were concerned the proposed
approach would potentially force sales or purchases of portfolio assets
at inopportune times with the potential to intensify the market
conditions that prompted these transactions in the first place.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\166\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Calamos Comment Letter;
Seward & Kissel Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter; Dechert
Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; Nationwide Comment Letter;
Cato Institute Comment Letter; Stradley Comment Letter; Dimensional
Comment Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter; MFS Comment Letter;
Invesco Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment Letter.
\167\ For example, commenters pointed to time of acquisition
tests in the 1940 Act, including, section 5 the anti-pyramiding
provisions of section 12(d)(1) [15 U.S.C. 80a-12(d)(1)] and the
limitations on investments in securities-related issuers in section
12(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. 80a-12(d)(3)]. See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter;
Dechert Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment Letter; Fidelity
Comment Letter; Calamos Comment Letter; Nationwide Comment Letter.
\168\ See Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter.
\169\ See, e.g., Stradley Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter;
Dechert Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment Letter; Fidelity
Comment Letter; Calamos Comment Letter; Nationwide Comment Letter.
\170\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters also stated that there would be substantial burden on
funds, their sponsors, and their administrators to implement a
continual or daily program for re-assessing portfolio investments for
names rules compliance purposes.\171\ Commenters argued that the burden
of implementing a continual monitoring program is not warranted given
the asserted lack of identified significant harm to investors from
portfolio drift and the burden of creating and maintaining such a
program.\172\ These commenters stated that the burdens associated with
a continual monitoring program would be particularly high because
assessing portfolio investments' consistency with a fund's 80%
investment policy is not necessarily straightforward, particularly
given the expanded scope of the names rule, which would include terms
that are not readily quantifiable.\173\ For example, commenters stated
that some of the information that a fund would need to monitor whether
a particular investment should be included in a fund's 80% basket may
include metrics measured over a period of time that may be longer than
the period of a single day.\174\ Some funds, for instance, may adopt
investment strategies that involve a multi-year concept that commenters
stated cannot be assessed on a single day.\175\ Commenters therefore
urged the Commission to adopt a rule that would provide some discretion
to determine whether a particular investment, evaluated over a period
of time, is consistent with the fund's 80% policy.\176\ Similarly,
commenters raised concerns about continually monitoring compliance with
respect to certain securities, such as growth or value investments,
where the name characteristics could change frequently.\177\ For
example, securities may be bought that have characteristics meeting a
particular fund's standards for inclusion in the fund's 80% basket at
the time of purchase, but these characteristics may change from day to
day. Commenters stated that assessing these securities' characteristics
continually would require operational and compliance build-outs that
would be substantial.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\171\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter;
Seward & Kissel Comment Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter.
\172\ See, e.g., Seward & Kissel Comment Letter, Nationwide
Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter. But see Dogwhistle Comment
letter (suggesting an annual compliance testing requirement and that
daily compliance testing is too frequent, but a time-of-investment
test is not appropriate).
\173\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment
Letter; Wellington Comment Letter.
\174\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Wellington Comment Letter;
Capital Group Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\175\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Wellington Comment Letter;
Capital Group Comment Letter; SIFMA Comment Letter.
\176\ See id.
\177\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment
Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter.
\178\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter;
Seward & Kissel Comment Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering comments, we are retaining the current rule's
time-of-investment test that requires a fund to determine, for purposes
of names rule compliance, whether an investment is within the fund's
80% basket at the time of investment. While the time-of-investment test
must be conducted only at the time that the investment is made, the
final rule incorporates a process for periodic reassessment of fund
investments in order to ensure that that the fund is invested
consistent with the focus the fund's name suggests. Rather than
adopting a rule that effectively would require daily or continual
compliance monitoring, the final rule requires that a fund review its
portfolio investments on an at-least quarterly basis to determine
whether it continues to comply with the 80% investment requirement.
The time-of-investment standard affords to the portfolio manager
more flexibility than the proposed amendments, as we acknowledge that
there may be certain fluctuations in a fund's portfolio and within the
80% basket that naturally occur over time, and that may not be outside
of investors' reasonable expectations. For example, a mid-cap equity
fund may hold securities that at the time of investment qualified under
the fund's 80% investment policy as mid-cap, but that may temporarily
move into the large-cap category and back again. We understand that
this type of drift is a natural fluctuation in a portfolio, as certain
characteristics of securities' may not be static. We also appreciate
that, for certain funds that are subject to the 80% investment
requirement, this drift may occur relatively frequently, and so a
standard that would require daily or continual compliance monitoring
could be particularly burdensome and require very frequent portfolio
re-balancing.\179\ While we recognize that drift may occur and that
portfolio managers should have discretion in managing their portfolio
in the best interest of the fund, we are adopting a quarterly review
requirement to help ensure portfolio adjustments so that drift does not
go unchecked. This quarterly time frame will require a fund to address
drift more quickly, which in turn will help ensure greater consistency
between the fund's investments and the focus its name suggests, as
compared to a review period based on a longer periodic time frame (for
example, an annual testing requirement as one commenter
suggested).\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\179\ See, e.g., SIFMA Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter.
\180\ See Dogwhistle Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The combination of a time-of-investment test with a minimum
quarterly review requirement balances the dynamic nature of funds'
portfolio securities with compliance with the fund's 80% investment
policy. The required time frame for review is consistent with the final
rules' quarterly Form N-PORT reporting requirement, which requires
funds (except in the case of money-market funds and BDCs) to report on
Form N-PORT the value of the fund's 80% basket as well as each
investment that is included in the fund's 80% basket.\181\ The required
minimum quarterly review helps ensure that funds are reviewing their
portfolios for names rule compliance on a periodic basis so that
instances of drift can be identified without the burden of assessing
each investment's inclusion in the 80% basket every day. The final
amendments are designed to balance the costs associated with monitoring
fund investments' inclusion in the 80% basket with the harm to
investors that could result if a fund were permitted a longer time
frame for reviewing its

[[Page 70453]]

portfolio.\182\ The time-of-investment test coupled with a quarterly
portfolio review is designed to ensure that a fund's name more
accurately communicates to investors important information about the
fund's investments while providing funds with appropriate flexibility
within a time-limited period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\181\ See infra section II.E.
\182\ See infra section IV.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter also articulated concerns that are unique to funds
that use the term ``tax-exempt'' in their name.\183\ This commenter
requested clarification on how tax-exempt funds that apply the income
test under the names rule should measure compliance with the 80%
investment policy requirement under the proposed amendments.\184\
Specifically, this commenter urged the Commission to confirm that
compliance with the income test would be based solely on income that
the fund distributes. The final rule requires that a fund review its
portfolio at least quarterly to determine whether it continues to
comply with the 80% investment requirement. Accordingly, a tax-exempt
fund applying the income test will be required to assess its portfolio
on an at-least quarterly basis to determine whether the fund's assets
are invested so that at least 80% of the income that it distributes
will be exempt from federal income tax or from both federal and state
income tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\183\ ICI Comment Letter III. The commenter also suggested that
tax-exempt funds using an income test be permitted to count taxable
market discount toward their 80% baskets. The treatment of such
taxable market discount is outside the scope of this rulemaking, as
it was not addressed in the proposal, and, therefore, not addressed
in the final amendments.
\184\ The names rule currently allows, and the final amendments
will continue to allow, a fund with ``tax-exempt'' in its name to
adopt either an asset test or an income test to satisfy its 80%
investment policy requirement. The income test requires that a fund
invest its assets so that at least 80% of the income that it
distributes will be exempt from federal income tax or from both
federal and state income tax. See final rule 35d-1(a)(3)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b) Investing Consistent With 80% Investment Policy ``Under Normal
Circumstances''
The final amendments, like the current names rule, require a fund
to invest in accordance with its 80% investments policy ``under normal
circumstances.'' That is, under the final amendments, a fund's 80%
policy applies under normal circumstances, but funds may depart from
the fund's investment policy in other-than-normal circumstances. The
proposed rule would have, in place of the rule's current standard that
a fund's 80% investment policy apply ``under normal circumstances,''
included specific exceptions that address circumstances where
departures would be permitted.\185\ Unlike the proposal, funds have
flexibility under the final amendments to determine what constitutes
other-than-normal circumstances where the fund could depart
intentionally from the 80% requirement (for example, the reasons for
departures that the proposed amendments included, or other
circumstances where market conditions or fund operations are other-
than-normal).\186\ Under the final amendments, departure from the
fund's 80% policy in other-than-normal circumstances is time-limited to
90 consecutive days from the initial departure, whereas the proposal
would have required a fund to be back in compliance generally within 30
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\185\ Under the proposed rule, temporary departures would have
been permitted only: (1) as a result of market fluctuations, or
other circumstances where the temporary departure is not caused by
the fund's purchase or sale of a security or the fund's entering
into or exiting an investment; (2) to address unusually large cash
inflows or unusually large redemptions; (3) to take a position in
cash and cash equivalents or government securities to avoid losses
in response to adverse market, economic, political, or other
conditions; or (4) to reposition or liquidate a fund's assets in
connection with a reorganization, to launch the fund, or when notice
of a change in the fund's 80% investment policy has been provided to
fund shareholders at least 60 days before the change pursuant to the
rule. See proposed rule 35d-1(b).
\186\ See supra footnote 160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission received some comments supporting the proposed
approach to change the current rule's ``under normal circumstances''
standard in favor of a more prescriptive approach. Commenters stated
that the current standard has led to more uncertainty and less
consistency in how fund investments correspond to a fund's name than
the proposed approach would over extended periods of time.\187\
Conversely, the Commission also received many comment letters opposing
the proposed approach of permitting departure from the 80% investment
requirement only under the circumstances that the proposed amendments
specified.\188\ Commenters stated that the proposed approach was overly
prescriptive and would unnecessarily curb the ability of a fund's
portfolio manager to act in the best interest of the fund.\189\ For
example, in an effort to bring a fund back into compliance within the
proposed 30-day period, fund managers may feel compelled either to
divest or purchase an investment that may not be strategically in the
best interest of the fund. In addition, a commenter argued that the
Proposing Release did not cite evidence that the ``under normal
circumstances standard'' has been abused or has resulted in the use of
materially deceptive or misleading names.\190\ Commenters also argued
that while the proposed amendments would permit departures from the 80%
requirement only in the circumstances that the amendments specified,
unforeseeable circumstances that the amendments did not contemplate--
and that any enumerated list of circumstances could not contemplate in
an evergreen way--may present reasons for departing that could be
appropriate in the interests of the fund and consistent with the goals
of the names rule.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\187\ See, e.g., NASAA Comment Letter; Environmental Defense
Fund Comment Letter.
\188\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter; CFA Institute Comment
Letter; Comment Letter of U.S. Chamber of Commerce Center for
Capital Markets Competitiveness (Aug. 12, 2022) (``USCOC Comment
Letter''); Dimensional Comment Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter;
Calamos Comment Letter; MFDF Comment Letter; MFS Comment Letter;
Capital Group Comment letter; Seward & Kissel Comment Letter;
Fidelity Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Nasdaq, Inc. (Aug. 16,
2022) (``Nasdaq Comment Letter''); Dechert Comment Letter; T. Rowe
Comment Letter; Nationwide Comment Letter; Cato Institute Comment
Letter.
\189\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter; Dimensional Comment
Letter; MFS Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment letter; Fidelity
Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter;
Calamos Comment Letter; Nationwide Comment Letter.
\190\ See Cato Institute Comment Letter.
\191\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Dechert Comment
Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fund managers are fiduciaries to the funds they manage. Commenters
advocated that, as such, portfolio managers should have discretion in
determining when a fund needs to depart from its 80% investment policy.
Some commenters supported retaining the current rule's ``under normal
circumstances'' standard in order to give portfolio managers
flexibility to act in the best interest of the fund and its
shareholders, which can include temporarily departing from the fund's
80% investment policy.\192\ In addition, some commenters stated that
they believe that some investors may prefer investing in funds where
the portfolio manager has discretion to depart from the investment
focus denoted by the fund's name when the portfolio manager

[[Page 70454]]

believes the departure is in the best interest of the fund.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\192\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
Dechert Comment Letter; CFA Institute Comment Letter; Stradley
Comment Letter; USCOC Comment Letter; Cato Institute Comment Letter;
Dimensional Comment Letter; Federated Comment Letter; T. Rowe
Comment Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter.
\193\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Dechert Comment
Letter; Nationwide Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; MFS
Comment Letter; JP Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters suggested alternatives to the proposed approach, stating
that if the Commission adopts a prescriptive list of permissible
circumstances under which a fund may depart from the 80% policy, the
list should be expanded, for example to permit departure for
repositioning fund assets in connection with changes of sub-advisers
and/or portfolio managers, and in periods leading up to material
strategy changes.\194\ These commenters suggested the inclusion of a
``catch-all'' provision, as well, permitting any departures the
portfolio manager believes are reasonable. Commenters also provided
alternatives that would permit additional drift beyond the
circumstances that the proposed amendments specified, so long as the
fund provided additional disclosure for the reasons why the fund may
drift.\195\ Another suggested an alternative included allowing funds
that use the term ``managed'' in their name to have greater flexibility
to depart from the fund's 80% investment policy.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\194\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter;
SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\195\ See, e.g., Capital Group Comment Letter; Nationwide
Comment Letter.
\196\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter and SIFMA AMG Comment
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering comments, we are adopting amendments that retain
the current ``under normal circumstances'' provision. While we are
retaining the current ``under normal circumstances'' standard, we are
also adopting new limitations on how long a fund may depart from 80%
under this provision, discussed below, which addresses the concerns
raised by commenters that the current standard allows for investments
not consistent with the fund's name over extended periods of time.\197\
Retaining the current ``under normal circumstances'' provision is
designed to provide fund managers with flexibility to manage their
portfolios while requiring that funds normally invest 80% of their
assets consistent with their 80% investment policy.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\197\ Prolonged drift could result in fund names that have a
tendency or capacity or deceive or mislead, regardless of whether
such drift has resulted in actual deception of investors. See, e.g.,
Cato Institute Comment Letter; see also supra footnote 40.
\198\ See 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8, at
nn.37-40 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We acknowledge that there could be circumstances when it is in the
best interest of the fund and its investors for the portfolio manager
to have discretion to depart from the fund's 80% investment policy.
This interest must be balanced, however, with the need for a fund's
name to convey accurately to investors the underlying investments that
correspond with the focus the fund's name suggests. Rather than require
additional disclosure that acknowledges drift or to provide a separate
standard for funds that include the term ``managed'' in their name, we
are adopting a requirement to invest in accordance with the 80%
requirement ``under normal circumstances,'' combined with a set time
frame to come back to 80%, to balance these concerns. We are adopting,
therefore, a limit on the length of time that a fund may depart in
other-than-normal circumstances to 90 consecutive days after the
initial departure.
Although we are not adopting the proposed approach of delineating
the circumstances in which a fund may depart intentionally from the 80%
requirement, an intentional departure must be in other than ``normal''
circumstances, which could include but is not limited to the
circumstances included in the proposed approach. These circumstances
could include temporary departures that occur as a result of market
fluctuations, index rebalancing, cash flows/inflows, or temporary
defensive positions, among others.\199\ These circumstances do not,
however, represent the extent of events or circumstances where a fund,
in considering its obligations under the names rule and the
prohibitions of section 35(d), may determine that other-than-normal
circumstances exist, warranting a departure from 80%. The final rules'
approach provides flexibility to depart under circumstances that may
not have been included in the proposal's delineated reasons for
departures. Although the question of whether circumstances are
``normal'' is based on the facts and circumstances, if a fund were to
deviate in purportedly other-than-normal circumstances serially or
frequently, this may suggest that in fact those circumstances are
``normal'' and otherwise raise questions about the appropriateness of
the fund's name under section 35(d) if the fund's portfolio is not
invested consistent with its name for prolonged periods of time.\200\
When a fund deviates from the 80% investment requirement due to other-
than-normal circumstances, as we discuss below, the fund is required to
maintain a record documenting the date of the departure and the reason
for the departure.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\199\ See 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8, at
text preceding footnote 39 (``[The ``under normal circumstances''
standard] will permit investment companies to take ``temporary
defensive positions'' to avoid losses in response to adverse market,
economic, political, or other conditions.'').
\200\ See infra section II.A.5 text accompanying footnotes 318-
321.
\201\ See infra section II.F (discussing the requirement under
the final amendments for funds to maintain records documenting the
reasons for each departure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c) Time to Come Back Into Compliance
The final amendments require that funds come back into compliance
with the 80% investment requirement as soon as reasonably practicable
in the case of drift (i.e., where the fund identifies that its
investments are not consistent with this requirement under the names
rule, for example, as a result of inadvertent drift identified as part
of the fund's quarterly review).\202\ In all circumstances, a fund must
come back into compliance within 90 consecutive days, as measured from
the time that the fund identifies a departure from the 80% investment
policy (as part of its quarterly review or otherwise), or the time the
fund initially departs, in other-than-normal circumstances, from the
80% investment policy.\203\ Under the final amendments, consistent with
the current rule, where a fund identifies that the 80% requirement is
no longer met, the fund must make all future investments in a manner
that will bring the fund into compliance with the fund's 80% investment
policy. The Commission proposed to require funds to come back into
compliance with the 80% investment policy within 30 days from the
initial departure from 80%. We are modifying the proposed approach to
respond to concerns raised by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\202\ Final rule 35d-1(b).
\203\ Id. Although the temporal limits in the final amendments
start from the time that a departure is identified, a fund may not
avoid coming into timely compliance, if the fund failed to identify
departures because the fund did not perform the required quarterly
review, or if the fund failed to perform quarterly reviews that are
reasonably designed to identify departures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission received some support for the proposed period for
funds to come back into compliance.\204\ The Commission received many
comments, however, arguing that a 30-day period was not an appropriate
time limit on departures.\205\ While some

[[Page 70455]]

commenters stated that a 30-day period may be appropriate for some
asset classes or in certain market conditions, these commenters
contended that a 30-day period may be too short in certain market
conditions or in unanticipated extenuating circumstances.\206\ For
example, one commenter stated that while a fund may be able to remedy a
departure from the 80% investment policy that is the result of
unusually large flows within 30 days, a portfolio manager may need more
time when divesting securities to accommodate when an index rebalances
or where a strategy may need to be reconsidered given exogenous
events.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\204\ See, e.g., PRI Comment Letter.
\205\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter;
CFA Institute Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; Cato Institute
Comment Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter; NASAA Comment Letter;
MFDF Comment Letter; MFS Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment Letter; Fidelity
Comment Letter; Nationwide Comment Letter; Dimensional Comment
Letter; Wellington Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment Letter.
\206\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter;
Stradley Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; MFDF Comment
Letter; MFS Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG
Comment Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter; Dimensional Comment
Letter.
\207\ See J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters stated that the proposed 30-day time period may require
a fund to make forced purchases and sales at potentially undesirable
prices or at inappropriate times.\208\ For example, if a small-cap
security becomes a mid-cap security and therefore can no longer be
included in the small-cap fund's 80% basket, the fund may be required
to sell the holding within the proposed 30-day period, even though the
portfolio manager believes that it is in the best interest of the fund
to hold the security for a longer period.\209\ Commenters stated that
forced purchases or sales could lead to additional adverse consequences
for a fund, including the risks of front running from other market
participants, unwanted capital gains or assorted tax efficiency
implications, increased transaction costs, reduced diversification,
fire sales, homogenization across funds with similar names, and an
overall negative impact on fund performance, as well as market
liquidity and market stability more largely.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\208\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter;
Stradley Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; USCOC Comment
Letter; Cato Institute Comment Letter; Dimensional Comment Letter;
Capital Group Comment Letter. Certain of these commenters stated
that the 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release stated that funds should
not be required to ``sell portfolio holdings that have increased in
value'' in order to reattain compliance with their 80% policy. See,
e.g., Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter.
\209\ These circumstances would arise only where, in the given
example, the security grew sufficiently to become a mid-cap
security, the fund manager preferred to continue to hold the
security, and the fund manager had already made similar
determinations with respect to other securities which collectively
made up 20% of the value of the fund's assets.
\210\ See, e.g., Dechert Comment Letter; Stradley Comment
Letter; Nationwide Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG
Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; Dimensional Comment Letter;
Nationwide Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter; WidsomTree
Comment Letter; Wellington Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current names rule effectively requires that funds make all
future investments consistent with the fund's 80% policy once the fund
identifies that its portfolio is out of compliance with the 80%
investment requirement. Some commenters urged the Commission to
reconsider the proposed 30-day period and instead maintain the current
standard.\211\ Additionally, commenters suggested alternative time
periods to require funds to come back into compliance with the 80%
investment policy, e.g., 180 days.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\211\ See, e.g., Calamos Comment Letter; Nationwide Comment
Letter.
\212\ See, e.g., Fidelity Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several commenters suggested an alternative approach that would
require funds to notify their board of directors if the fund falls out
of compliance with the 80% investment policy for more than a specified
period of time (e.g., 30, 60, or 90 days etc.).\213\ Some commenters
suggested that after a certain period of time following a departure
from 80%, a fund must provide a report to the board detailing how the
fund will come back into compliance. Commenters stated that other rules
under the Investment Company Act have similar board reporting
requirements, which recognize the value of a board's oversight of fund
management and the best interest of fund shareholders, and that the
names rule may benefit from such a requirement.\214\ Under this
alternative, commenters stated that they believed that funds would have
more flexibility than under the proposed approach and that the board
would be in the best position to judge whether a departure is
reasonable.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\213\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter;
Stradley Comment Letter; Dimensional Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG
Comment Letter; MDFS Comment Letter; MFS Comment Letter; Invesco
Comment Letter.
\214\ See ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Dechert
Comment Letter; MFS Comment Letter; see also Investment Company
Liquidity Risk Management Programs, Investment Company Act Release
No. 32315 (Oct. 13, 2016) [81 FR 82142 (Nov. 18, 2016)] (``Liquidity
Adopting Release'') and Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment
Companies and Business Development Companies, Investment Company Act
Release No. 34084 (Nov. 2, 2020) [85 FR 83162 (Dec. 21, 2020)]
(``Derivatives Adopting Release'').
\215\ See, e.g., Dimensional Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment
Letter; ICI Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amendments we are adopting are designed to help ensure that a
fund will not stray from the investment focus its name suggests for a
protracted period of time, regardless of external events or other
circumstances that could affect the fund's portfolio investments.
Investors' expectations for funds' investment focuses may not depend on
whether market events negatively affect the investments in a fund's
portfolio. For example, investments in passively-managed funds, such as
index-based mutual funds and ETFs, have increased substantially in the
past two decades, indicating that investors seek investment products
that permit them to obtain specific types of investment exposure for
their portfolios.\216\ Although investors may have different
expectations regarding how long a fund may drift from the fund's
investment focus, a prolonged period of drift would be inconsistent
with the investor protection concerns that underlie the names rule and
section 35(d) of the Investment Company Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\216\ Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.61 and
accompanying text. As another example, consistency in investment
companies' investments with their names and investors' reasonable
expectations may be particularly important to retirement plan and
other investors who place great emphasis on allocating their
investment company holdings in well-defined types of investments,
such as stocks, bonds, and money market instruments. See id.; see
also 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8, at n.8 and
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking these concerns into account, while considering comments
received, we are extending the proposed time period that funds have to
come back into compliance with the names rule from 30 to 90 consecutive
days after the fund either identifies a departure or, in other-than-
normal circumstances, departs from the 80% investment requirement. We
recognize, as certain commenters raised, that some investors may prefer
allowing a fund to depart from its investment focus for longer than 30
days to avoid any losses that the fund may incur to come back into
compliance within that time period. The final amendments provide funds
with more flexibility and time both to recognize when a fund has
drifted out of compliance and to correct the departure. This 90-day
review period is also consistent with the quarterly Form N-PORT
reporting requirement discussed below. The final amendments require a
fund to assess whether the fund's portfolio is in compliance at least
quarterly and provide the fund with an additional quarter to rectify
any departure from the 80% investment requirement. At some point,
however, departures may begin to change the nature of the fund
fundamentally, which would undermine investor

[[Page 70456]]

expectations created by the fund's name. The time limits we are
adopting are designed to prevent such a fundamental change without
investor notification.
We are not adopting, as suggested by some commenters, a board
reporting obligation that would effectively provide additional time to
resolve departures from the 80% requirement. Rather, the final approach
directly provides funds with additional time, compared to the proposal,
both to identify drift in their portfolios and to rectify departures
from 80%. The increased flexibility for temporary departures that the
final amendments afford to funds, compared to the proposed approach,
addresses many of the concerns raised by commenters recommending that
we adopt a board reporting obligation instead of setting specified time
periods for funds to come back into compliance with the names rule.
These comments were generally framed in terms of providing additional
flexibility, as opposed to suggesting that a fund's board should have a
specific oversight role when a fund departs from 80% for an extended
period. The requirement that funds review their portfolios for names
rule compliance quarterly in addition to a 90-day period to come back
into compliance increases the flexibility of funds to accommodate
instances of fund drift and intentional departures. This requirement
also still includes a time certain for funds to resolve these
departures in recognition of investors' reasonable expectation that a
fund's investments will generally remain focused in the area that the
fund's name indicates. In addition, a fund can seek exemptive relief
from the Commission if the fund believes it would be appropriate and
consistent with the protection of investors for the fund to depart for
a limited additional period past 90 days. Any request for an exemptive
order will be evaluated based on its particular facts and circumstances
and must meet the standard under section 6(c) of the Investment Company
Act, including that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors.\217\
One example of an instance in which a fund might consider seeking
relief would be where the fund anticipates resolving the departure, but
cannot do so within 90 days and seeks to avoid changing the fund's name
only to change it again in a short period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\217\ See Investment Company Act section 6(c) (providing the
Commission with authority to conditionally or unconditionally exempt
persons, securities or transactions from any provision of the Act if
and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in
the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In instances where the fund identifies that its investments are not
consistent with this requirement under the names rule (for example, as
a result of inadvertent drift identified as part of the fund's
quarterly review), we are retaining the requirement that a fund must
make all future investments in a manner that will bring the fund back
into compliance with the 80% investment policy. We are also adopting,
as proposed, the requirement that a fund must come back into compliance
``as soon as reasonably practicable'' (with a 90-day outer limit)
because we anticipate that most temporary departures caused by
portfolio drift could be remedied in substantially less than 90 days,
though this could depend on the specific facts and circumstances.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\218\ See also, e.g., J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment
Letter (``Although temporary non-compliance in the ordinary course,
such as due to unusually large flows, should be readily fixable in
less than 30 days, there are also circumstances in which more
flexibility is warranted.''); MFDF Comment Letter (``While we agree
that in most circumstances, a fund should be able to return to
compliance within 30 days, it is difficult to anticipate every type
of market volatility or other extenuating circumstance that might
make this difficult to do while still protecting the interests of
the fund's shareholders.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We recognize that there are certain circumstances under which a
fund may be unable to bring its portfolio back into compliance with the
fund's 80% investment policy within the required 90-day period. As
commenters stated, there may be events that preclude the ability of a
fund to make investments or sell assets that would not be in the best
interest of the fund but that may be required to come back into
compliance with the names rule. If such an event occurred, the fund
would need to change its name to better reflect the realities of its
portfolio and the fund must provide shareholders with a notice of that
change, which would provide information that would allow investors to
understand the nature of the fund's portfolio.\219\ The final
amendments, consistent with the proposal, effectively toll the time for
a fund to get back into compliance following a departure from 80% that
the rule otherwise would require, if a notice of a change in a fund's
policy has been provided to fund shareholders.\220\ Once such a notice
has been provided to shareholders, shareholders have a period of 60
days to determine whether they would like to redeem their shares before
the change in policy takes effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\219\ See final rule 35d-1(a)(2)(ii), (b)(1)(iii), (d).
\220\ See proposed rule 35d-1(b)(iv); final rule 35d-
1(b)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Fund Launches and Reorganizations
We are adopting final rule amendments that permit funds to invest
less than 80% of their assets in the 80% basket temporarily in order to
reposition or liquidate assets in connection with a reorganization or
to launch a fund.\221\ We are adopting these amendments substantially
as proposed. For fund launches, the final amendments provide funds with
a temporary period to depart from the 80% investment requirement that
is not to exceed 180 consecutive days starting from the day the fund
commences operations.\222\ The final rule amendments do not limit the
time of departures associated with fund reorganizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\221\ Final rule 35d-1(b)(1)(iii); see also final rule 35d-1(g)
(defining the term ``launch'').
\222\ Final rule 35d-1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission received comments requesting that we extend the
proposed period of time permitted for fund launches from 180 days to a
longer period.\223\ Commenters stated that certain funds, for example
``alts funds'' or certain illiquid funds, may have a longer ramp-up
period that can extend beyond 180 days.\224\ One commenter stated that
investors in these types of less-liquid funds will understand the
nature of the fund they are investing in and understand that coming
into compliance with the names rule within 180 days may not be in the
interest of the fund.\225\ Another commenter stated that it is in the
best interest of the fund manager to invest the assets of the fund and
to establish the fund as quickly as possible and that a fund manager
may reasonably need more than 180 days to come into compliance with the
names rule.\226\ The Commission received one comment supporting the
proposed approach to reorganizations and did not receive comments
opposing this aspect of the proposal.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\223\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; USCOC Comment Letter;
Invesco Comment Letter.
\224\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; USCOC Comment Letter.
\225\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\226\ See, e.g., USCOC Comment Letter.
\227\ See Fidelity Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We understand that there may be variability in how long is needed
to launch a new fund depending on the types of investments in which the
fund seeks to invest. In some instances, it may be in shareholders'
interest for funds to take additional time beyond the otherwise-
required 90-day temporary departures period to invest in a manner
consistent with the fund's 80% investment policy, for example to avoid

[[Page 70457]]

the potential for adverse impacts on the price of a targeted
investment, to scale up an investment, or to find a better investment
that corresponds to the investment focus relative to what is currently
available. Nonetheless, we are adopting the requirement that,
consistent with current guidance, such a period should not exceed 180
consecutive days.\228\ We understand, based on staff knowledge of
industry practice, that this time frame is generally sufficient for
funds to invest fully, consistent with their 80% investment policy,
after the fund commences operations.\229\ Further, the final amendments
generally require funds to be invested consistent with their 80%
investment policy ``as soon as reasonably practicable,'' which may be a
shorter time than 180 days. The amendments therefore do not permit any
fund to exceed 180 consecutive days to invest its assets consistent
with its 80% investment policy when launching a fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\228\ See 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8, at
n.39 and accompanying text.
\229\ See also, e.g., PRI Comment Letter (supporting all of the
proposed time frames for getting back into compliance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We recognize the likelihood that it can take longer for funds to
find investments during their start-up, particularly for funds that
invest in securities whose supply is limited. Both reorganizations and
launches may result in a fund holding assets in a way that is
inconsistent with its 80% investment policy in connection with these
fund life-cycle events. For example, at start-up it may take time for a
new fund to find and purchase available investments consistent with the
fund's investment focus, and the fund may hold cash in the interim.
While we anticipate that, for most funds, codifying a required 180-day
period for a fund to be fully invested consistent with its 80%
investment policy will not result in significant operational changes,
we acknowledge that may not be the case for all funds.
Planned reorganizations may take longer to complete than 30 days or
even 180 days. Moreover, such a planned action will be disclosed, and
the reorganization is likely to be a permanent change to the nature of
the investor's investment.\230\ Similarly, a change to a fund's 80%
investment policy will result in a permanent change to the fund's
investments, about which funds notify investors pursuant to the
provisions of the names rule. Thus, we do not believe that changes in
the fund's investment portfolio to support an upcoming reorganization
would generally be inconsistent with investors' reasonable
expectations. As a result, we do not believe that an express time limit
is necessary for departures from the 80% investment requirement made in
connection with these actions. Such departures would still be required
to be resolved as soon as reasonably practicable, consistent with any
temporary departure under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\230\ For example, when the board of an open-end fund determines
to approve a reorganization, the fund would supplement its
prospectus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Considerations Regarding Derivatives in Assessing Names Rule
Compliance
Consistent with the proposal, we are adopting amendments that
address the valuation of derivatives instruments for purposes of
determining compliance with a fund's 80% investment policy, as well as
the derivatives that a fund may include in its 80% basket. These
amendments are designed to reflect the investment exposure derivatives
investments create and to increase comparability, as some funds
currently value derivatives instruments using their notional amounts
for purposes of determining their compliance with the 80% test while
other funds use market values.\231\ The amendments are designed both to
allow funds to use names that may more effectively communicate their
investments and risks to investors, and to reduce the risk that a fund
may use derivatives to invest in a manner inconsistent with the
investment focus suggested by the fund's name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\231\ See, e.g., Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at nn.76-
78 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed amendments included the requirement for funds to use a
derivatives instrument's notional amount, rather than its market value,
for the purpose of determining compliance with a fund's 80% investment
policy.\232\ The proposal also included amendments to address the
derivatives instruments that a fund may include in its 80% basket.\233\
As discussed below, commenters generally agreed that the names rule
should specifically address funds' use of derivatives, although some
commenters suggested modifications to the proposed approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\232\ See proposed rule 35d-1(g).
\233\ See proposed rule 35d-1(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are adopting the proposed amendments with certain changes in
response to comments. We discuss each element of the final amendments'
provisions addressing derivatives below.
Use of Derivatives' Notional Amounts, With Currency Hedging Exclusion
The final amendments generally require a fund to use notional
amounts to value derivatives in assessing whether it has invested 80%
of the value of its assets in accordance with the investment focus that
the fund's name suggests.\234\ In a change from the proposal, however,
the final amendments also require a fund to exclude from the
calculation certain derivatives that hedge the currency risk associated
with a fund's foreign-currency denominated investments. These
derivatives therefore will not be included in the calculation of the
fund's assets or the fund's 80% basket when determining if the fund is
complying with its 80% investment policy. A fund must exclude a
currency derivative if it: (1) is entered into and maintained by the
fund for hedging purposes, and (2) the notional amounts of the
derivatives do not exceed the value of the hedged investments (or the
par value thereof, in the case of fixed-income investments) by more
than 10 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\234\ See final rule 35d-1(g) (definitions of ``assets'' and
``derivatives instrument''). The final amendments' approach, like
the proposed approach, does not distinguish between derivatives
instruments that are assets and derivatives that are liabilities of
the fund. See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final amendments' approach of using notional amounts better
reflects the investment exposure that derivatives investments create
than the use of market values (as the Act would generally otherwise
require by operation of its definition of the term ``value''), because
a derivative instrument's market value may bear no relation to the
investment exposure that the derivatives instrument creates.\235\ For
most types of derivatives instruments, the notional amount generally
serves as a measure of a fund's investment exposure to the underlying
reference asset or metric.\236\ The use of notional amounts furthers
the goal of helping to ensure that a fund's investment activity is
consistent with the investment focus its name communicates.\237\
Notably, using a

[[Page 70458]]

derivatives instrument's market value for purposes of assessing names
rule compliance could prevent a fund from using a name that effectively
communicates its investments, or could result in a fund being in
compliance with its 80% investment policy despite having significant
exposure to investments that are not suggested by the fund's name.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\235\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at paragraph
accompanying nn.77-78; see also 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(41)(B) (defining
``value,'' in part, as the market value of securities for which
market quotations are readily available and, for all other
investments, as fair value as determined in good faith by the board
of directors).
\236\ A total return swap, for example, can provide a return
that is the economic equivalent of a direct investment in the
derivative's reference asset.
\237\ A fund's name may be materially deceptive or misleading
under section 35(d) of the Investment Company Act, however, even if
it complies with the 80% investment policy requirement (and uses
notional amounts as the final amendments require in performing its
compliance calculations). See infra section II.A.5.
\238\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at paragraphs
following n.78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on the proposed mandatory approach to using notional
amounts were mixed. Some commenters supported the proposed approach,
stating that notional amounts are a more accurate reflection of funds'
economic exposure, as compared to market values, and that exposure is
likely what investors assume a fund name reflects.\239\ One commenter
also expressed appreciation that the proposal attempts to provide a
clear rule while also adjusting for accuracy in reflecting
exposure.\240\ Other commenters generally supported the use of notional
amounts but suggested changes to the proposed approach that would
permit the use of market values under certain circumstances.\241\ For
example, some commenters suggested that the rule should permit a fund
to value each derivatives instrument consistent with a ``reasonable
exposure metric'' and a method that best measures the economic exposure
the derivatives instrument obtains synthetically, so long as the fund
consistently applies the relevant metric and method.\242\ One commenter
suggested an alternative approach that would require the use of
notional amounts for derivatives that are included in a fund's 80%
basket, but that would permit the use of market values for derivatives
that are not included in the 80% basket, depending on the nature of the
particular derivative.\243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\239\ See Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter; Capital
Group Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter;
Ceres Comment Letter; Environmental Defense Fund Comment Letter;
Comment Letter of Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund
(Aug. 15, 2022) (``AFREF Comment Letter''); see also Comment Letter
of Chris Barnard (June 8, 2022) (``Barnard Comment Letter'')
(expressing support for ``an economic consideration that would look
through the notional value of assets held in order to determine the
economic impact of the fund exposures'').
\240\ See Center for American Progress Comment Letter; see also
SIFMA AMG Comment Letter (stating that, while not all SIFMA AMG
members agree that notional value is the most appropriate valuation
for every derivatives instrument in all cases, many funds
``recognize the benefit of eliminating disparate valuation practices
among funds with an 80% investment policy'').
\241\ See, e.g., Capital Group Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment
Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment
Letter.
\242\ See Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter; see also
Capital Group Comment Letter.
\243\ T. Rowe Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters suggesting these alternative approaches expressed
particular concern about using notional amounts for derivatives
transactions entered into to protect against risks posed by investments
not suggested by a fund's name (i.e., investments not included in the
80% basket).\244\ For example, a fund with ``U.S. equities'' in its
name might invest a limited percentage of its assets in non-U.S.
securities and then enter into derivatives to hedge risks associated
with those securities. To comply with the fund's 80% investment policy,
the value of the fund's U.S. equity investments in the fund's 80%
basket must represent at least 80% of the value of the fund's
``assets'' as defined in the rule. If the derivatives intended to hedge
risks associated with the non-U.S. equity securities in this example
were valued using notional amounts, however, this would increase the
value of the fund's ``assets'' and therefore could have a potentially
large impact on the denominator for purposes of names rule compliance,
causing the fund to drop below the required 80% threshold.\245\ These
commenters argued that this, in turn, could dissuade funds from
entering into certain derivatives transactions that funds use for
hedging or risk management purposes, whose impact on fund performance
might be insignificant. One commenter, on the other hand, argued
against an alternative approach that uses different valuation
approaches for different derivatives because this would be less
consistent and more complex than the proposed approach, which would
likely result in inconsistencies in treatment, would complicate funds'
compliance, and would raise examination challenges.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\244\ See Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter; T. Rowe
Comment Letter.
\245\ If the fund in this example had invested $80 in U.S.
equity securities and $20 in non-U.S. securities, and then hedged
risks associated with the non-U.S. securities with derivatives with
a notional amount of $20, the fund would no longer satisfy its 80%
investment policy. The fund's $80 in U.S. equity securities would
represent 67% of the fund's $120 in assets. See also Proposing
Release, supra note 2, at nn.75-76 and accompanying text.
\246\ Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After analyzing comments, we continue to believe that notional
amounts are generally an appropriate measure of derivatives
instruments' economic exposure.\247\ This approach is designed to
provide a clear and consistent approach to derivatives valuation that
will simplify names rule compliance because all funds will have a
specific standard to follow when valuing derivatives for names rule
purposes. This approach also promotes names that effectively
communicate a fund's investments and risks because all funds will be
using the same calculation methodology. The final amendments'
requirement for funds to use notional amounts to value derivatives, in
the context of names rule compliance, reflects these goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\247\ But see infra footnote 259. We believe that the term
``notional amount,'' which is also used in 17 CFR 270.18f-4 (``rule
18f-4''), is understood by market participants and used as a means
to reflect the market exposure a derivatives creates--meaning, for
example, that if a derivative provides a return based on the
leveraged performance of a reference asset, the notional amount must
reflect the application of the leverage factor. See Derivatives
Adopting Release, supra footnote 214, at text following n.496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, we are adopting a modification to this approach in
consideration of commenters' concerns that the proposed approach could
limit the use of derivatives for hedging purposes. Take the example
discussed above, where a U.S. equity fund may invest up to 20% of its
assets in stocks of companies domiciled outside of the United States,
consistent with the names rule. The fund in this example would not
include the foreign stocks in its 80% basket, and therefore these
foreign stocks would be in the denominator in the calculation that the
fund would use to determine compliance with its 80% investment
policy.\248\ Any related currency derivative that the fund holds for
hedging purposes, therefore, also would be in the denominator. This
currency derivative could have a high notional amount, even though it
would be reducing, not increasing, the fund's exposure to risks
associated with the fund's foreign securities. Holding the currency
derivative therefore could significantly limit the extent to which the
fund could invest outside of its 80% basket. One commenter stated that
this approach could result in funds adopting more generic names, which
would permit them to use derivatives with fewer constraints.\249\ A
fund also could decide to leave its foreign-currency-denominated
investments unhedged in lieu of breaching its 80% investment policy,
increasing risks to the fund and its shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\248\ See T. Rowe Comment Letter.
\249\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While we appreciate these concerns, we continue to believe the
names rule's

[[Page 70459]]

approach to derivatives must be clear and consistently applied, and
therefore we are not adopting a principles-based approach that, as some
commenters suggested, would permit a fund to use any appropriate
exposure metric when valuing derivatives in the context of names rule
compliance. Instead, the final amendments require a fund, in
calculating its assets for purposes of assessing names rule compliance,
to exclude certain currency derivatives instruments that hedge currency
risks associated with one or more specific foreign-currency-denominated
equity or fixed-income investments held by the fund. A fund must
exclude a currency derivative if it: (1) is entered into and maintained
by the fund for hedging purposes, and (2) the notional amounts of the
derivatives do not exceed the value of the hedged investments (or the
par value thereof, in the case of fixed-income investments) by more
than 10 percent.
Excluding these derivatives from the names rule compliance
calculation addresses concerns that including certain derivatives at
their notional amounts in this calculation could limit the use of
derivatives for hedging purposes. Limiting this exclusion to currency
derivatives is designed to ensure that the exclusion will not result in
the names rule calculation excluding instruments that create economic
exposures that should be considered in assessing whether a fund's name
is materially deceptive and misleading in light of its portfolio. The
Commission has previously distinguished currency derivatives, when
directly matched to particular investments held by the fund, as
instruments that ``predictably and mechanically provide the anticipated
hedging exposure.'' \250\ The provision in the final rule requiring
that these derivatives must be entered into and maintained for hedging
purposes, and that the notional amounts of these derivatives must not
exceed the value of the hedged investments by more than 10 percent,
similarly reflects an approach the Commission has taken in the past to
define currency derivatives that qualify as hedges.\251\ These
instruments therefore would not generally create economic exposures
that could cause a fund's name to be materially deceptive or
misleading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\250\ See Derivatives Adopting Release, supra footnote 214, at
paragraph accompanying n.522. While the Commission's discussion in
the Derivatives Adopting Release also characterized interest rate
derivatives in this way, in addressing derivatives that may be
excluded when calculating derivative exposure to determine
eligibility for the limited derivatives user exception in rule 18f-
4, the policy considerations for interest rate derivatives in the
context of the names rule are unique as discussed below.
\251\ See id. at paragraphs accompanying and following nn.523-
526.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, other types of hedging transactions executed
through derivatives are difficult to distinguish from transactions that
create exposures that contribute to (or detract from) the investment
focus that a fund's name suggests. For example, while a fund can use
derivatives to hedge the interest rate risk that exists in interest-
bearing assets, similar derivatives instruments can be used to
supplement a portfolio whose strategy reflects a particular conviction
about the movement of interest rates. It therefore would not be
appropriate to adopt an approach that requires exclusion of interest
rate derivatives in this example, as opposed to currency derivatives
whose hedging purpose under the final amendments is more
straightforward to determine. While no commenter suggested the specific
approach to currency derivatives that the final amendments include,
this approach addresses commenters' concerns about ways in which the
proposal could limit hedging activities, with one commenter
specifically discussing hedging involving currency derivatives.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\252\ See Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter; T. Rowe
Comment Letter (discussing currency derivatives, as well as interest
rate derivatives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We acknowledge that commenters suggesting alternative approaches
generally favored the use of market values for certain derivatives, as
opposed to excluding these derivatives from the names rule calculation.
While derivatives' market values can often be quite low, such that the
use of their market values would be functionally equivalent to
excluding these derivatives from a names rule compliance calculation,
there are circumstances where the market value of a derivative could be
large.\253\ The use of market values under these circumstances, as well
as an approach that permits but does not require the exclusion of
currency derivatives used for hedging purposes, could therefore lead to
inconsistent compliance calculation outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\253\ While the market value of a derivative almost never will
exceed its notional amount, as typically defined, a derivative can
equal it, for example in the case of deep in-the-money options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculating Notional Amounts for Purposes of Names Rule Compliance
In calculating notional amounts, the final amendments, as proposed,
will require a fund to convert interest rate derivatives to their 10-
year bond equivalents and to delta adjust the notional amounts of
options contracts.\254\ A simple way to convert an interest rate
derivative to its ten-year bond equivalent is to multiply the
derivative's unadjusted notional amount by the ratio of the
derivative's duration and the duration of the reference security. The
requirement to convert interest rate derivatives to 10-year bond
equivalents is designed to result in adjusted notional amounts that
better represent a fund's exposure to interest rate changes.\255\
Absent this adjustment, short-term interest rate derivatives can
produce large unadjusted notional amounts that may not correspond to
large exposures to interest rate changes. Similarly, a fund will delta
adjust an option by multiplying the option's unadjusted notional amount
by the option's delta (i.e., the ratio of change in the value of the
option to the change in value of the asset into which the option is
convertible).\256\ The requirement to delta adjust options is designed
to provide for a more tailored notional amount that better reflects the
exposure that an option creates to the underlying reference asset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\254\ See final rule 35d-1(g).
\255\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.80 and
accompanying text; see also Derivatives Adopting Release, supra
footnote 214, at section II.E.1; AFREF Comment Letter (providing
numeric examples of the utility of the proposed adjustments).
\256\ See Derivatives Adopting Release, supra footnote 214, at
n.500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters supported the proposed mandatory notional amount
adjustments, arguing that these adjustments are standardized practices
that will properly account for derivatives instruments' true
exposures.\257\ Other commenters argued that the names rule should
permit, but not require, the proposed adjustments.\258\ These
commenters stated that rule 18f-4 permits the adjustments but does not
require them, and therefore the names rule's approach would permit
funds to benefit from compliance and operational efficiencies.\259\ One
commenter also argued that there is no policy reason for different
treatment between the names rule and rule 18f-4 because the permissive
adjustments in rule 18f-4

[[Page 70460]]

``generate an accurate measure of the exposure created by a particular
derivatives transaction.'' \260\ Another stated that requiring the
proposed adjustments would prevent funds from ``taking a more
conservative approach'' by deciding not to scale down the notional
value of derivatives to their 10-year bond equivalents.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\257\ See AFREF Comment Letter; Center for American Progress
Comment Letter; see also Consumer Federation of America Comment
Letter (stating that it makes sense, for efficiency's sake, for the
names rule to apply the same approach with regards to derivatives
measurement that rule 18f-4 under the Act requires for purposes of
considering funds' derivatives exposure in the context of the rule's
limited derivatives user provision).
\258\ See Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG
Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter.
\259\ See SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter.
\260\ SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\261\ Fidelity Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering comments, we are adopting the proposed mandatory
adjustments. We continue to believe that requiring these tailoring
adjustments is appropriate for purposes of the names rule in order for
a fund's 80% investment policy to best reflect the fund's investment
exposure, which in turn would help ensure that the investment focus a
fund's name communicates is not materially deceptive or
misleading.\262\ For example, a deep out-of-the money option can have a
large unadjusted notional amount, but will provide limited investment
exposure to the underlying reference asset. It would not be consistent
with the goal of requiring notional amounts when assessing names rule
compliance to permit the fund in this example to use such an option's
unadjusted notional amount to satisfy its 80% investment policy
because, even if the option's unadjusted notional amount equaled or
exceeded 80% of the value of the fund's assets, it is not providing a
commensurate degree of investment exposure at that time. While
permitting the adjustments rather than requiring them could allow a
fund to take a ``more conservative'' approach in certain specific cases
as one commenter suggested, it also could permit a fund to account for
derivatives in its names rule compliance in a way that could be
inconsistent with investors' expectations based on the fund's name.
Requiring these adjustments would prevent a fund, for example, from
including a deep out-of-the money option in its 80% basket to comply
with its 80% investment policy. In that case, the option's unadjusted
notional amount would not represent the exposure that the option
creates to the underlying reference asset at that time. This potential
gaming consideration is not applicable in the context of rule 18f-4,
because including high unadjusted notional amounts in a fund's
calculation of derivatives exposure for rule 18f-4 purposes could
result in the possibility only of increased regulatory burden (for a
fund not qualifying as a limited derivatives user under the rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\262\ A fund's use of derivatives that results in a substantial
portion of the fund's risks or returns being materially different
from those which an investor reasonably would expect based on the
fund's name, regardless of the fund's compliance with the
requirements of the names rule (including the use of derivatives'
notional amounts and the required tailoring adjustments) could
render a fund's name to be materially deceptive or misleading. See
infra section II.A.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reducing the Value of a Fund's Assets by Deducting Cash And Cash
Equivalents and Certain U.S. Treasury Securities
The final amendments will permit a fund, in determining compliance
with its 80% investment policy, to deduct cash and cash equivalents and
U.S. Treasury securities with remaining maturities of one year or less
from assets (i.e., the denominator in the 80% calculation), up to the
notional amounts of the fund's derivatives instruments.\263\ This
represents a change from the proposal, which would have limited the
deduction to cash and cash equivalents and would have required, not
permitted, this deduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\263\ Final rule 35d-1(g). The Commission has stated that items
commonly considered to be cash equivalents include certain Treasury
bills, agency securities, bank deposits, commercial paper, and
shares of money market funds. See Proposing Release, supra footnote
2, at n.86. U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (``U.S.
GAAP'') define cash equivalents as short-term, highly liquid
investments that are readily convertible to known amounts of cash
and that are so near their maturity that they present insignificant
risk of changes in value because of changes in interest rates.
Generally, only investments with original maturities of three months
or less qualify under that definition. See FASB Accounting Standards
Codification Master Glossary, available at https://asc.fasb.org/glossary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission stated in the Proposing Release that funds that use
derivatives instruments to gain exposure to the markets in which they
invest may maintain portions of their assets in cash and cash
equivalents, which may not themselves provide market exposure. Rather,
such cash and cash equivalents may effectively function as low-risk
collateral for those derivatives instruments. Because the notional
amount of the derivatives instruments for which the cash and cash
equivalents effectively function as collateral is already included in
the denominator of the 80% investment test, including the cash and cash
equivalents held as such collateral could effectively ``double-count''
the fund's exposure.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\264\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at paragraphs
accompanying nn.84-86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters that addressed this aspect of the proposal generally
supported it and encouraged the Commission to expand the types of
assets that funds may deduct beyond cash and cash equivalents.\265\
Some commenters stated that the Commission should extend the proposed
approach to allow funds to exclude any assets that they have posted as
collateral under derivatives instruments and certain other asset
types.\266\ These commenters provided examples of what this recommended
broader approach would encompass, including other U.S. government
securities such as U.S. Treasury securities with under five years to
maturity, investment-grade corporate bonds with under three years to
maturity, short-term bond fund shares, interests in other short-term
investment funds, and repurchase agreements on cash equivalents or any
of the foregoing types of instruments. One commenter discussed
circumstances in which cash and cash equivalents provide investment
exposure and therefore should not be deducted in a fund's 80%
investment policy calculation, and another commenter suggested that the
deduction of cash and cash equivalents be permissive instead of
mandatory as proposed.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\265\ See Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter;
Dimensional Comment Letter.
\266\ See Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter.
\267\ SIFMA AMG Comment Letter (stating that funds may employ
investment strategies that seek exposure to the U.S. government
through derivative instruments, as well as cash and cash
equivalents, and it would be appropriate to permit cash and cash
equivalents to be included in both the numerator and denominator of
a fund's 80% investment policy calculation when such investments
provide market exposure); T. Rowe Comment Letter (stating that if
the Commission were to adopt the commenter's suggested alternative
approach to the mandatory use of notional amounts, discussed in
supra footnote 243 and accompanying text, this approach would not
require the deduction of cash and cash equivalents to address
potential double-counting of a fund's exposure, but if the
Commission did not adopt the alternative approach, the deduction of
cash and cash equivalents should be permissive and not mandatory).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We agree that the deduction of cash and cash equivalents should be
permissive and not mandatory. For funds that do not employ investment
strategies that seek exposure through investments in cash and cash
equivalents, the decision not to deduct cash and cash equivalents in a
fund's 80% investment policy calculation always would be more
conservative for purposes of meeting the required 80% threshold. That
is, the denominator in the calculation (the fund's assets as defined in
the names rule) for a fund that chooses not to deduct cash and cash
equivalents would always be larger compared to an equivalent fund that
chooses to deduct cash and cash equivalents from its assets. Choosing
not to deduct cash and cash equivalents therefore would require
proportionately more assets in the fund's 80% basket compared to an
equivalent fund that chooses to deduct cash and cash

[[Page 70461]]

equivalents. Moreover, permitting a fund to choose not to deduct cash
and cash equivalents reflects that there are circumstances in which
cash and cash equivalents provide investment exposure that is
consistent with the fund's name.
We also agree that expanding the permissible deduction to encompass
all U.S. Treasury securities with remaining maturities of one year or
less (as opposed to those with original maturities of three months or
less, which would qualify as ``cash equivalents'' for purposes of U.S.
GAAP) would permit funds to exclude certain additional assets that
effectively function as low-risk collateral for derivatives instruments
but that do not introduce unexpected investment exposure or risk to the
portfolio.\268\ U.S. Treasury securities with remaining maturities of
one year or less have a significantly lower likelihood of a short-term
price change (and the magnitude of any price change is likely
significantly lower) than U.S. government securities with longer
original and/or remaining maturities.\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\268\ See supra footnote 263.
\269\ See ISDA, Initial Margin Non-Cleared Margin Rules/Eligible
Collateral Comparison by Jurisdiction (Jan. 5, 2023), available at
https://www.isda.org/a/EqxgE/Eligible-Collateral-Comparison-010523.pdf (haircuts on U.S. debt securities with under 1 year
residual maturity are substantially less than haircuts on U.S. debt
securities with longer maturities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We decline, however, to expand the permissible deduction beyond
cash and cash equivalents and U.S. Treasury securities with remaining
maturities of one year or less. We are concerned that this approach
could result in funds deducting investments from the names rule
calculation that could introduce unexpected investment exposure or risk
to the portfolio. For instance, if a fund with a name that suggests a
focus in bonds with very short-term maturities were to use derivatives
as part of its strategy, and held corporate bonds with longer
maturities than its name suggests, deducting those bonds from the names
rule calculation would result in deducting instruments that may be
riskier than the assets in which the fund's name suggests a focus. The
same consideration applies for Treasury securities with relatively long
original and/or remaining maturities, as these securities similarly can
introduce risk to a portfolio, in particular when interest rates rise.
The deduction of these types of assets could result in the fund's
investments providing investment exposure that is inconsistent with the
fund's name, but is not reflected in names rule compliance assessments,
which could mislead investors. The breadth of funds that could be
subject to the 80% investment policy requirement makes it challenging
to draw clear and consistent lines about what types of collateral--
other than cash and cash equivalents and U.S. Treasury securities with
remaining maturities of one year or less--would not result in
potentially misleading names if deducted from the names rule
calculation.
Deduction of Closed-Out Derivatives Positions
In a change from the proposal, the final amendments provide that a
fund is permitted to exclude any closed-out derivatives positions when
calculating assets for purposes of determining compliance with its 80%
investment policy, if those positions result in no credit or market
exposure to the fund.\270\ The proposed amendments did not address
closed-out derivatives positions directly. However, the 2022 Proposal
included a request for comment asking whether it is sufficiently clear
that funds would eliminate from the names rule calculation closed-out
derivatives positions, that is, derivatives that were closed out with
the same counterparty and result in no credit or market exposure to the
fund, or instead whether the rule should address these positions.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\270\ Final rule 35d-1(g).
\271\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at Request for
Comment #33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several commenters discussed this request for comment and stated
that the Commission should exclude closed-out derivatives positions
from the names rule calculation, but should not limit the exclusion of
closed-out positions to those with the same counterparty.\272\ These
commenters contrasted their suggested treatment with the treatment of
closed-out positions in rule 18f-4 under the Act.\273\ Commenters
recognized that rule 18f-4 does not permit funds to exclude offsetting
positions across different counterparties in calculating derivatives
exposure for purposes of determining whether a fund qualifies as a
limited derivatives user.\274\ Commenters argued that the concerns
underlying the approach in rule 18f-4, however, do not apply for
purposes of the names rule, which is focused ``primarily on addressing
the alignment between the investment exposures suggested by a fund's
name and those resulting from the fund's investments and preventing the
use of misleading fund names.'' \275\ One commenter argued that
limiting excluded closed-out derivatives positions to those with the
same counterparty would lead to economic inefficiencies and could be
detrimental to a fund's returns.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\272\ See Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter; T. Rowe
Comment Letter; see also SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\273\ See rule 18f-4(a).
\274\ See Derivatives Adopting Release, supra footnote 214, at
section II.E.
\275\ Dechert Comment Letter; see also supra footnote 270.
\276\ Dechert Comment Letter (suggesting that under the proposed
approach, ``a fund might be compelled to transact with the
counterparty with which it entered in the original derivatives
transaction on less favorable terms, including pricing, or which
poses more credit risk to the fund, than a different counterparty
with which it could enter into an offsetting position at the time it
needs to eliminate its exposure under the first transaction'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final amendments permit funds to exclude closed-out derivatives
positions from the names rule calculation if those positions result in
no market exposure to the fund because these closed-out positions will
not affect the fund's risks or returns. We agree that the concerns
underlying rule 18f-4's provision on closed-out derivatives positions
are not the same concerns underlying the names rule. Rule 18f-4 does
not permit a fund to offset derivatives transactions with different
counterparties for purposes of determining whether a fund qualifies as
a limited derivatives user under that rule because netting these
derivatives transactions could result in a fund having a large volume
of open derivatives positions subject to their own margin and other
requirements with various counterparties. This, in turn, could involve
a scale of derivatives positions and related operational and
counterparty risks that the Commission has stated it believes funds
should manage as part of a derivatives risk management program. The
goals of the names rule, on the other hand, address whether the
exposures that a fund's portfolio creates align with the focus that the
fund's name suggests. Reflecting these exposures for purposes of
calculating names rule compliance does not depend on requiring offset
positions to have the same counterparties. The final amendments,
therefore, do not require that closed-out positions to be closed out
with the same counterparty in order for a fund to exclude them from the
calculation of its assets.
Derivatives Instruments Included in the 80% Basket
The final amendments, substantially as proposed, permit a fund to
include in its 80% basket a derivatives instrument that provides
investment exposure to one or more of the market risk factors
associated with the investment focus

[[Page 70462]]

suggested by the fund's name.\277\ This approach recognizes that, in
addition to using derivatives as direct substitutes for cash market
investments, some funds use derivatives instruments to hedge exposures
or to obtain exposure to market risk factors associated with the fund's
investments (for example, interest rate risk and credit spread risk).
Those instruments may have very high notional amounts, and if the rule
did not allow funds to treat the notional amounts of those derivatives
instruments as investments that reflect the fund's investment focus,
the notional amounts of those derivatives instruments could cause a
fund to fall out of compliance with its 80% investment policy.\278\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\277\ Rule 35d-1(b)(2).
\278\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at paragraphs
following paragraph accompanying n.86. For example, if ABC Bond Fund
invested $100 in bonds, $100 in interest rate swaps, and held no
other assets, the fund would not satisfy its 80% investment policy
if the interest rate swaps were not included in the fund's 80%
basket ($100 in bonds/$100 in bonds + $100 in swaps = 50%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters expressed support for the proposed approach, as it
recognizes that funds often use derivatives instruments to provide
complementary investment exposure to the investments suggested by a
fund's name, including exposure to the market risk factors associated
with such investments.\279\ Some commenters requested that the
Commission acknowledge that funds may consider all derivatives that
provide exposure to market risk factors associated with investments
suggested by a fund name when testing names rule compliance, not just
those enumerated risk factors discussed in the Proposing Release.\280\
Another commenter requested that the Commission expand the types of
derivatives hedging instruments that may be included in a fund's 80%
investment policy by allowing derivatives transactions that hedge the
risks associated with one or more securities held by a fund,
notwithstanding whether they are intended to hedge market risk factors
associated with the investments suggested by the fund's name.\281\ This
commenter provided as an example funds that invest in mortgage pass-
through securities, which commonly use U.S. Treasury futures and
options to hedge against the impact of mortgage prepayments on the
fund's duration (stating that using derivatives to manage duration in
this manner may not align with the investments suggested in a fund's
name or provide investment exposure to a market risk factor associated
with an investment suggested by a fund's name).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\279\ See SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter;
Fidelity Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter.
\280\ See ICI Comment Letter; see also SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
Dechert Comment Letter; see also Proposing Release, supra footnote
2, at section II.A.3 (discussing funds' use of derivatives to obtain
exposure to market risk factors associated with the fund's
investments, for example interest rate risk, credit spread risk, and
foreign currency risk).
\281\ Fidelity Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering comments, the final amendments do not expand the
derivatives that may be included in a fund's 80% basket beyond the
proposed approach. Under the proposed approach, the derivatives
instruments included in a fund's 80% basket would either be functioning
as a substitute for direct investments in the securities suggested by
the fund's name or (in the case of, for example, interest rate
derivatives) used to facilitate the fund's investment in those
securities by increasing or decreasing the fund's exposure to risk
factors associated with those securities. On the other hand,
derivatives used to manage the risks of the fund's portfolio as a whole
can involve more complex hedging activities than transactions that
provide investment exposure to one or more of the market risk factors
associated with investments suggested by the fund's name.\282\ This, in
turn, could create exposures that could be inconsistent with investors'
reasonable expectations of the fund's investment activity.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\282\ See Derivatives Adopting Release, supra footnote 194, at
n.530 and accompanying text.
\283\ Including derivatives in the 80% basket to the extent that
they negate the primary market risk factor associated with the
assets in which the fund's name suggests an investment focus
similarly could result in a fund's name being materially deceptive
and misleading, notwithstanding the fund's adoption of an 80%
investment policy and compliance with the requirements of the names
rule. See supra footnote 262. For example, investors may reasonably
expect the investments in which the ``XYZ Corporate Bond Fund''
focuses to reflect exposure to certain risks, such as credit risk.
If this fund were to purchase credit default swaps or any other
derivatives instruments that resulted in the elimination of all
credit risk in its portfolio for an extended period of time, and
were to include these derivatives in the fund's 80% basket, the
fund's name could be materially deceptive and misleading because the
fund would have eliminated the primary market risk factor associated
with the assets in which the fund's name suggests a focus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We acknowledge that there may be transactions other than the ones
that the Commission specifically addressed in the Proposing Release
that provide investment exposure to one or more of the market risk
factors associated with investments suggested by the fund's name, and
the examples the Commission provided are not intended to be limiting.
To help determine whether a derivatives instrument provides investment
exposure to one or more of the market risk factors associated with a
fund's name assets, the fund generally should consider whether the
derivative provides investment exposure to any explicit input that the
fund uses to value its name assets, where a change in that input would
change the value of the security.\284\ For example, prepayment is an
explicit risk factor in the price of a mortgage security, and
therefore, in contrast to the concern that a commenter expressed, it
would generally be appropriate for a fund whose name indicates a focus
in mortgage securities to include derivatives in its 80% basket that
manage the prepayment risk of these securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\284\ See Good Faith Determinations of Fair Value, Investment
Company Act Release No. 34128 (Dec. 3, 2020) [86 FR 748 (Jan. 6,
2021)] (for a general discussion of valuation practices with respect
to the fair value of a registered investment company or business
development company).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treatment of Short Positions
Under the final amendments and as proposed, if a fund were to use
derivatives instruments to obtain exposure to short positions in one or
more reference assets, the fund would have to use these derivatives
instruments' notional amounts for purposes of determining compliance
with its 80% investment policy. That is, these investments would be
valued at their notional amounts in the denominator in all cases, and
at their notional amounts in the numerator where the fund includes
investments that provide short exposure in the numerator. The final
amendments, in a change from the proposal, also specify that a fund
must value each physical short position using the value of the asset
sold short.\285\ For example, if a fund sold short one share of a
security for $100, the market value of the position would be $0 at that
time because the fund has $100 in short sale proceeds but also a
liability in the form of the obligation to return a share worth $100.
If the fund had obtained the same short exposure via a swap, the
notional amount would be $100. Valuing the physical short position at
$100 for purposes of the names rule--the value of the asset sold
short--provides comparable values for names rule purposes for the swap
and physical short sale in this example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\285\ Final rule 35d-1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2022 Proposal included a request for comment asking about
funds' current practices with respect to including short positions in
their 80% baskets, and also whether the Commission should address the
valuation of physical short sales for purposes of assessing names

[[Page 70463]]

rule compliance. Commenters who discussed these points advocated for
the Commission explicitly to permit funds to include short positions in
derivatives and physical short sales in their 80% baskets and to
address the valuation of physical short sales.\286\ They stated that
the Commission should adopt an approach that permits, but does not
require, funds to include in their 80% baskets short positions in
derivatives and physical short sales, where each of these provides
short exposure to the investments suggested by the fund's name or to
the market risk factors associated with those investments in their 80%
baskets, regardless of whether the fund's name specifically suggests
the use of short sales or short positions. Commenters stated that many
funds currently take this approach when assessing names rule
compliance.\287\ One commenter stated that funds use both long and
short positions to obtain exposures suggested by a fund's name, and
this commenter argued that the suggested approach would be consistent
with the proposed approach of including derivatives instruments that
provide investment exposure to a market risk factor associated with a
fund's name.\288\ In addressing the valuation of physical short
positions, commenters suggested that the Commission should permit funds
to use the absolute notional amount or the absolute market value of the
asset sold short under a physical short sale for purposes of valuing
such transaction for names rule compliance.\289\ In addition, they also
suggested a fund should be permitted to look through to the components
of its open short sale positions to offset their investment exposure
(i.e., the fund should be able to close out all or part of a short sale
position) for purposes of compliance with its 80% investment policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\286\ See ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Dechert
Comment Letter.
\287\ ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter.
\288\ ICI Comment Letter.
\289\ ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; see also SIFMA
AMG Comment Letter (stating that, with respect to short positions,
whether accomplished through the use of derivatives instruments or
the physical short sale of a security or other asset, the Commission
should require that funds use the notional value of such positions
for purposes of determining names rule compliance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We agree that short positions, under certain circumstances, may
qualify as investments that a fund may include in its 80% basket. For
example, if a fund's name indicates that its investment focus includes
short exposure to a particular type of investment, this inclusion would
be appropriate. In other circumstances, however, the inclusion of short
positions would not be appropriate where this would result in the
fund's economic exposure departing significantly from investors'
reasonable expectations based on the fund's name. For example, if a
fund were named the ``XYZ Equity Fund,'' and half of the value of its
80% basket were invested in long equity positions, and the other half
were invested in short equity positions, the portfolio's net exposure
would likely not be consistent with investors' expectations based on
the fund's name.
We agree that, to better reflect the exposures that physical short
sales provide, the rule should address the valuation of physical short
sales and use an approach where their valuation is consistent with the
valuation of short positions obtained through a fund's use of
derivatives. We are therefore adopting a change to the proposed
definition of ``assets'' in the names rule, which specifies that a fund
must value each physical short position using the value of the asset
sold short.\290\ A fund would be able to reduce the value of its assets
by excluding any cash and cash equivalents, and U.S. Treasury
securities with remaining maturities of one year or less, up to the
notional amount of the value of asset(s) sold short, just as a fund
could exclude any cash and cash equivalents and such U.S. Treasury
securities up to the notional amount of the fund's derivatives
instruments, as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\290\ This approach is consistent with the valuation of physical
short positions in rule 18f-4 under the Act. See definition of
``derivatives exposure'' in rule 18f-4(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Unlisted Registered Closed-End Funds and BDCs
The final rule will prohibit a registered closed-end fund or BDC
whose shares are not listed on a national securities exchange, and that
is required to adopt an 80% investment policy, from changing that
policy unless authorized by a vote of the majority of the outstanding
voting securities of the fund.\291\ However, in a modification from the
proposal, under the final amendments such funds will be permitted to
make changes to their 80% investment policies without this vote if the
fund conducts a tender or repurchase offer in advance of the change,
the fund provides at least 60 days' prior notice of any change in the
policy in advance of that offer, that offer is not oversubscribed, and
the fund purchases shares at their net asset value.\292\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\291\ Final rule 35d-1(f). This approach has the same practical
effect as the proposed approach, which would have required these
funds to adopt their 80% investment policies as fundamental policies
(policies that funds cannot change unless authorized by a vote of a
majority of its outstanding voting securities). See proposed rule
35d-1(a)(2)(ii); see also 15 U.S.C. 80a-13(a)(3).
\292\ Final rule 35d-1(f)(4) (specifying that, in the event of a
tender offer, the fund purchases shares at their net asset value).
This provision in final rule 35d-1 addresses tender offers but does
not specifically address the price at which repurchase offers must
be conducted for a fund to be eligible for this exception because
the Investment Company Act rules already address the price (net
asset value) at which closed-end funds and business development
companies conducting periodic repurchase offers are required to
repurchase shares. See 17 CFR 270.23c-3 (``rule 23c-3''),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters voiced general support for this element of the
proposal, stating that it was an improvement from the current rule,
whereby investors in these products generally have limited or no ready
recourse if a fund were to change its investment policy, and that it
would empower investors.\293\ Conversely, other commenters raised
concerns regarding the proposed requirement, arguing that it would
impede the ability of funds to change their investment strategies
without conducting costly special shareholder votes.\294\ This,
according to commenters, could place these funds at a competitive
disadvantage relative to other funds.\295\ Furthermore, some commenters
expressed that the requirement was unnecessary because it did not seem
to address any identified harm to investors in these funds, stating
that many closed-end funds and BDCs currently offer tender offer and
repurchase programs as periodic sources of liquidity, and that
investors in these products are already on notice through existing
disclosures of any potential liquidity constraints.\296\ Some
commenters also suggested that a blanket requirement on BDCs to adopt a
fundamental policy was contrary to the congressional intent behind
exempting BDCs from Investment Company Act provisions that otherwise
require funds to disclose and have a shareholder vote on changes in
fundamental policies.\297\ Some commenters suggested alternative
approaches to address these concerns but also achieve the goals of the
proposed amendments. For example, commenters suggested that the
Commission require a vote only when all shareholders are not given an
opportunity to sell or tender their shares back to the issuer after
notice of a

[[Page 70464]]

change in the 80% investment policy, or require a shareholder vote only
in the event that the next tender offer or repurchase program after
such notice is oversubscribed.\298\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\293\ Better Markets Comment Letter; NASAA Comment Letter.
\294\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter;
SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Simpson Thacher and
Bartlett, LLP (Aug. 30, 2022) (``Simpson Thacher Comment Letter'').
\295\ SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter.
\296\ SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Simpson Thacher Comment Letter.
\297\ Stradley Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter.
\298\ See Dechert Comment Letter; Simpson Thacher Comment
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an alternative to the requirement to make their 80% policies
fundamental policies, the current names rule permits funds other than
tax-exempt funds to provide shareholders with 60 days' prior notice of
such changes. The Commission permitted funds to provide shareholders
advance notice, in lieu of adopting a fundamental policy, because the
advance notice would provide shareholders with sufficient time to
decide whether to redeem their shares in the event that a fund decides
to pursue a strategy involving a different investment focus.\299\
Unlike other funds subject to the rule, however, unlisted registered
closed-end funds and BDCs do not issue redeemable shares or list their
shares on a national securities exchange. As a result, shareholders in
the affected funds generally have no ready recourse, such as the
ability to redeem shares, if a fund were to change its investment
policy and the investment focus that the fund's name indicates.\300\ In
light of these investors' limited options to sell their shares readily,
the proposed fundamental policy requirement for unlisted registered
closed-end funds and BDCs aimed to ensure that investors in these funds
would be able to vote on any changes to a fund's investment policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\299\ 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8, at
n.19 and accompanying text.
\300\ See also Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.99. For
example, many of the tender offer and repurchase programs currently
offered by unlisted registered closed-end funds and BDCs are
periodic and limited, and are therefore unlikely to provide recourse
where a large percentage of a fund's investors disapprove of a
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering comments, we do not agree that extending the
notice period, as some commenters suggested, is a sufficient substitute
to respond to the concerns that the proposed approach was designed to
address.\301\ We recognize, however, that there could be alternative
approaches to the proposed requirement that could address the
Commission's concerns while decreasing the operational burdens that
would accompany a requirement to conduct a shareholder vote for every
instance in which a fund changes its 80% investment policy. We also
recognize that where a fund does in fact give its investors the
opportunity to sell their shares in connection with a fund's change of
its 80% investment policy, the fund alleviates the concern that
investors will be forced to hold investments that they wish to sell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\301\ See, e.g., Invesco Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter. But
see NASAA Comment Letter (stating that a longer notice period would
be insufficient as it would not provide investors a voice in these
decisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final amendments include a limited exception to the shareholder
approval requirement for funds that conduct qualifying tender or
repurchase offers in advance of a proposed change in policy.\302\ This
exception is intended to function in a similar manner to the rule's
general notice alternative by giving investors in unlisted registered
closed-end funds and BDCs that use this alternative the opportunity to
exit the fund prior to a fund's change in investment policy. This
exception will provide funds with increased optionality in effecting
changes to their investment policies compared to the proposed approach,
and this approach is designed to mitigate commenter concerns that the
proposed fundamental policy requirement would have put unlisted
registered closed-end funds and BDCs at a competitive disadvantage
against other types of funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\302\ The final amendments do not frame the requirement to
obtain shareholder approval under certain circumstances as the
requirement to adopt a ``fundamental policy.'' See supra footnote
297 and accompanying text (discussing commenters' concerns about the
proposed approach that would require BDCs to adopt fundamental
policies). While the final amendments do retain the requirement to
obtain a shareholder vote under certain circumstances, which the
proposed approach effectively would have required, we believe that
this is an appropriate use of the Commission's authority under
section 35(d), and in light of the fact that the requirement to seek
a shareholder vote under the final amendments is triggered only
where a fund chooses a name that conveys a particular investment
focus. We also believe this is appropriate in the context of unique
investor protection concerns for investors in unlisted funds
including BDCs resulting from the general lack of readily available
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be eligible for this exception, a fund must conduct a tender or
repurchase offer in accordance with all applicable Commission rules
prior to any change in policy and provide shareholders with at least 60
days' prior notice of any change in such policy in advance of the
offer. In the case of tender offers, a fund must purchase shares at NAV
in order to be eligible for the exception. The exception applies only
insofar as the tender or repurchase offer is not oversubscribed.\303\
If a tender or repurchase offer is oversubscribed, suggesting that the
shareholders are not supportive of the change, a fund therefore would
then be required to conduct a shareholder vote prior to making the
change to its investment policy that the notice describes, in
accordance with the final rule. This change also gives a fund
discretion to determine the number of shares it is willing to
repurchase from shareholders after the notice of the change, in
accordance with all applicable Commission rules. This will permit fund
managers to weigh the risk of oversubscription, and the resulting need
to have a special shareholder meeting to vote on the change, against
the amount of liquidity they are willing to provide to shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\303\ ``Oversubscribed'' in this case means shareholders have
tendered or requested repurchase of a greater number of shares than
the fund has offered to purchase (or ultimately purchases) in
accordance with applicable Commission rules including rule 13e-4
under the Exchange Act and rule 23c-3 under the Investment Company
Act. See final rule 35d-1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Effect of Compliance With an 80% Investment Policy
We are adopting, substantially as proposed, a new provision in the
names rule providing that a fund's name may be materially deceptive or
misleading under section 35(d) of the Investment Company Act even if
the fund adopts and implements an 80% investment policy and otherwise
complies with the rule's requirement to adopt and implement the
policy.\304\ The Commission has previously stated that the names rule's
80% investment policy requirement is not intended to create a safe
harbor from liability under section 35(d) for materially deceptive or
misleading fund names, and we are codifying this view to make clear
that a fund name may be materially deceptive or misleading even where
the fund complies with its 80% investment policy.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\304\ Final rule 35d-1(c). In addition, the anti-fraud
provisions of the Federal securities laws regarding disclosures to
investors continue to apply to funds notwithstanding their
compliance with the names rule.
\305\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many commenters supported this aspect of the proposal.\306\ Some
commenters asserted that the codification is particularly important for
fund names that articulate an ESG focus.\307\ One commenter urged the
Commission to require funds that use ESG terms in their name to state
clearly and prominently what percent of the fund is invested in
securities that do not

[[Page 70465]]

comply with the investment criteria for the 80% basket.\308\ Other
commenters suggested that fund names that imply a prohibition or
absence of investments or issuers with certain characteristics should
have an investment policy that prohibits these investments.\309\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\306\ See, e.g., Better Markets Comment Letter; CFA Institute
Comment Letter; Sierra Club Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter;
U.S. SIF Comment Letter.
\307\ See, e.g., PRI Comment Letter; Comment Letter of As You
Sow (Aug. 15, 2022) (``As You Sow Comment Letter''); Comment Letter
of Blue Haven Initiative (Aug. 16, 2022) (``Blue Haven Comment
Letter''); Comment Letter of Building a Sustainable Investment
Community Comment Letter (Aug. 15, 2022) (``Building a Sustainable
Investment Community Comment Letter'').
\308\ Comment Letter of Corey Shapiro (Aug. 16, 2022) (``Shapiro
Comment Letter'').
\309\ See, e.g., CFA Institute Comment Letter; As You Sow
Comment Letter; Blue Haven Comment Letter; Bonwood Comment Letter;
Comment Letter of Change Finance (Aug. 15, 2022) (``Change Finance
Comment Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several commenters, however, suggested that the Commission should
provide more clarity or define precisely what types of investments
would be considered inconsistent with the fund's name to the degree
that the name would be materially deceptive or misleading despite the
fund's compliance with an 80% investment policy.\310\ In response to an
example in the 2022 Proposal that a fund that complies with the names
rule but makes a substantial investment that is ``antithetical'' to the
fund's investment focus would have a materially deceptive or misleading
name, commenters expressed that the proposed provision poses
significant risks of second-guessing because evaluating whether an
investment is antithetical to a fund's name is highly subjective.\311\
Commenters also suggested that the uncertainty related to the provision
would decrease portfolio management discretion and flexibility in
managing the fund's portfolio, as this uncertainty would give rise to
concern about violating the rule.\312\ A few commenters asserted that
absent a claim in a fund's name that the fund will not invest in a
particular type of investment, a fund should have flexibility as long
as it discloses how it will invest its 20% basket.\313\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\310\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
Dechert Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment Letter; PRI Comment
Letter.
\311\ See, e.g., J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter;
Federated Hermes Comment Letter; Stradley Comment Letter; see also
Fidelity Comment Letter (expressing particular concern with the
statements provided in the 2022 Proposal, asserting that ``the
current regulatory landscape, which requires certain specific
disclosures under Form N-1A and provides for further registration
statement liability through other securities laws, appropriately
addresses any potential liability for material omissions or
misstatements in the registration statement'').
\312\ See, e.g., MFS Comment Letter; Stradley Comment Letter;
Capital Group Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter (stating that
``the 20% portion of the fund's portfolio that is not subject to the
Names Rule is a diversification tool in managing fund assets'').
\313\ See SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; MFS Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering the comments on the proposed provision, we
continue to believe that a fund's name could be materially deceptive or
misleading for purposes of section 35(d) even if that fund has complied
with the names rule's 80% investment policy requirement. For example, a
fund's name could be materially deceptive or misleading for purposes of
section 35(d) if the fund invests in a way such that the source of a
substantial portion of the fund's risks or returns is materially
different from that which an investor reasonably would expect based on
the fund's name, regardless of the fund's compliance with the
requirements of the names rule (e.g., a ``green energy and fossil fuel-
free'' fund making a substantial investment in an issuer with fossil
fuel reserves, or a ``conservative income bond'' fund using the 20%
basket to invest in highly volatile equity securities that introduce
significant volatility into a fund that investors would expect to have
lower levels of volatility associated with lower-yielding bonds).\314\
To the extent a fund uses its 20% basket to invest in assets that are
materially inconsistent with the investment focus or risk profile
reflected by the fund's name, the fund's name would be materially
deceptive or misleading under section 35(d). While we appreciate
commenters' expressed concerns, the provision is designed to codify the
existing relationship between the names rule and section 35(d) and not
to create new requirements or standards with respect to the selection
of investments in a fund's 20% basket that are not now present. For
these reasons, this provision will not require certain disclosures
related to the percent of a fund's assets invested in securities that
do not comply with the investment criteria for the 80% basket, nor will
this provision include an explicit prohibition on investments that are
inconsistent with the activity that a fund's name communicates, as
suggested by a few commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\314\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2. As another
example, a fund that is perpetually out of compliance with the 80%
investment requirement on account of temporary departures may have a
name that is materially deceptive or misleading under section 35(d)
even if each temporary departure is permissible under the rule. Id.
Further, as discussed above, a fund of funds or other acquiring fund
can reasonably rely upon the entire value of its investment in an
appropriate acquired fund as a general matter. See supra paragraph
following paragraph accompanying footnotes 139-140. However, if an
acquiring fund was aware that an underlying fund has changed its
investments such that it is not following the acquiring fund's
investment focus, that acquiring fund's name may be materially
misleading or deceptive if it continues to include the value of the
investment in the acquired fund in its 80% basket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relatedly, the 2022 Proposal discussed situations where a fund may
be invested 80% or more in a market index referenced in the fund's
name, but that underlying index may have components that are
contradictory to the index's name.\315\ In such circumstances, even
though the fund meets the names rule requirements by its investments in
the index, the name could still be materially misleading or deceptive
in that the index's name would suggest an investment focus that the
fund does not follow. A few commenters agreed that this example could
lead to materially deceptive or misleading fund names, asserting that
terms used in the name of index funds can communicate an investment
focus to investors, therefore such funds should not be allowed to
circumvent the technical holding requirements of the names rule.\316\
Other commenters, however, expressed that index funds should not be
required to determine compliance with an 80% investment policy
regarding investments that the name of an index indicates, but rather
the fund should comply with the rule by investing 80% of its assets in
the components of the underlying index.\317\ Some of these commenters
expressed that fund managers may have visibility into index
methodologies, but they do not determine the particular investments
that an index includes, making it challenging to deviate from an index
if their principal objective is to track its returns.\318\ In addition,
some commenters suggested that applying the rule to index funds in the
manner the Commission's example described could increase tracking error
between index funds and indices, while increasing costs and the
likelihood of potential confusion for investors if funds have to
deviate from the methodologies of the underlying index.\319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\315\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.102 and
accompanying discussion.
\316\ PIABA Comment Letter; Dogwhistle Comment Letter.
\317\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
Dechert Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter; Invesco Comment
Letter.
\318\ See SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; BlackRock Comment Letter;
Dechert Comment Letter (stating that ``[w]hile fund sponsors conduct
initial and ongoing periodic due diligence on index providers, index
funds rely upon the index providers, on a daily basis, to construct
the index. Funds make clear disclosures concerning their use of
indices, and we believe investors have established a clear
understanding of how index funds operate in the decades since their
introduction'').
\319\ See Comment Letter of State Street Global Advisors (Aug.
16, 2022) (``State Street Comment Letter''); ICI Comment Letter;
WisdomTree Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We continue to believe that a fund that is invested 80% or more in
an index included in the fund's name can be materially deceptive and
misleading if a meaningful nexus does not exist

[[Page 70466]]

between the components of the underlying index and the investment focus
suggested by the index's name.\320\ We acknowledge that many investors
that invest in index funds are seeking exposure to a particular index
and that funds will have names that reflect the index that they track.
However, terms used in fund names, including index funds, can
communicate an investment focus that creates a reasonable expectation
among investors that the fund will hold investments that support that
focus. While we recognize the practical constraints and potential for
investor confusion raised by commenters, we believe permitting index
funds not to consider the relationship between the terms in their name
and the investment focus such terms convey undermines the investment
protection concerns that underlie the names rule and section 35(d). If
a fund's name indicates an investment focus, such as investments in a
specified industry, investors reasonably will expect that there is a
meaningful nexus between fund's investments and the fund's investment
focus--regardless of whether the fund executes its strategy by
selecting companies in the specified industry or tracking an index that
identifies such companies. As a result, consistent with rule 38a-1,
index funds should generally adopt and implement written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that indexes selected by a
fund do not have materially misleading or deceptive names
themselves.\321\ While index funds should generally implement written
policies and procedures ensuring that they comply with the requirements
of section 35(d), in response to commenters, we are confirming that the
terms in a market index referenced in an index fund's name would not be
subject to an 80% investment policy test that would be in addition to
the fund's policy to invest at least 80% of its assets in the index's
components required under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\320\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.102 and
accompanying discussion.
\321\ See supra footnote 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Prospectus Disclosure Defining Terms Used in Fund Name

We are adopting amendments to funds' registration forms--
specifically, Form N-1A, Form N-2, Form N-8B-2, and Form S-6--that each
fund that is required to adopt and implement an 80% investment policy
must include disclosure in its prospectus that defines the terms used
in its name, including the specific criteria the fund uses to select
the investments that the term describes, if any.\322\ We are also
adopting a requirement that funds must tag most of the new information
that will be included under the final amendments, using a structured
data language (specifically Inline eXtensible Business Reporting
Language or ``Inline XBRL'').\323\ The final amendments are designed to
help investors better understand how the fund's investment strategies
correspond with the investment focus that the fund's name suggests, as
well as to provide additional information about how the fund's
management seeks to achieve the fund's objective. We are adopting these
amendments substantially as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\322\ See instructions to Item 4(a)(1) and Item 9(b)(1) of Form
N-1A; instruction to Item 8(2) of Form N-2; and instruction to Item
11 of Form N-8B-2.
\323\ See General Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A; General
Instruction I of Form N-2; General Instruction 2.(l) of Form N-8B-2;
and General Instruction 5 of Form S-6. For purposes of the final
disclosure requirements, ``terms'' mean any word or phrase used in a
fund's name, other than any trade name of the fund or its adviser,
related to the fund's investment focus or strategies. However, words
like ``fund'' or ``portfolio'' in a fund's name do not describe an
investment focus or strategy and do not need to be defined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters generally supported the proposed prospectus disclosure
requirements.\324\ We did not receive any comments opposing this
proposed requirement. In particular, the Commission received comments
supporting the proposal's approach that allows funds the flexibility to
use reasonable definitions when defining the terms in their names, as
there may be more than one reasonable definition for a particular
term.\325\ Commenters also supported requiring funds to disclose the
specific, non-proprietary criteria used to select the investment terms
used in the fund's name.\326\ Without this proposed disclosure, these
commenters stated, funds are not required to convey the key information
about the fund's holdings, risks, characteristics, or strategies
associated with the fund's 80% investment policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\324\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; CFA Institute Comment
Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Public Citizen Comment Letter;
Comment Letter of IRI (Aug. 16, 2022) (``IRI Comment Letter'');
Fidelity Comment Letter; LTSE Comment Letter.
\325\ See, e.g., ICI Comment letter; CFA Institute Comment
Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\326\ See, e.g., CFA Institute Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final prospectus disclosure requirements will provide investors
with important information to determine whether a particular investment
meets an investor's needs and goals. These requirements are additive to
current names rule and other disclosure requirements.\327\ Despite the
protections afforded by the Commission's anti-fraud rules, the final
prospectus disclosure requirements will help ensure that investors are
given important information about how a fund manager understands how
the terms used in the fund's name connect to the fund's 80% investment
policy.\328\ These funds must disclose in their prospectuses the
specific criteria used by the fund to select these investments.
Understanding how terms used in a fund's name are understood by the
fund's investment manager is key information that an investor needs to
make an investment decision, as this will help the investor understand
whether the investment focus the name suggests is consistent with the
investor's investment goals and risk tolerance. There are many types of
fund names for which understanding additional detail about how these
terms are defined would provide greater clarity to an investor about
the investment focus that the name suggests.\329\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\327\ However, the names rule does currently include this
requirement for funds with names suggesting investment in particular
countries or geographic regions. The final amendments replace this
provision with a general requirement to define terms used in the
fund's name whenever the fund's name suggest an investment focus
requiring an 80% investment policy.
\328\ See, e.g., Public Citizen Comment Letter.
\329\ See supra section I.B (discussing growth in the breadth of
fund investment strategies over the past two decades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We understand, based on staff experience with fund disclosure, that
it is currently common practice for funds to include prospectus
disclosure that describes the fund's 80% investment policy and that
defines the terms in the fund's name.\330\ The amendments we are
adopting codify certain best practices of some funds that currently
provide disclosure defining terms used in a fund's name. The disclosure
requirement, however, does not otherwise alter or address disclosure
that funds currently provide, for example in response to prospectus

[[Page 70467]]

disclosure requirements regarding the fund's investment policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\330\ When the Commission adopted the names rule in 2001, the
Commission stated that a fund that is subject to the rule's 80%
investment policy requirement should disclose this policy as one of
its principal investment strategies in its prospectus. See 2001
Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8, at nn.15 and 43; see
also section 8(b) of the Act (requiring a registered investment
company's registration statement to contain certain information,
including a recital of its investment policies); Fidelity Comment
Letter (stating that it is currently common practice for mutual
funds to include prospectus disclosure that describes the fund's 80%
policies and defines any terms that their names include in plain
English, including funds whose names do not currently require such
disclosures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, we are modifying the proposed disclosure requirement
for open-end funds registered on Form N-1A to provide that definitions
of terms in the fund's name must be summarized in the summary section
of the prospectus and disclosed in the statutory prospectus.\331\ We
proposed to require funds to provide this disclosure solely in the
summary section of the prospectus. The modifications in the final
amendments reflect that the principal investment strategies disclosure
in the summary section of the prospectus is intended to summarize
disclosure that appears later in the statutory prospectus.
Specifically, the Form N-1A requirement for principal investment
strategies disclosure that appears in the summary prospectus (Item 4(a)
of Form N-1A) provides that, based on the information given in response
to the Form N-1A requirement for principal investment strategies
disclosure that appears in the statutory prospectus (Item 9(b) of Form
N-1A), a fund must summarize how it intends to achieve its investment
objectives by identifying the fund's principal investment strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\331\ See Instruction to Item 4(a)(1) of Form N-1A; Instruction
8 to Item 9(b)(1) of Form N-1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds have flexibility to use reasonable definitions of the terms
that their names use. A fund's use of reasonable definitions of the
terms used in the fund's name under the final rule, however, may not be
inconsistent with their plain English meaning or established industry
use.\332\ As discussed above, what constitutes ``reasonable'' in
context could vary depending on the fund name, but requires that
definition have a meaningful nexus between the term used in the fund's
name and the fund's investment focus.\333\ For instance, when the
investment focus relates to an industry, we recognize that there are
different approaches a fund could take to determine if a given security
is tied to the economic fortunes and risks associated with the named
industry. As there could be multiple reasonable definitions of the same
term that multiple funds use in their names, each fund required to
adopt an 80% investment policy must disclose how it interprets these
terms to help investors better distinguish among funds.\334\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\332\ See final rule 35d-1(a)(2)(iii) and 35d-1(a)(3)(ii); see
also Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at text following n.112.
\333\ See supra section II.A.1.c). Commission staff could
request information from the fund regarding the fund's basis for
determining that the fund name is sufficiently consistent with the
definitions provided, just as staff currently may request
information from a fund to support its disclosure reflecting the
fund's compliance with various provisions of the Act and rules
thereunder.
\334\ This disclosure, like other disclosure in funds'
prospectuses, should avoid ``excessive detail, technical or legal
terminology, and complex language.'' See General Instruction C.1.(c)
to Form N-1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As proposed, we are requiring that all funds subject to the new
prospectus disclosure requirements tag information we are requiring
funds to disclose on their registration forms in a structured, machine-
readable data language, specifically Inline XBRL.\335\ We received a
comment supporting the proposed Inline XBRL tagging requirement,
stating that the XBRL standard is well-suited to narrative disclosures
and will enhance the ability of those interested in using the data to
extract disclosures quickly and to compare disclosures across entities
more easily.\336\ One commenter discussed that, as the Commission
recognized in the Proposing Release, the proposed Inline XBRL tagging
requirement would be new for UITs, as UITs are not currently subject to
structured data tagging requirements.\337\ This commenter requested
that the Commission except UITs from the Inline XBRL tagging
requirement, as most UIT unitholders are not familiar with Inline XBRL
and introducing this requirement to UITs would be costly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\335\ Many funds are already required to tag certain
registration statement disclosure items using Inline XBRL. See
Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.115.
\336\ See Comment Letter of XBRL US (Aug. 16, 2022) (``XBRL
Comment Letter''); but see SIFMA AMG Comment Letter (stating that
the costs associated with Inline XBRL tagging as proposed would be
significant).
\337\ See, e.g., Invesco Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are adopting the Inline XBRL tagging requirements substantially
as proposed.\338\ These requirements include block text tagging of
narrative information about a fund's 80% investment policy and the
terms used in its name, including the specific criteria the fund uses
to select the investments that the term describes, if any.\339\ Many
funds are already required to tag certain registration statement
disclosure items using Inline XBRL. While UITs do not currently have
experience with tagging in Inline XBRL, after considering comments
received, we are adopting the proposed requirements because we
anticipate that tagging names rule disclosure for all funds that are
subject to this disclosure requirement will benefit investors, other
market participants, and the Commission by making the tagged
disclosures more readily available and easily accessible for
aggregation, comparison, filtering, and other analysis.\340\ This
requirement will enable automated extraction and analysis of granular
data about how funds are defining the terms used in their names,
allowing investors and other market participants to more efficiently
perform large-scale analysis and comparison across funds and time
periods. An Inline XBRL requirement facilitates other analytical
benefits, such as more easily extracting and searching disclosures
about funds' names and their 80% investment policies (rather than
having to manually run searches for these disclosures through entire
documents), and automatically comparing these disclosures against prior
periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\338\ While the proposal did not distinguish between names-
related information that open-end funds would disclose in their
summary prospectuses versus their statutory prospectuses, the final
amendments do make this distinction. See supra paragraph
accompanying footnote 331 and accompanying text. Only the summary
prospectus disclosure would be tagged in Inline XBRL format;
however, the disclosure that open-end funds provide in their
statutory prospectuses also would be reported on Form N-PORT, where
it would be tagged in XML format. See infra section II.E.2.
\339\ This tagging requirement would be implemented by including
cross-references to rule 405 of Regulation S-T in each applicable
fund registration form (and, as applicable, updating references to
those fund registration forms in rule 11 and rule 405, as well as
references in those fund registration forms that currently require
certain information to be tagged in Inline XBRL--that is, Form N-1A
and Form N-2), by revising rule 405(b) of Regulation S-T to include
the proposed names rule disclosures, and by adopting conforming
amendments to rule 485 and rule 497 under the Securities Act. The
final amendments incorporate technical changes to the proposed
amendments, but the tagging requirements that the final amendments
effectuate are designed to be the same as under the proposed
amendments. Pursuant to rule 301 of Regulation S-T, the EDGAR Filer
Manual is incorporated by reference into the Commission's rules. In
conjunction with the EDGAR Filer Manual, Regulation S-T governs the
electronic submission of documents filed with the Commission. Rule
405 of Regulation S-T specifically governs the scope and manner of
disclosure tagging requirements for operating companies and
investment companies, including the requirement in rule 405(a)(3) to
use Inline XBRL as the specific structured data language to use for
tagging the disclosures.
\340\ See infra section IV.D.2 at footnotes 566-568 and
accompanying text (for a discussion of the costs for UITs to comply
with the new Inline XBRL requirement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Plain English/Established Industry Use Requirement

For funds that are required to adopt an 80% investment policy, we
are requiring that any terms used in the fund's name that suggest
either an investment focus or that such fund is a tax-exempt fund must
be consistent with those terms' plain English meaning or established
industry use.\341\ This requirement is designed to provide investors
with a better understanding of the fund and its investment objectives

[[Page 70468]]

by effectively requiring a fund's name to be consistent with a
reasonable investor's likely understanding of the investment focus or
tax status that the fund's name suggests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\341\ Final rule 35d-1(a)(2)(iii) and (3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We received many comments supporting the proposed requirement.\342\
Commenters expressed support for a requirement that would address
reasonable, plain-English definitions for terms used in a fund's name
as a means of providing additional clarity to fund shareholders.\343\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\342\ See, e.g., J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter;
Comment Letter of Delbert L. Coonce, Jr. (Aug. 15, 2022) (``Coonce
Comment Letter''); Comment Letter of John Rosenmiller (Aug. 15,
2022) (``Rosenmiller Comment Letter''); Building a Sustainable
Investment Community Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Peter
Vandermark (Aug. 15, 2022) (``Vandermark Comment Letter''); Comment
Letter of Rodney Smith (Aug. 15, 2022) (``Smith Comment Letter'');
Comment Letter of Jim Metzinger (Aug. 15, 2022) (``Metzinger Comment
Letter''); Change Finance Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Steve
Wardwood (Aug. 15, 2022) (``Wardwood Comment Letter''); Public
Citizen Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Veris Wealth Partners
(Aug. 15, 2022) (``Veris Comment Letter''); Feinberg Comment Letter.
\343\ See, e.g., Fidelity Comment Letter (``We believe the
requirement that the definition be reasonable and in plain English,
along with the existing anti-fraud provisions under the securities
law, will provide sufficient clarity to shareholders, without
stifling innovation and opportunities for investment advisers to
differentiate their investment strategies.''); CFA Institute Comment
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We received several comments requesting clarification on this
requirement. One commenter asked how the Commission will determine
whether a term is consistent with its ``plain English'' or
``established industry use'' meaning.\344\ Another commenter requested
clarification about circumstances where the plain English or
established industry meaning of a word could be inaccurate or
misleading.\345\ For clarity on this point, commenters suggested that
the final rule be modified to allow funds to use only any
``reasonable'' definition of the terms of its name.\346\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\344\ See, e.g., Calamos Comment Letter.
\345\ See, e.g., Public Citizen Comment Letter.
\346\ See, e.g., Seward & Kissel Comment Letter and WisdomTree
Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter stated that some plain English meanings may lack
clarity in an investment context and that funds should be required to
include a description of how terms relate to the fund's 80% investment
focus.\347\ Another commenter similarly stated that certain terms like
``sustainable'' or ``socially responsible'' are evolving, and investors
need to understand how funds define those terms.\348\ As one commenter
stated, certain terms have meanings that changed over time, and certain
terms, particularly in the ESG context, may develop new meanings as
markets and the investment management industry continue to evolve.\349\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\347\ See CFA Institute Comment Letter.
\348\ See Public Citizen Comment Letter.
\349\ See J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters conveyed concern about the proposed plain English
and established industry use requirement. One commenter stated that the
plain English standard already applies to prospectus disclosure, and it
should therefore not be separately required in the names rule.\350\ One
commenter suggested that there may still be deviations in how funds
define terms even with this requirement. As a result, investors will
still need to read the prospectus for clarity about the terms used in
the fund's name, mitigating any positive impact of the
requirement.\351\ Commenters expressed specific concerns about the
proposed ``established industry use'' standard. Commenters stated that
this standard is nebulous, as industries and terminology can change
over time, thereby altering the understood meaning of the term under
established industry use.\352\ Additionally, the Commission received a
comment expressing concern that the relationship between the ``plain
English'' standard and the ``established industry use'' standard is
potentially contradictory and opaque.\353\ One commenter cautioned that
the established industry use standard could contribute to greenwashing
for terms that have been widely used in inconsistent ways because the
standard could permit funds to use terms consistent with industry
practice when the usage of the term for the particular fund is
misleading.\354\ For example, this commenter stated that the term
``impact'' is used in many fund names with a range of meanings within
the fund industry, and therefore funds should disclose the definitions
of the terms used in the name as well as the criteria used to select
the investments the terms describe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\350\ See Seward & Kissel Comment Letter.
\351\ See, e.g., Calamos Comment Letter.
\352\ See, e.g., Fidelity Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel
Comment Letter.
\353\ See Seward & Kissel Comment Letter.
\354\ See Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering comments, we are adopting this requirement as
proposed. We recognize that certain terms may be defined in multiple
reasonable ways. Accordingly, the final amendments are intended to
support these differences while providing that the use of terms that
are inconsistent with their terms' plain English meaning or established
industry use would mislead investors. Whether a fund is using a term
consistent with its plain English meaning or established industry use
could be derived from a variety of sources, including, but not limited
to, the dictionary, prior public disclosures, industry codes or
classifications, and/or a colloquial understanding of the term.
Regardless of this requirement, funds that use terms in a materially
misleading manner, for example, by using a term that has a plain
English meaning or established industry use but then defining that term
in disclosure in a materially different way, would generally violate
section 35(d) of the Act and potentially other provisions of the
Federal securities laws.
Under the final amendments, funds are required to include in their
prospectus disclosure the definitions of the terms used in the fund's
name, and as discussed above funds have flexibility in defining the
terms under the policy that a fund adopts under the names rule.\355\
The plain English/established industry use requirement is designed to
prevent materially deceptive and misleading names in light of the
flexibility that funds otherwise have to define the terms in their
names. A name would be considered materially deceptive or misleading if
the fund's prospectus disclosure defines a given term in the name
inconsistent with the term's plain English meaning or established
industry use, even if that disclosure correctly describes the fund's
80% investment policy.\356\ While the final amendments require that the
fund's prospectus disclosure and the terms used in a fund's name not be
inconsistent, we recognize that prospectus disclosure may--and at times
is required to--provide further information about the terms used in the
name. For example, a ``solar energy'' fund's prospectus will need to
provide additional context to what the name term ``solar energy''
means. This disclosure may not, however, otherwise change the plain
English understanding of what solar energy means, for example, to
include a type of alternative energy company that does not include
solar energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\355\ See instructions to Item 4(a)(1) and Item 9(b)(1) of Form
N-1A; instruction to Item 8(2) of Form N-2; and instruction to Item
11 of Form N-8B-2; see also supra paragraph accompanying footnotes
92-94.
\356\ Final rule 35d-1(a)(2)(iii) and (3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final rules' prospectus disclosure requirements provide
additional context to the terms used in a name. Prospectus disclosure
which, as a commenter highlighted, also has a plain English

[[Page 70469]]

requirement, is separate from the plain English meaning and established
industry use requirement we are adopting for fund names, which is
specifically focused on the meaning of terms used in the fund's
name.\357\ The plain English requirements applicable to prospectus
disclosures are focused on making prospectuses simpler, clearer, and
more useful to investors.\358\ Further, while a fund's disclosure in
its prospectus provides important information about how a fund defines
the terms used in its name and the criteria used to select investments
consistent with the fund's 80% investment policy, the plain English
requirement in the names rule addresses the goal that the name itself
is reasonably communicative and clear to an investor based on the plain
English or established industry use of terms that appear in the name.
The plain English and established industry use requirement is not meant
to be static and is designed to acknowledge that the language used in a
fund's name may evolve as industries change and grow and the words used
to describe funds and their investment focuses likewise change. While
we recognize commenters' concerns about the ``established industry
use'' of a term evolving over time, we are adopting this standard as
proposed in recognition that certain terms in fund names might not have
a plain English meaning, but still convey a particular focus to
investors. The reference to ``established industry use'' is not
designed to prevent a fund from defining a name term in reference to an
emerging or developing definition, or from defining a name term in a
way that is subject to industry debate. The fact that members of an
industry have different conceptions of a term's definition, and that
members of a particular industry are in good faith actively debating or
discussing a definition, would be an indication that the definition is
consistent with established industry use. That is, members of an
industry need not coalesce on a standard, singular definition of a term
for the term to be consistent with ``established'' industry use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\357\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 230.421(d) and General Instruction B.4
of Form N-1A.
\358\ See Plain English Disclosure, Securities Act Release No.
7497 (Jan. 28, 1998) [63 FR 6370 (Feb. 6, 1998)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, we recognize that certain fund name terms used in a way
that is standard within the fund industry could be less communicative
to reasonable investors if they must be translated into ``plain
English.'' Regarding the relationship between the ``plain English'' and
``established industry use'' standards, we are adopting a requirement
that includes both standards in recognition that the established
industry use of a particular term may not be the same meaning given to
the term in in a plain English context. The meaning of a term in
reference to a specific industry or investment strategy, however, may
be clear within the terminology of a particular industry or sector. For
example, an equity fund could use the term ``high beta'' in its name,
which is understood within the industry, and the investing public, to
mean that the fund seeks to invest in stocks with high sensitivity to
market movements, although arguably this term has no ``plain English''
usage. As another example, a fund might define the term ``value'' in
its 80% investment policy by referring to financial metrics that are
specific to value investing, and therefore may not be viewed as
reflecting the plain English meaning of the term ``value.'' The
``established industry use'' requirement is therefore an important
corollary to the ``plain English'' requirement. The use of certain fund
name terms, whose meanings are communicative to investors interested in
investing in funds focused in a particular industry or using a strategy
that uses a specific industry-specific lexicon, could be limited if we
were to adopt a plain English requirement without alternatively
permitting fund name terms to be consistent with their established
industry use.

D. Modernizing the Rule's Notice Requirement

Consistent with the current rule, the final rule amendments will
continue to require that, unless a fund's 80% policy is a fundamental
policy, notice must be provided to shareholders of any change in the
fund's 80% policy.\359\ The amendments to the names rule's notice
requirement we are adopting, substantially as proposed, are designed to
specify further the content and delivery of the notice, and address
more directly the needs of investors who elect electronic delivery.
These changes reflect the Commission's commitment to adapting and
modernizing the way in which information is disseminated to the
investing public in response to changes in the industry and
technology.\360\ As an additional modification, the final amendments,
as proposed, will also require notices to describe not only a change to
the fund's 80% investment policy, but also an accompanying change in
the fund's name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\359\ Final rule 35d-1(a)(2)(ii) and final rule 35d-1(d); see
also final rule 35d-1(g) (defining the term ``fundamental policy'').
\360\ See, e.g., Use of Electronic Media for Delivery Purposes,
Investment Company Act Release No. 21399 (Oct. 6, 1995) [60 FR 53458
(Oct. 13, 1995)] (providing Commission views on the use of
electronic media to deliver information to investors, with a focus
on electronic delivery of prospectuses, annual reports, and proxy
solicitation materials); Optional internet Availability of
Investment Company Shareholder Reports, Investment Company Act
Release No. 33115 (June 5, 2018) [83 FR 29158 (June 22, 2018)], at
n.18; Exchange-Traded Funds, Investment Company Act Release No.
33646 (Sept. 25, 2019) [84 FR 57162 (Oct. 24, 2019)] (``ETF Adopting
Release''), at n.229 (encouraging ETFs to consider whether there are
technological means to make their disclosure more accessible).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission proposed to modernize the current notice
requirements in several ways. Specifically, the proposed approach
would: (1) clarify the current requirement that the notice must be
provided separately from any other documents; (2) update the legend
requirements alerting the investor to a change in investment policy
and/or name; (3) specify the content that the notices include; and (4)
specify notices that may be delivered electronically. We are adopting
each of these requirements as proposed, as detailed below.
The Commission received limited comments in response to these
proposed requirements. Some commenters generally supported the proposed
requirements, stating, for example, that the proposal would provide
greater flexibility and clarity with respect to how the notice
requirements translate to an electronic setting.\361\ One supporting
commenter recommended that the Commission further modernize shareholder
notice requirements by allowing funds to post notice of certain policy
changes on their websites rather than doing so through paper or email
communications.\362\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\361\ See Fidelity Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management
Comment Letter; Dogwhistle Comment Letter; Environmental Defense
Fund Comment Letter; PRI Comment Letter.
\362\ See Fidelity Comment Letter. This commenter stated that
electronic postings should be considered to be sufficient notice
where a change does not materially impact the risk profile of the
fund. Another commenter similarly advocated for a one-time exception
from the notice requirements for funds whose policies are not
``meaningfully'' changing. Dogwhistle Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments Clarifying That Notice Be Provided Separately From Other
Documents
The final amendments, as in the current rule, will continue to
require the notice to be provided in plain English and delivered
``separately from any

[[Page 70470]]

other documents.'' \363\ Further, as proposed, the final amendments
specifically provide that if the notice is delivered in paper form, it
may be provided in the same envelope as other written documents.\364\
This amendment is designed to clarify the current rule's provisions
that address when and how the notice can be provided with other written
documents, but not to alter these current provisions substantively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\363\ While the requirement in the final rule that the notice be
provided ``separately from any other document'' is worded
differently than in the current rule, it is functionally the same as
the current rule's requirement. See final rule 35d-1(d)(1); rule
35d-1(c)(1) (``the notice will be provided in plain English in a
separate written document''). This rewording is designed to provide
clarity regarding what it means for the notice to be provided
separately from any other documents (i.e., the notice cannot be
built into the fund's prospectus or into other required shareholder
communications). See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at
paragraph accompanying nn.131-132.
\364\ Final rule 35d-1(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments Updating Legend Requirement
Similar to the current notice requirement and as proposed, the
final amendments require the notice contain the following prominent
statement, or similar clear and understandable statement, in bold-face
type: ``Important Notice Regarding Change in Investment Policy [and
Name].'' \365\ This requirement represents a change from the current
rule by requiring a fund to prominently indicate to investors any
changes made to its name that accompany a change in investment policy
in addition to changes made to the policy itself. This new requirement
is designed to put investors on alert that, going forward, the fund
that is described in various regulatory materials and other fund and
intermediary communications is the same fund in which they are
currently invested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\365\ Final rule 35d-1(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the current notice requirement, the mandated statement is
required to appear on the envelope in which the notice is delivered, or
if the notice is delivered separately from other communications to
investors, the statement must appear either on the notice or on the
envelope.\366\ Under the final rule, for any notice that is provided in
paper form, this required statement must also appear on the envelope in
which the notice is delivered.\367\ This expansion of the current
requirement is designed to help draw shareholders' attention to an
important document that provides them information about the change in
the fund's investment policy and, if applicable, the fund's name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\366\ Rule 35d-1(c)(3).
\367\ Final rule 35d-1(d)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Notice Content Requirements
The final amendments include certain new requirements designed to
incorporate greater specificity on content the notices include.
Substantially as proposed, the final amendments will require that the
notice describe, as applicable, the fund's 80% investment policy, the
nature of the change to the 80% investment policy, the fund's old and
new names, and the effective date of any investment policy and/or name
changes.\368\ These requirements are designed to codify certain best
practices of some funds, help facilitate funds' compliance with the
notice requirement, and increase specificity in the content that
notices include in order to provide the information that fund
shareholders need to decide whether to stay invested in a fund whose
investment policy is changing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\368\ Final rule 35d-1(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments Providing Specificity for Notices That May Be Delivered
Electronically
The final amendments also include certain requirements designed to
address the needs of investors who elect to receive notice
electronically. Substantially as proposed, for notices that are
provided electronically, the final rule will require that the statement
appear on the subject line of the email communication that includes the
notice.\369\ This new requirement is designed to highlight the purpose
of the electronic notice to shareholders, in the same way that the
current requirement for a statement to appear on the delivery envelope
highlights the purpose of the included paper notice. This aspect of the
final amendments is also intended to clarify the application of the
rule's requirements to electronic notices, which in turn will help
ensure that investors who have opted into electronic delivery will
receive the notices the names rule requires in the format that they
prefer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\369\ Final rule 35d-1(d)(2)(ii). As the Commission discussed at
proposal, the Commission's current guidance regarding electronic
delivery does not prohibit names rule notices from being delivered
electronically. See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.136.
Although paper is the default format for delivery of prospectuses
and certain other required disclosures such as the proposed notice,
the Commission has provided guidance noting that electronic delivery
may be used to satisfy prospectus and certain other required
disclosure delivery requirements if: (1) the investor has notice of
the availability of the information; (2) the use of the medium is
not so burdensome that intended recipients cannot effectively access
the information being provided; and (3) the issuer has evidence of
delivery. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As proposed, the final amendments do not permit funds to post
notices to their websites as an alternative to sending notice directly
to shareholders. As the Commission discussed in the Proposing Release,
requiring delivery of notice directly to shareholders, rather than
permitting funds to post notices to websites, increases the likelihood
that an investor would see and read the notice. This requirement will
play an important role in helping investors make informed decisions in
light of any changes to a fund's investment focus, portfolio holdings,
risks and returns.

E. Form N-PORT Reporting

We are adopting amendments to Form N-PORT to include new reporting
items for registered management investment companies and exchange-
traded funds organized as a unit investment trust (``UIT''), other than
money market funds or small business investment companies,
(collectively, ``N-PORT funds'') regarding the 80% investment policy
that such a fund adopts in compliance with the names rule.\370\ As
proposed, the final rules require N-PORT funds that are required to
adopt an 80% investment policy to report on Form N-PORT: (1) whether
each investment in the fund's portfolio is in the fund's 80% basket;
and (2) the value of the fund's 80% basket, as a percentage of the
value of the fund's assets.\371\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\370\ All N-PORT funds are required to electronically file with
the Commission, on a quarterly basis, monthly portfolio investment
information on Form N-PORT, as of the end of each month. See
Investment Company Reporting Modernization Adopting Release, supra
footnote 47. As BDCs and money market funds are not subject to Form
N-PORT reporting requirements generally, they will not be subject to
the final amendments to Form N-PORT. This approach is consistent
with the proposal, and we did not receive any comments on this
aspect of the proposal. See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at
nn.146-147 and accompanying text. Exchange-traded funds organized as
a UIT will have to comply with the Form N-PORT reporting
requirements only if their initial deposit occurs after the
effective date of the final amendments. See infra section II.G.
Other UITs are not subject to reporting on Form N-PORT.
\371\ See Item B.9 and Item C.2 of Form N-PORT. Consistent with
the final amendment's approach to derivatives generally, when
responding to Item B.9, the percentage that the fund reports in
response to Item B.9.b must reflect the use of notional amounts of
funds' derivatives instruments with certain adjustments, as well as
the value of assets sold short with respect to physical short
positions. This percentage also must reflect any reduction of the
value of the fund's assets resulting from, as applicable, those
exclusions provided in final rule 35d-1(g). See instruction to Item
B.9 and supra section II.A.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In light of some of the changes to the proposed names rule
amendments that we are adopting, and in response to

[[Page 70471]]

comments, the final Form N-PORT amendments modify the proposed
reporting approach by requiring reported information for the third
month of each quarter, instead of for every month. Given that the final
amendments will not require continual names rule compliance monitoring
as proposed, and instead will require that funds review their
portfolios for compliance no less than quarterly, the reporting time
frame in the final Form N-PORT requirements therefore reflects the
period for review that will otherwise be mandated by the final
amendments.\372\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\372\ The rationale for the required period for reporting this
information on Form N-PORT is based on the period of the quarterly
review requirement under the names rule and not the required period
for filing Form N-PORT. Although the Commission has separately
proposed to increase the frequency with which funds file reports on
Form N-PORT, that proposal, if adopted, would not affect the
requirement adopted in this release for funds to report names-
related information on Form N-PORT on a quarterly basis, providing
the information for the third month in each fiscal quarter. See,
e.g., Open-End Fund Liquidity Risk Management Programs and Swing
Pricing; Form N-PORT Reporting, Investment Company Act Release No.
34746 (Nov. 2, 2022) [87 FR 77172 (Dec. 16, 2022)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are also adopting certain changes to the proposed approach to
names-related information that funds will report on Form N-PORT, which
we discuss in more detail below: (1) adding a new reporting item, in
which funds will report the definitions of terms used in the fund's
name; and (2) not adopting the proposed requirement that funds report
the number of days that that the value of the fund's 80% basket fell
below 80% of the value of the fund's total assets during the reporting
period.
As discussed below, the final amendments to Form N-PORT are
designed to provide market-wide insight with respect to those
registered investment companies, other than money market funds and BDCs
that are subject to the 80% investment policy requirement for the
Commission, its staff, and market participants.
1. Investments To Be Included in a Fund's 80% Basket
As proposed, we are adopting a new Form N-PORT reporting item that
requires N-PORT funds subject to the 80% investment policy requirement
to indicate, with respect to each portfolio investment, whether the
investment is included in the fund's 80% basket. Such N-PORT funds must
provide this new information, along with the other information they are
currently required to report, for each of their portfolio investments
on Form N-PORT, and as proposed the new information will be publicly
available. In a change from the proposal, we are adopting a requirement
that each N-PORT fund that is subject to the 80% investment policy
requirement must also report the definitions of the terms used in the
fund's name, including the specific criteria the fund uses to select
the investments the term describes, if any.\373\ These reporting
requirements are designed to provide investors as well as the
Commission and its staff insight into the types of investments a fund
includes in its 80% basket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\373\ The final amendments also require disclosure of these
definitions in funds' prospectuses. See supra section II.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission received several comments broadly supporting the
proposed Form N-PORT reporting requirements collectively.\374\ One of
these commenters stated that the proposed requirements would help
investors and other market participants understand which factors or
elements that a portfolio investment exhibits are consistent with a
fund's 80% policy.\375\ The Commission received several comments that
objected generally to the collective proposed Form N-PORT reporting
requirements.\376\ Commenters stated that the proposed reporting
requirements would be of little benefit to investors, as investors are
more prone to review prospectus disclosure rather than information
included on Form N-PORT.\377\ The Commission received a comment
questioning the rationale for the proposed reporting requirements given
the name rule's unique role in addressing materially deceptive and
misleading names, distinct from other disclosure requirements.\378\
Commenters stated that the costs and operational burdens of the
proposed requirements, in light of these concerns and particularly with
respect to the names that would be included in the proposed expanded
scope of the 80% investment policy requirement, would be significant
and questioned whether they would be warranted.\379\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\374\ See, e.g., Comment Letter of Nate Regan (June 15, 2022)
(``Regan II Comment Letter''); Center for American Progress Comment
Letter; PRI Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter.
\375\ See PRI Comment Letter.
\376\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment
Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter; USCOC Comment
Letter; Nationwide Comment Letter; Federated Comment Letter;
WisdomTree Comment Letter; MFS Comment Letter; Invesco Comment
Letter; Capital Group Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment
Letter; Dimensional Comment Letter.
\377\ See, e.g., Nationwide Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment
Letter; Federated Comment Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter; MFS
Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment
Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter; Dimensional
Comment Letter.
\378\ See SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; see also Proposing Release,
supra footnote 2, at nn.4-6 and accompanying text.
\379\ See, e.g., MFS Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission received several comments specific to the proposed
requirement that N-PORT funds report whether each investment is counted
towards the fund's 80% basket. One included a general comment stating
that this proposed reporting requirement would benefit investors and
other market participants.\380\ Several other commenters objected to
this reporting requirement.\381\ These commenters expressed concern
about the costs and burden of tagging each investment on a monthly
basis.\382\ The Commission also received a comment that the Commission
should not require funds to classify 100% of their portfolio when the
rule requires that only 80% of a given fund's portfolio be invested
consistent with the funds 80% investment policy.\383\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\380\ See Center for American Progress Comment Letter.
\381\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Nationwide Comment Letter;
Federated Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment
Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter; WisdomTree Comment Letter; Capital
Group Comment Letter; MFS Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\382\ See MFS Comment Letter.
\383\ See ICI Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters questioned the usefulness of this reporting item
because Form N-PORT disclosure is by its nature backward-looking, and
so the reported information may not accurately represent what the
fund's portfolio looks like at the present time.\384\ Several
commenters stated that how a fund categorizes individual investments in
its portfolio is subjective and therefore not comparable across
funds.\385\ Without additional disclosure regarding how a fund may
categorize individual investments, we received comment asserting that
this disclosure may be confusing to investors.\386\ Separately, a
commenter stated that whether each investment qualifies as an 80%
basket investment under a fund's 80% investment policy may change on a
more frequent basis than the proposed monthly reporting period and that
the disclosure requirement therefore may overwhelm investors with
outdated information that would not help compare funds in a meaningful
way.\387\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\384\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Wellington Comment
Letter.
\385\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Dimensional
Comment Letter.
\386\ See Capital Group Comment Letter.
\387\ See Fidelity Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters stated that the proposed new reporting item would

[[Page 70472]]

require the build-out of new systems, for daily testing and validation
of names rule compliance information, and for mapping this information
over for reporting on Form N-PORT.\388\ Additionally, commenters stated
that the new reporting requirements would consume compliance resources
to the extent compliance personnel would have to attend to the new
reporting requirements, which would impact other compliance
activities.\389\ Some commenters stated that funds may need to hire
third-party vendors for supplemental and specially tailored data on
their portfolio investments, in order to comply with the proposed new
reporting requirements.\390\ The use of third-party vendors may,
according to these commenters, lead to the homogenization in how funds
define certain terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\388\ See, e.g., T. Rowe Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter;
Seward & Kissel Comment Letter.
\389\ See, e.g., Nationwide Comment Letter; Federated Comment
Letter; Capital Group Comment Letter.
\390\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The requirement for an N-PORT fund to report whether each
investment is included in the 80% basket helps the Commission and
investors to have insight into how funds invest consistent with their
80% investment policies. The final amendments to Form N-PORT will
complement the required prospectus disclosure defining terms used in
fund names by providing additional information that is designed to
increase investor understanding of a particular fund's investment
focus, which will assist investors in making investment choices that
better match their investment preferences. While the new information
that funds would report on Form N-PORT is backward looking in that it
reflects, on a quarterly basis, how funds have implemented their 80%
policies, investors and third-party users who provide services to
investors could also use this information to understand on a going-
forward basis how funds may continue to implement their 80% investment
policies consistent with the fund's name. While investors may not be
directly accessing Form N-PORT, third-party service providers that
investors look to for assistance in selecting investments, such as
broker-dealers, investment advisers, and those that provide investment
information for analysis to fund investors, will be able to use this
information to analyze how a fund invests consistent with its name. We
recognize that the benefits of these new reporting requirements will
come with costs, as complying with the new reporting requirements will
entail new compliance activities, and potentially also systems and
operational modifications and the use of third-party service providers.
The Form N-PORT reporting requirements may generate costs of adding new
data tags for the new reporting items. By requiring less frequent Form
N-PORT reporting and reducing the amount of names-related information
that must be reported on N-PORT than was proposed, however, the final
amendments should, on balance, have lower costs compared to the
proposal.\391\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\391\ See infra section IV.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We also recognize that funds with similar names and investment
focuses may reasonably make different determinations regarding whether
an investment is appropriately within the 80% basket. Some funds may
have an investment focus where the selection of 80% basket investments
involves some degree of subjectivity. The reporting requirement we are
adopting provides transparency that should help investors and other
market participants providing transparency to investors, as well as
Commission staff, understand what specific portfolio investments a fund
may consider to be consistent with the fund's 80% investment policy and
those that they do not. The Commission, investors, and these other
market participants will also have the ability to examine, across N-
PORT funds with similar investment focuses, whether these funds may be
characterizing particular investments similarly. For example, investors
interested in funds with a growth investment focus will better be able
to compare across funds with similar names to determine whether
specific investments are characterized similarly or differently, and
therefore invest according to their specific preferences.
In a change from the proposal, we are adopting an accompanying
reporting requirement to provide necessary context for this reporting.
Under the final amendments to Form N-PORT, a fund subject to the 80%
investment policy requirement must report the definitions of the terms
used in the fund's name, including the specific criteria the fund uses
to select the investments that the term describes, if any. This
required reporting leverages the same disclosure that funds will also,
under the final amendments, be required to include in their
prospectuses.\392\ This requirement addresses comments the Commission
received expressing concern that the portfolio-specific information
that would be required under the proposal lacked context.\393\ We are
requiring this information in both Form N-PORT and in the fund's
prospectus to ensure that a user of the investment categorization
information in Form N-PORT is not required to look to two documents to
understand how investments are categorized by the fund, and how funds
define the terms used in their names and the specific criteria the fund
uses to select the investments (which gives context for the investment
categorizations). With this additional information, investors will be
able to better contextualize how the specific investments made by the
fund adhere to the fund's stated criteria for how investments are
selected consistent with the fund's 80% investment policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\392\ Given that funds can leverage efficiencies in reporting
the information that they will include in their prospectuses in
response to the final rules' disclosure requirements, we anticipate
that the burden of this additional reporting item should be minimal.
See infra section V.D.
\393\ See, e.g., Capital Group Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Investment Company Act Names Rule Investment Policy
We are adopting, as proposed, the requirement for N-PORT funds that
adopt an 80% investment policy to report on Form N-PORT the value of
the fund's 80% basket as a percentage of the value of the fund's
assets.\394\ This reporting requirement is designed to increase the
effectiveness of the Commission's oversight of funds' compliance with
the names rule as well as provide investors meaningful information
about how funds comply with the names rule. This information also may
allow investors to make investment choices that are more consistent
with their investment preferences. As discussed below, we are not,
however, adopting the proposed requirement that an N-PORT fund report
the number of days that the value of the fund's 80% basket fell below
80% of the value of the fund's total assets during the reporting
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\394\ To the extent a fund's name suggests an investment focus
that has multiple elements, and therefore must adopt an 80%
investment policy that addresses each element of that investment
focus, the fund must report a single percentage that reflects its
multi-element investment focus. See supra paragraph accompanying
footnotes 139-140. For example, a ``Wind and Solar Fund'' would
report the percentage of its assets invested in wind and solar
companies combined, rather than reporting separate percentages for
each of wind and solar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission received some comments specific to the proposed
requirement that N-PORT funds report the value of the fund's 80% basket
as a percentage of the value of the fund's assets. Some commenters
stated that this proposed reporting requirement

[[Page 70473]]

would lead to inappropriate comparisons among funds.\395\ These
commenters stated that, because funds may have different 80% investment
policy formulations, despite having the same or similar terms in their
names, comparisons about the percentage of funds' assets invested in
their 80% baskets would not provide useful information to investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\395\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Dimensional Comment
Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We recognize that there are various reasonable ways in which funds
with a similar name could implement the 80% investment requirement, and
the Form N-PORT reporting requirements provide an important window into
exactly how funds implement their 80% investment policies.
Understanding how different funds with the same or similar terms in
their names may have different strategies that invest more or less of
the fund's assets outside of their 80% basket may provide investors
with important information that better enables investors to select the
investment that best meets their investment goals.\396\ The reported
information is designed to provide an additional data point that
supplements other reported and disclosed information about how a fund
invests in accordance with the focus its name suggests. This other
reported and disclosed information, including the definitions of funds'
name terms, will provide context that helps ensure that information
reported about the percentage of a fund's portfolio invested in 80%
basket assets is not misleading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\396\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.145 and
accompanying text for examples of how this may be the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to the proposed requirement that a fund report the
number of days that the value of the fund's 80% basket fell below 80%
of the value of the fund's total assets during the reporting period,
the Commission received one supporting comment.\397\ This commenter
stated that the proposed reporting requirement would assist
shareholders in comparing different funds as well as the Commission in
its role overseeing fund's compliance with the names rule. The
Commission received many comments, however, opposing this proposed
reporting requirement.\398\ For example, a commenter stated that
monitoring individual securities on a daily basis for name rule
compliance--which would de facto be a necessary corollary of the
proposed reporting requirement--would be operationally onerous and
should not be required by the final rule.\399\ The Commission also
received feedback that this proposed reporting requirement would be
confusing, as the information would be reported without context and may
raise unnecessary concern from investors.\400\ Commenters also
suggested that it was inappropriate to utilize Form N-PORT as a
compliance tool.\401\ Relatedly, a commenter stated that requiring the
proposed reporting of departures below 80%, without also requiring
reporting that would provide context of the investment team's judgment,
could create legal risk for the fund and result in the fund manager
taking more conservative portfolio management approaches despite the
fact that the names rule permits certain departures.\402\ At a minimum,
one commenter suggested that these reporting items, like similar ones
for liquidity and derivatives reporting, should be non-public.\403\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\397\ See Fidelity Comment Letter.
\398\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Nationwide Comment Letter;
J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment
Letter; MFS Comment Letter.
\399\ See, e.g., J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
The commenter who supported this reporting item also suggested a
longer compliance monitoring period than what was proposed. See
Fidelity Comment Letter.
\400\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter and J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment Letter; MFS Comment
Letter; see also ICI Comment Letter III (discussing particular
challenges for certain tax-exempt funds that apply the income test
pursuant to rule 35d-1(a)(3)(i)(B)).
\401\ See, e.g., USCOC Comment Letter.
\402\ See J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
\403\ See ICI Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are not adopting this proposed reporting requirement. The
temporary departures provision we are adopting as part of the final
names rule amendments does not require funds to monitor names rule
compliance on a continual basis, but instead adopts a time-of-
investment test with a minimum quarterly review of the investments in
the fund's portfolio. A requirement to report the number of days that
the value of the fund's 80% basket fell below 80% of the value of the
fund's total assets would be inconsistent with this approach to
temporary departures, because it would require daily compliance
monitoring.

F. Recordkeeping

Consistent with the proposed amendments, the final rule will
require funds that are subject to the 80% investment policy requirement
to maintain certain records documenting their compliance with the rule,
including changes that reflect the final rule's approach to temporary
departures.\404\ As a modification to the proposal, the final
amendments do not include the proposed requirement for funds that do
not adopt an 80% investment policy to maintain a written record of
their analysis that the policy is not required under the names rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\404\ Final rule 35d-1(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are adopting recordkeeping requirements designed to enable
Commission staff, as well as a fund's compliance personnel, to evaluate
a fund's compliance with the names rule. Neither the current rule nor
the general recordkeeping rule under the Act includes a recordkeeping
requirement specific to names rule compliance-related topics.
Consistent with the proposal, under the final amendments, funds that
are required to adopt an 80% investment policy will be required to
maintain written records documenting their compliance with the names
rule. Specifically, these funds will be required to maintain: \405\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\405\ The new Form N-PORT reporting requirements would not
satisfy the record-keeping requirements of rule 35d-1(b)(3). The
Form N-PORT requirements reflect a snapshot of the fund's
investments at the end of the reporting period. The recordkeeping
requirement, however, reflects the fund's ongoing names rule
compliance activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written records, at the time the fund invests its assets,
documenting (1) whether the investment is included in the fund's 80%
basket and, if so, the basis for including that investment in the 80%
basket; and (2) the value of the fund's 80% basket, as a percentage of
the value of the fund's assets; \406\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\406\ These recordkeeping requirements apply as well to any
derivatives that a fund includes in its 80% basket (either because
the derivatives instrument provides investment exposure to
investments suggested by the fund's name, or investment exposure to
one or more of the market risk factors associated with the
investment focus that the fund's name suggests). See supra section
II.A.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written records documenting the fund's review of its
portfolio investments' inclusion in the fund's 80% basket, to be
conducted at least quarterly, including whether each investment is
included in the fund's 80% basket and the basis for including each
investment in the 80% basket;
If during this review or otherwise the fund identifies
that the 80% requirement is no longer met due to drift, written records
documenting the date this was identified and the reason for any
departures from the 80% investment policy; \407\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\407\ As a technical change to the proposed rule text, the final
amendments do not specify that a fund's reason for any departure
must be ``pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1)(2)'' of the rule. This is
because final rule amendments do not address specific circumstances
under which temporary departures from the 80% investment requirement
would be permitted. See supra section II.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there was a departure from the 80% requirement in
other-than-normal

[[Page 70474]]

circumstances, written records documenting the date of any such
departure and reason why the fund departed (including why the fund
determined that circumstances are other-than-normal); and
Any notice sent to the fund's shareholders pursuant to the
rule.
All of these records must be maintained for at least six years
following the creation of each required record (or, in the case of
notices, following the date the notice was sent), the first two years
in an easily accessible place.\408\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\408\ The six-year retention period under the final amendments
is designed to be generally consistent with other recordkeeping
retention periods provided in rules under the Act. See, e.g., rule
31a-1; rule 2a-7. This consistency with other retention periods will
likely reduce the compliance burden of the recordkeeping
requirements under the final amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Functionally, under these recordkeeping requirements, each time a
fund procured an investment, the fund would record the basis for
including that investment in the 80% basket and the value of the 80%
basket. A fund would also make or update such records in connection
with its quarterly review reassessing the characteristics of
investments in the fund's 80% basket (or any time the fund otherwise
determines that certain investments' characteristics are inconsistent
with the fund's 80% investment policy).\409\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\409\ See supra paragraph following footnote 165; supra
paragraph following footnote 174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters expressed general support for the proposed
recordkeeping requirements, stating that these requirements would allow
Commission staff to better understand and evaluate funds' compliance
with the names rule, as well as encourage good governance and internal
controls.\410\ The majority of commenters, however, expressed
opposition to the proposed recordkeeping requirements. Several
commenters stated that the proposed requirement to maintain
documentation of each investment included in a fund's 80% basket would
be overly burdensome on funds' compliance and management
personnel.\411\ Certain commenters stated that they expected this
requirement to be particularly burdensome in light of the increased
scope of the names rule's 80% investment policy requirement.\412\ One
of these commenters stated that the requirements would necessitate
portfolio management personnel devoting significant time to documenting
the basis for each investment, including short-term investments.\413\
Other commenters stated that some of the proposed recordkeeping
requirements may not be easily automated, including the requirement to
state the basis for including each investment in the 80% basket.\414\
Some commenters also argued that this requirement would reduce a fund's
capacity to focus on other aspects of compliance.\415\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\410\ See J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter;
Environmental Defense Fund Comment Letter.
\411\ See ICI Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; USCOC
Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter; Federated Comment Letter;
Dechert Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel
Comment Letter.
\412\ ICI Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; USCOC Comment
Letter; Federated Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Dechert
Comment Letter.
\413\ Dechert Comment Letter.
\414\ Invesco Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment Letter.
\415\ Invesco Comment Letter; Federated Comment Letter; Dechert
Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering commenters' input, the final amendments retain
the proposed requirement for funds required to adopt 80% policies to
maintain documentation of each investment it includes in the 80%
basket.\416\ The records resulting from this requirement will enable
our staff to evaluate a fund's treatment of specific investments, and
the interaction of such investments with the overall operation of a
fund's 80% investment policy. This information will allow our staff to
identify deficiencies and assess compliance of the overall rule as
amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\416\ Final rule 35d-1(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed above, the final rule's requirements related to
temporary departures from the 80% requirement are different from what
was proposed, particularly by retaining the time-of-investment test;
requiring a quarterly, as opposed to continual, review; and creating
different requirements for departures in other-than-normal
circumstances as opposed to drift discovered during this quarterly
review. We are providing more detail in the final rule to reflect these
changes and make clear which records funds must maintain and when funds
must create them under the final amendments. For example, the final
rule provides specific requirements on which records a fund will be
required to maintain pursuant to its quarterly review reassessing the
characteristics of each investment in the fund's 80% basket (or any
time the fund otherwise determines that certain investments'
characteristics are inconsistent with the fund's 80% investment
policy).\417\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\417\ See supra paragraph following footnote 165; supra
paragraph following footnote 174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These changes also help to address questions as to when funds
should make records under the final rule. Some commenters, discussing
expected burdens, anticipated the need to monitor a fund's 80% basket
on a daily basis to comply with the proposed recordkeeping
requirements.\418\ As adopted, the frequency with which records under
the final rule will be made would be at the time of investment, as well
as when the fund engages in an activity that the rule requires which
triggers a record (e.g., conducts a quarterly review), consistent with
the changes to the temporary departure requirements. Making records at
each of these times will produce documentation supporting the fund's
compliance with the rule and its 80% investment policy at the time a
fund invests its assets, and in reflection of the fact that the fund's
80% basket and investments included in the 80% basket could change
following initial investment, as provided in the rule. The frequency of
records will, as a practical matter, vary based on the specific
activities and compliance needs of the fund, and many funds would make
certain of these records daily in order to reflect ongoing investment
activity. For example, if a fund (for instance, an actively-managed
fund whose portfolio turns over regularly, or a fund that frequently
buys and sells portfolio assets in response to high or volatile
investor flows) were making investments daily, that fund would keep
daily records. These records would document whether the investments
made each day are included in the fund's 80% basket (and, if so, the
basis for that determination) and of the value of the fund's 80%
basket, as a percentage of the value of the fund's assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\418\ USCOC Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed above, the final amendments will require funds to
conduct at-least quarterly--rather than continual--assessment of
portfolio investments' inclusion in the 80% basket. This modification,
in turn, could mitigate some of the anticipated costs of certain of the
recordkeeping obligations compared to the proposal to the extent these
anticipated costs assumed continual monitoring and assessment of
portfolio investments, as well as recordkeeping requirements that would
reflect this continual monitoring. We recognize that the recordkeeping
requirements under the final amendments will still entail certain
costs, particularly those associated with those records that certain
funds (those

[[Page 70475]]

that make investments on a daily basis) would make daily under the
final rules and records that may not easily lend themselves to
automation (due to the nature of certain investments, or otherwise). We
continue, however, to anticipate that much of the required
recordkeeping would be able to be at least partially automated.\419\ We
also recognize that there may be multiple reasonable approaches to
documenting the basis for an investments' inclusion in a fund's 80%
basket in compliance with the final amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\419\ See infra section IV.D.2; see also, e.g., J.P. Morgan
Asset Management Comment Letter (stating that, for funds within the
current scope of the names rule, ``routine testing for compliance
can be done in a highly automated fashion,'' and stating that
``bespoke automated processes'' have already been developed for
funds the sponsor offers that use ESG-related terms in their names,
but expressing concern that for certain names that would be brought
within the proposed broadened scope, compliance testing would be
relatively more manual. But see supra footnote 71 and accompanying
text (discussing commenters who suggested that it would be
challenging to establish automated compliance monitoring solutions
for terms in fund names where subjective criteria are part of the
decision-making process). As the Commission stated in the Proposing
Release, records that do not lend themselves to automation would
need to be created on an as-needed basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As proposed, the final amendments will not prescribe the particular
form of documentation required to be maintained but will instead
provide flexibility in how a fund documents the information delineated
in the recordkeeping requirement. Funds, however, should generally
maintain appropriate documentation that would be sufficient for a third
party to verify the matter covered by each record and would be readily
available to Commission staff.
The final rule will not include a requirement for funds that do not
adopt 80% investment policies to maintain a written record of their
analysis as to why such policy is not required.\420\ Numerous
commenters opposed this requirement.\421\ While one commenter expressed
general support for this provision, several others voiced general
opposition, asserting that requiring funds to demonstrate affirmatively
that a rule does not apply would be inconsistent with the general
character of the Federal securities laws.\422\ One commenter stated
that this requirement would not provide a meaningful benefit to
shareholders, and another expressed concern that it could potentially
imply that funds' boards of directors were required to make or approve
a finding that the fund is not required to adopt an 80% policy.\423\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\420\ Final rule 35d-1(b)(3).
\421\ See Comment Letter of Independent Directors Council (Aug.
16, 2022) (``IDC Comment Letter''); ICI Comment Letter; Seward &
Kissel Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment
Letter; USCOC Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter.
\422\ See J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter. But see
ICI Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment Letter; Dechert Comment
Letter.
\423\ See Invesco Comment Letter; IDC Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering comments, we have determined that this provision
is not necessary to motivate proper determinations of when a fund is
required to adopt an 80% policy. Moreover, the obligations imposed on
funds through the substantive operation of the names rule as amended
will continue to provide safeguards by generally requiring funds to
adopt 80% investment policies where a fund name contains terms
suggesting that the fund focuses in investments that have, or
investments whose issuers have, particular characteristics. In
addition, a fund with a name that appears to Commission staff to be
within the scope of the 80% investment policy requirement, but that
determines not to adopt an 80% investment policy, would nonetheless be
responsible for sharing its analysis as to why it is not in violation
of the names rule if requested by the Commission's examinations and
enforcement staff.\424\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\424\ It would be appropriate for such a fund to compile a
written analysis at the time it receives any such request from
staff. This would be consistent with final rule's recordkeeping
requirements, which do not include a requirement for funds that do
not adopt 80% investment policies to maintain a written record of
their analysis as to why such policy is not required. To be clear,
the lack of a requirement to maintain a record of the analysis does
not mean the fund would not be required to determine the
applicability of the 80% investment policy requirement in the first
instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Unit Investment Trusts

The 2022 Proposal included exceptions for UITs that made their
initial deposit of securities prior to the proposed amendments'
effective date. Specifically, the Commission proposed to except these
UITs from the requirements to adopt an 80% investment policy and
maintain written records relating to the rule, unless the UIT already
adopted--or was required to adopt at the time of the initial deposit--
an 80% investment policy under the current rule.\425\ This proposed
approach was designed to be generally consistent with the treatment of
UITs under the current names rule, and also to retain the existing
exception from the 80% investment policy requirements for UITs that
pre-date the original rule. In a modification from the 2022 Proposal,
the final amendments will simply provide that the 80% investment policy
and recordkeeping requirements will apply to UITs only at the time of
initial deposit. This modification is designed to accommodate the
practical realities that UITs would encounter if required to comply
with the new provisions in the final amendments that require periodic
review and potential rebalancing of a fund's portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\425\ See generally Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at
nn.159-162 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters expressed broad support for the proposed
exceptions.\426\ These commenters suggested, however, that for UITs
that do not qualify for the exemption, the requirements of the names
rule should apply only at the time of initial deposit and not on an
ongoing basis. As these commenters observed, UITs typically maintain a
fixed and transparent portfolio of securities and are limited in how
and under what circumstances they can acquire or sell securities in
their portfolio. These commenters therefore asserted that UITs are
marketed as pro rata portions of a fixed portfolio and investors
generally understand that security weightings will change during the
life of the UIT due to market fluctuations. These commenters suggested
that maintaining compliance with the temporary departure provisions of
the proposed amendments could result in a UIT having to rebalance its
portfolio post-deposit, which could create potential operational and
legal issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\426\ See ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Invesco
Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering these comments, we are modifying the proposed
approach to better align the rule's new requirements with the way in
which UITs are constructed. Unlike the current rule, the final
amendments will require a fund to review its portfolio assets'
inclusion in its 80% basket as least quarterly and will also require
that, if a fund drifts out of compliance with its 80% basket, the fund
must come back into compliance within 90 days.\427\ Because UITs are
passively managed vehicles with fixed portfolios, it would be
challenging for them to adjust their portfolios to comply with the new
portfolio maintenance and testing requirements in the final amendments.
If UITs were required to comply with the new requirements for temporary
departures, portfolio changes could result over time that could be
inconsistent with the requirements of UITs' governance documents or
investor expectations.\428\ Accordingly, we have modified the proposed
exceptions for UITs to provide that the 80% investment policy and
recordkeeping

[[Page 70476]]

requirements will apply only at the initial deposit.\429\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\427\ See final rule 35d-1(b)(1)(i); see also supra section
II.A.2.
\428\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.160 and
accompanying text.
\429\ See final rule 35d-1(e). Functionally, UITs that have made
their initial deposit prior to the compliance date of the final
amendments, including those that would have been subject to the
exception in the 2022 Proposal because they pre-date the original
rule, will not be required to adopt a new 80% investment policy or
comply with the recordkeeping requirements in the final amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result, UITs that have names that are implicated by the final
amendments and whose initial deposit occurs after the compliance date
of the final amendments will need to adopt an appropriate 80%
investment policy, including making such a policy fundamental or
providing notice to investors in the event of a change of the policy,
if appropriate. However, such UITs will not be required to engage in
the monitoring and other requirements associated with the final
amendments' temporary departure requirements nor will they be required
to keep records under the final amendments beyond the initial deposit.
Also consistent with the proposal, all UITs will be subject to the
rule's other requirements under the final amendments, as applicable, as
well as those of the Federal securities laws generally, including
section 35(d) of the Investment Company Act.\430\ For example, all UITs
will continue to be subject to the prohibition on names that suggest a
guarantee by the U.S. Government regardless of the date of initial
deposit.\431\ Consistent with the 2022 Proposal, we continue to believe
that the ability to provide prospectus disclosure is not precluded by
the fixed nature of a UIT's portfolio.\432\ As a result, UITs will be
subject to the plain English requirements and the prospectus disclosure
requirements, including the requirement to tag newly required
information in the prospectus using Inline XBRL.\433\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\430\ A few commenters suggested that the Commission should
expressly exclude from the 80% investment policy requirement sub-
accounts of insurance company separate accounts classified as UITs
that fund variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance
contracts when the sub-account invests in a single, designated
underlying fund and has substantially the same name as the
corresponding underlying fund. See Dechert Comment Letter; IRI
Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Committee of Annuity Insurers
(Aug. 16, 2022). These UITs should comply with the 80% investment
policy requirement at initial deposit if they use a term in their
name that suggests an investment focus. See also supra discussion in
section II.A.1.c) (it would generally be reasonable for a fund of
funds or other acquiring fund to include the entire value of its
investment in an appropriate acquired fund when calculating
compliance with the 80% investment requirement without looking
through to the acquired fund's underlying investments, provided that
the acquired fund has an 80% investment policy, unless it knows that
the underlying fund is not investing consistent with the acquiring
fund's investment focus).
\431\ See final rule 35d-1(a)(1). In addition, ETFs organized as
a UIT will be subject to the Form N-PORT reporting requirements
regarding a fund's 80% investment policy post-deposit, consistent
with their current reporting obligations. See supra section II.E.
Other UITs will not be required to make these reports as they are
not required to report on Form N-PORT generally. See supra footnote
371.
\432\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at section II.H.
\433\ See supra sections II.B and II.C. One commenter stated
that the Inline XBRL tagging requirements would introduce new costs
for UITs without significant benefit to investors. See Invesco
Comment Letter. But see XBRL US Comment Letter (supporting the
proposed requirement that all funds subject to the new disclosure
requirements provide these disclosures in Inline XBRL format, for
the reasons discussed at supra footnote 336 and accompanying text,
and expressing that UITs can avail themselves of the same
applications and processes used by other fund types that report
information using Inline XBRL data language). These costs and
benefits are discussed in more depth in infra section IV.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Compliance Dates

The compliance date for the final amendments is [FILL IN date 24
months following amendments' effective date] for larger entities, and
[FILL IN date 30 months following amendments' effective date] for
smaller entities.\434\ We are adopting this tiered compliance period to
provide existing funds with adequate time to prepare to come into
compliance with the final amendments. We proposed a one-year compliance
period for all funds that would be subject to the amendments,
regardless of asset size, and we solicited comment on whether the
transition period should be shorter or longer, and whether it should be
the same for all funds. We received comments on this aspect of the
proposal, with many commenters stating that a one-year compliance
period is an inadequate timeframe given the legal, compliance, and
operational challenges associated with implementing the various
components of the rule.\435\ Some commenters specifically stated that
funds will need time to evaluate the impact of the amendments,
determine necessary changes, and seek board and/or shareholder approval
of any required changes to funds' names or investment strategies.\436\
Other commenters stated that service providers assisting with ongoing
assessment of funds' portfolios will need time to develop and update
systems necessary to support the rule.\437\ One commenter stated that
many small funds would be particularly burdened by heavy legal and
compliance costs.\438\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\434\ For purposes of the final rules' tiered compliance period,
larger entities are funds that, together with other investment
companies in the same ``group of related investment companies'' (as
such term is defined in rule 0-10 under the Investment Company Act
[17 CFR 270.0-10]) have net assets of $1 billion or more as of the
end of the most recent fiscal year, and smaller entities are funds
that together with other investment companies in the same ``group of
related investment companies'' have net assets of less than $1
billion as of the end of the most recent fiscal year. This standard
is consistent with prior Commission approaches for tiered compliance
dates based on asset size for rules affecting registered investment
companies. See, e.g., Investment Company Reporting Modernization
Adopting Release, supra footnote 47; Liquidity Adopting Release,
supra footnote 214; Inline XBRL Filing of Tagged Data, Securities
Act Release No. 10514 (June 28, 2018) [83 FR 40846 (Sep. 17, 2018)].
In our experience, this threshold is a reasonable means of
distinguishing larger and smaller entities for purposes of tiered
compliance dates for rules affecting investment companies. We
estimate that, as of December 2022, 77% of registered investment
companies would be considered to be larger entities. This estimate
is based on data reported in response to Items B.5, C.9, and F.11 on
Form N-CEN. We estimate that, as of March 2023, 48% of BDCs would be
considered to be larger entities. This estimate is based on data
from Refinitiv BDC Collateral.
\435\ See ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
Federated Comment Letter; TIAA-Nuveen Comment Letter; IRI Comment
Letter; MFS Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter; Nasdaq Comment
Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter; Fidelity
Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment
Letter; XBRL US Comment Letter.
\436\ See ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; TIAA-
Nuveen Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter;
Fidelity Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; Capital Group
Comment Letter.
\437\ See ICI Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment Letter; Dechert
Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment Letter.
\438\ See Freeman Capital Management Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After consideration of commenters' concerns, we are adopting a
compliance period of 24 months following the final amendments'
effective date for larger entities, and 30 months following the final
amendments' effective date for smaller entities. The tiered compliance
period we are adopting is designed to strike the appropriate balance
between allowing funds adequate time to adjust their compliance
practices, and allowing investors and shareholders to benefit from the
amended names rule framework. This tiered compliance period also
recognizes commenter concerns related to the operational challenges
associated with compliance with the final amendments. In considering
the adequacy of this compliance period, we also have considered that
certain funds' current investment policies may already be in line with
the final amendments or could be readily conformed without material
change.\439\ Furthermore, certain provisions of the final amendments
will reduce both the initial and ongoing costs associated with
compliance compared to the proposed amendments from which some
commenter concerns

[[Page 70477]]

stemmed. We anticipate that smaller entities will benefit from having
an additional six months to come into compliance with the final
amendments, based on feedback from commenters and to the extent that
smaller entities may face additional or different challenges in coming
into compliance with the amendments than larger entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\439\ See infra section IV.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We disagree with the commenter who asserted that the amended rule
is impermissibly retroactive.\440\ The compliance period that we are
adopting ensures that the rule amendments will operate and will be
enforced prospectively. That regulated entities may have to take action
to come into compliance with the rule does not make that rule
retroactive.\441\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\440\ See Stradley Comment Letter.
\441\ See Mobile Relay Assocs. v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir.
2006) (``It is often the case that a business will undertake a
certain course of conduct based on the current law, and will then
find its expectations frustrated when the law changes. This has
never been thought to constitute retroactive lawmaking, and indeed
most economic regulation would be unworkable if all laws disrupting
prior expectations were deemed suspect.'') (internal quotation marks
omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Staff in the Division of Investment Management are reviewing its
no-action letters and other statements addressing compliance with the
names rule to determine which letters and other staff statements, or
portions thereof, should be withdrawn in connection with the final
amendments. Some of these letters and other staff statements, or
portions thereof, may be moot, superseded, or otherwise inconsistent
with the final rule and, therefore, may be withdrawn by the staff. The
staff's review includes, but is not necessarily be limited to, the
staff no-action letters and other staff statements listed below.
Frequently Asked Questions about Rule 35d-1;
Disclosure by Funds Investing in Government Sponsored
Enterprises (staff letter to the ICI, Oct. 17, 2003);
IM Guidance Update, No. 2013-12, Fund Names Suggesting
Protection from Loss (Nov. 2013).

III. Other Matters

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,\442\ the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated the final amendments
as a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). If any of the
provisions of these rules, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance, is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect
other provisions or application of such provisions to other persons or
circumstances that can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\442\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction

We are mindful of the costs imposed by, and the benefits obtained
from, our rules. Section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act \443\
provides that when the Commission is engaging in rulemaking under the
Act and is required to consider or determine whether an action is
consistent with the public interest, the Commission shall also consider
whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation, in addition to the protection of investors. The following
analysis considers, in detail, the likely significant economic effects
that may result from the final rule amendments, including the benefits
and costs to investors and other market participants as well as the
broader implications of the final rule amendments for efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\443\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many of the benefits and costs discussed below are difficult to
quantify. For example, the Commission cannot quantify how investors may
change their investments in funds in response to the final rule
amendments. Also, in some cases, data needed to quantify these economic
effects are not currently available and the Commission does not have
information or data that would allow such quantification. For example,
the costs for investors to search for funds and monitor them to ensure
that their investments are consistent with their preferences will
depend on investors' opportunity cost of time, which could differ
across investors. While the Commission has attempted to quantify
economic effects where possible, much of the discussion of economic
effects is qualitative in nature.

B. Broad Economic Considerations

As discussed in section I above, we believe that a fund's name is
one important piece of information that investors use to select a fund,
and that asset managers give considerable thought to the fund names
that they choose. To the extent that investors value and can determine
whether a fund's investments comport with the fund's name, there are
reputational incentives for funds to hold such assets.\444\ However, it
is costly for individuals or third parties to analyze and monitor the
extent to which every fund invests in assets consistent with an
investment focus suggested by its name, or even to discover the
reputation of each fund. As a result, it may be more efficient for
investors to be able to rely on certain regulatory standards addressing
the relationship between a fund's name and its investments than to rely
on third parties or individual analyses for these purposes. Investors
within a fund also differ in their preferences, and this variability
mitigates an adviser's incentive to cater to those types of
preferences, such as preferences over risk or correlation with
particular market factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\444\ See Zycher Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, an adviser has an incentive for the fund to hold
investments different from those suggested by the fund's name to the
extent that doing so would lead to increased assets under management
and increased fee revenues. For example, a fund may be incentivized to
depart from the investment focus suggested by its name in an attempt to
outperform its peers and attract greater inflows and may act on this
incentive within regulatory and market constraints. Holding investments
not consistent with the investment focus that a fund's name suggests
could lead to investors holding investments that are inconsistent with
their goals and risk tolerances.
Some commenters believed that the current names rule needs to be
amended.\445\ Some of these commenters stated, for example, that the
current scope of the 80% investment policy provision does not cover all
instances in which fund names create the reasonable expectation that a
fund will invest in a certain way.\446\ Funds that suggest an
investment focus but that are not currently covered by the names rule
are popular. For example, funds with ``growth'' or ``value'' in their
name make up over 15% of funds.\447\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\445\ For a fuller discussion, see section I.B.
\446\ See supra footnote 26 and accompanying text.
\447\ Based on an analysis of fund names as of Dec. 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, derivatives have become a more common tool used by
funds since the inception of the names rule, and many funds that use
derivatives do so in ways that amplify, rather than hedge, their non-
derivative positions.\448\ Because the market value of derivatives

[[Page 70478]]

tends to be small relative to the exposures they create, certain
derivatives may currently provide funds a way to create large exposures
not suggested by a fund's name without falling out of compliance with
an 80% investment policy if derivatives are valued using their market
value.\449\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\448\ See R. Kaniel, and P. Wang, Unmasking Mutual Fund
Derivative Use, CEPR Discussion Paper 17755 (2022) (``Kaniel
Paper''). The authors find that 26% of active equity mutual funds
use derivatives. Of these, 63% have derivative returns that
correlate positively with their non-derivative returns. The median
correlation was 0.25. For comparison, J Koski and J Pontiff, How are
Derivatives Used? Evidence from the Mutual Fund Industry, Journal of
Finance, Volume 54(2), 791-816 (1999) finds that only 21% of similar
funds use derivatives.
\449\ See Kaniel Paper. The authors find that, among funds that
use derivatives, derivatives are, on average, 2% of the market value
of those funds. By contrast, derivatives make up, on average, 21% of
those same funds' gross notional exposure. See also supra footnote
238 and accompanying text (stating that using a derivatives
instrument's market value for purposes of assessing names rule
compliance could result in a fund being in compliance with its 80%
investment policy despite the fund having significant exposure to
investments that are not suggested by the fund's name).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Researchers have studied whether a fund's name can drive investor
behavior above and beyond the investment strategy of the fund. That is,
they have studied whether an incentive exists for managers to use names
to attract fund flows in ways that are not reflected in the investment
allocation of the fund. Research has found that fund names have an
impact on fund flows in different types of environments.\450\
Researchers have also found that certain funds have changed their names
to suggest changes in style, but the funds do not subsequently change
styles.\451\ Gaps between the investment style implied by a fund's name
and the actual style of the fund are consistent with self-interest of
the fund's adviser. For example, research findings suggest that fund
managers may alter funds' investment styles during the last part of a
year, without changing their names to reflect a new style, in an effort
to outperform their peers and attract greater inflows over the
remainder of the year.\452\ Research findings also suggest that funds'
name changes that do not also involve a style change may be intentional
and aimed at attracting investors.\453\ In particular, these fund name
changes tend to suggest fund styles that have performed well recently
and that have received a disproportionate amount of fund flows.\454\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\450\ See e.g., S. El Ghoul, and A. Karoui, What's in a (Green)
Name? The Consequences of Greening Fund Names on Fund Flows,
Turnover, and Performance, Finance Research Letters, Volume 39,
101620 (2021). The authors find that, following a fund name change
suggesting socially responsible investment, fund inflows increase
but there is a statistically insignificant change in fund exposure
to socially responsible investment. See also B. Candelon, J. B.
Hasse, J.-Q. Lajaunie, ESG-Washing in the Mutual Funds Industry?
From Information Asymmetry to Regulation, Risks, 9, 199 (2021). The
authors provide empirical evidence that some asset managers portray
their funds as socially responsible yet do not make tangible
investment decisions consistent with that portrayal. See also C. Wu
and W. Chen, What's an AI Name Worth? The Impact of AI ETFs on Their
Underlying Stocks, Finance Research Letters, Volume 46 (B), 102474
(2022). The authors compare returns between the stocks in two
different kinds of AI ETFs: those with and without ``AI'' in their
name. They find that the constituent stocks of the group with ``AI''
in the name has a higher cumulative abnormal return than the
constituent stocks of the group without ``AI'' in the name, and
attribute this to differential fund flows to the different groups.
\451\ See Michael J. Cooper, Huseyin Gulen, and P. Raghavendra
Rau, Changing Names with Style: Mutual Fund Name Changes and Their
Effects on Fund Flows, Journal of Finance, Volume 60, 2825-2858
(2005) (``Cooper Paper''). The authors identify 296 equity mutual
funds that make a style name change over the period April 1994 to
July 2001. They find that 63% of style-related name changes are
`misleading' in that they are not accompanied by corresponding
changes in investment style to reflect the investment style
suggested by the new name. See also Susanne Espenlaub, Imtiaz ul
Haq, and Arif Khurshed, It's all in the name: Mutual fund name
changes after SEC Rule 35d-1, Journal of Banking and Finance, Volume
84, 123-134 (2017) (``Espenlaub Paper''). The authors examine 2,677
fund name changes among 2,110 funds from the fourth quarter of 2001
through the fourth quarter of 2011. The authors find 435
``misleading'' name changes in their sample.
\452\ See Anne-Florence Allard et al., When Mutual Fund Names
Misinform (working paper, 2020), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3628293. The researchers
find that funds that perform poorly over the first three quarters of
a year, and funds that have experienced poor fund flows over the
first three quarters of a year, are more likely to change to an
investment style that is inconsistent with the style implied by the
fund's name. These results suggest that funds that have performed
poorly over the first three quarters of a year, and funds that have
experienced poor fund flows over the first three quarters of a year,
would bear an opportunity cost if they continued to follow the
investment style consistent with the strategy implied by the funds'
names.
\453\ See Espenlaub Paper, supra footnote 451. The researchers
find that ``superficial'' name changes result in increased fund
flows but do not result in either higher performance or lower fees.
See also Cooper Paper, supra footnote 451. The researchers find that
funds that change their names: (1) experience negative flows,
relative to their peers, prior to changing their names, (2) have
performed poorly on a risk-adjusted basis, and (3) are in a style,
irrespective of a fund's individual performance, that has recent
poor performance.
\454\ See Cooper Paper, supra footnote 451.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters disputed the relevance of this research to the
proposed amendments to the names rule, claiming that it predates the
current names rule, misuses terms like ``growth'' and ``value,'' and
does not demonstrate that investors have been misled.\455\ While some
of this evidence does predate the current names rule, it also reflects
styles that are not within the scope of the current names rule but are
in the scope of the amended rule (i.e., growth and value funds). As
such, we do not anticipate that the current names rule impacted the
main findings of these studies. Further, we believe that the totality
of the academic research, both before and after the enactment of the
names rule, suggests that fund names affect investor behavior above and
beyond what can be explained by a fund's returns, risk level,
correlation with market risk factors, or classification by third
parties. This is not to suggest that names are solely determinative in
investor decisions. While the above research is consistent with some
investors unknowingly choosing funds that invest in assets outside of
the investment focus suggested by their names, this is not the only
possible explanation for the given findings. For example, funds with
names that superficially suggest popular styles may be included more
often in investors' initial screenings for funds, and investors may
nonetheless disproportionately choose these funds after investigating
them more thoroughly despite this fact. However, this would still
suggest inefficiencies in the investor-fund matching process that could
be improved by more precise naming and establishes the existence of an
incentive for managers to choose names that maximize fund flows, even
if the chosen name is not indicative of the investment practice of the
fund. The academic research cited generally does not distinguish
whether funds were purchased directly by investors or by a fiduciary or
other intermediary. However, the rule is intended to increase search
efficiency for both retail investors and fiduciaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\455\ See ICI Comment Letter and SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters also criticized the proposed amendments for the
costs they would impose on funds and, by extension, investors.
Prevalent among these were concerns that the expansion of the scope of
the rule would encompass many funds whose names have terms that are
defined at least partially by managerial judgment.\456\ These funds,
commenters argued, would have significantly higher costs of compliance
with the names rule than would funds that are already scoped into the
rule. In particular, commenters were worried that automated processes
could not be implemented that would categorize each asset and determine
whether it fell in its 80% basket.\457\ These concerns were heightened
because the approach in the proposing release effectively would have
required funds to do this categorization continually (and in some
circumstances daily) in order to determine the number of days that a
fund was out of

[[Page 70479]]

compliance with its 80% investment policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\456\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter, SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
\457\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter, J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final amendments have taken several steps to mitigate costs for
most funds relative to the amendments in the proposing release. For
example, the final rule does not include a requirement for continual or
daily monitoring to reassess the characteristics of the investments in
the fund's 80% basket, alleviating the need for daily recategorization.
However, a fund must review its portfolio investments on a quarterly
basis to determine whether or not the fund's investments continue to be
consistent with its 80% investment policy. As is true under the
baseline, a fund must also categorize an asset at its time of
investment. If a fund is trading each of its assets daily then the cost
mitigation described above would not apply.

C. Economic Baseline

The baseline against which the costs, benefits, and the effects on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation of the final rule are
measured consists of the current state of the fund market, current
practice as it relates to fund names and investment policies, and the
current regulatory framework. The economic analysis appropriately
considers existing regulatory requirements, including recently adopted
rules, as part of its economic baseline against which the costs and
benefits of the final rule are measured.\458\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\458\ See, e.g., Nasdaq v. SEC, 34 F.4th 1105, 1111-15 (D.C.
Cir. 2022). This approach also follows SEC staff guidance on
economic analysis for rulemaking. See Staff's ``Current Guidance on
Economic Analysis in SEC Rulemaking'' (March 16, 2012), available at
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/riskfin/rsfi_guidance_econ_analy_secrulemaking.pdf (``The economic
consequences of proposed rules (potential costs and benefits
including effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation)
should be measured against a baseline, which is the best assessment
of how the world would look in the absence of the proposed
action.''); Id. at 7 (``The baseline includes both the economic
attributes of the relevant market and the existing regulatory
structure.''). The best assessment of how the world would look in
the absence of the proposed or final action typically does not
include recently proposed actions, because doing so would improperly
assume the adoption of those proposed actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Fund Industry Overview
The fund industry has grown and evolved substantially in past
decades in response to various factors, including investor demand,
technological developments, and an increase in domestic and
international investment opportunities, both retail and institutional.
As of December 2022, there were 9,533 mutual funds (excluding money
market funds) with approximately $21,861 billion in total net assets,
2,735 ETFs organized as an open-end fund or as a share-class of an
open-end fund with approximately $8,843 billion in total net assets,
748 registered closed-end funds with approximately $389 billion in
total net assets, and 45 UITs with approximately $812 billion in total
net assets.\459\ There also were 355 money market funds with
approximately $5,556 billion in total net assets.\460\ Finally, as of
December 2022, there were 125 BDCs with approximately $138 billion in
total net assets.\461\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\459\ Estimates of the number of registered investment companies
and their total net assets are based on an analysis of Form N-CEN
filings as of Dec. 31, 2022. For open-end management funds, closed-
end funds, and management company separate accounts, total net
assets is the sum of monthly average net assets across all funds in
the sample during the reporting period (see Item C.19.a of Form N-
CEN). For UITs, we count only N-CEN UIT filers that indicated
registration on Form S-6 or Form N-8B-2. Furthermore, we use the
total assets as of the end of the reporting period (see Item F.11 of
Form N-CEN), and for UITs with missing total assets information, we
use the aggregated contract value for the reporting period instead
(see Item F.14.c of Form N-CEN).
\460\ Estimates of the number of money market mutual funds and
their total net assets are based on an analysis of Form N-MFP
filings as of Dec. 31, 2022.
\461\ Estimates of the number of BDCs and their net assets are
based on an analysis of Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filings as of Dec.
31, 2022. Our estimate includes BDCs that may be delinquent or have
filed extensions for their filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final rule amendments would also affect current and prospective
individual investors who invest in funds. According to an association
representing registered funds, as of 2022, 71.7 million (54.7%) U.S.
households and 120.5 million individuals owned shares in U.S.
registered investment companies.\462\ Median mutual fund assets of
mutual fund-owning households were $125,000 with the median number of
mutual funds held being three.\463\ Moreover, registered funds play an
important role in individuals' retirement savings. 72% of households
had tax-advantaged retirement savings with $10.1 trillion invested in
mutual funds either through defined contribution plans or IRAs.\464\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\462\ See Investment Company Institute, 2023 Factbook (2023)
(``2023 ICI Factbook'') available at https://icifactbook.org/pdf/2023-factbook.pdf.
\463\ Id.
\464\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Market Practice
Fund names are an important mechanism in marketing funds to
investors. Although investors have access to the entirety of a fund's
disclosures, a fund's name is often the first piece of fund information
investors see and can have a significant impact on their investment
decision. Several commenters stated that the name of a fund is vital to
an investor's decision-making process and can have a large impact on
its fund flows.\465\ Fund names commonly include words that describe
the fund's investment focus--for example, the asset class(es) in which
the fund invests, as well as the fund's investment strategy. For
example, the words ``equity'' or ``stock''--terms that convey an
investment type and therefore subject funds to the existing names
rule's 80% investment policy requirement--appear in 1,393 fund names
(approximately 10.6% of non-money market funds).\466\ The words
``growth,'' ``income,'' and ``value''--terms that do not convey an
investment type--appear in 1,167 (8.9% of non-money market funds),
1,472 (11.2%), and 829 (6.3%) fund names, respectively.\467\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\465\ See, e.g., Better Markets Comment Letter, Consumer
Federation of America Comment Letter, Center for American Progress
Comment Letter.
\466\ Based on an analysis of fund names as of Dec. 2022.
\467\ Certain word pairs are also common in fund names. For
example, the word pair ``small cap'' appears in 3.6% of fund names.
Other common word pairs include ``large cap'' (2.5% of funds),
``high yield'' (2.0% of funds), and ``emerging markets'' (3.5% of
funds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A review of fund filings suggests that approximately 82% of funds
have investment policies specifying a minimum percentage of investments
consistent with a certain fund focus,\468\ while 67% of all funds have
such a policy with a minimum threshold of 80% or higher.\469\ Certain
funds also specify investment maximums as a

[[Page 70480]]

percentage of fund assets.\470\ The review also found that 60% of funds
are required under the current names rule to maintain an 80% investment
policy.\471\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\468\ This estimate is based on a random stratified sample of
100 fund names, which is a representative sample based on fund size
randomly selected from the population of N-CEN filings as of Dec.
31, 2022. Specifically, 497 and 485BPOS fund prospectuses filed in
2021 or 2022 that match to the sample of 100 funds are parsed both
programmatically and manually for keywords and phrases indicative of
minimum investment commitment policies. 485BPOS refers to any post-
effective amendments to the initial registration statement or
prospectus filed pursuant to Securities Act rule 485(b). The
investment policies for ten funds could not be identified in the 497
and 485BPOS fund prospectuses filed in 2021 or 2022. Therefore,
these ten funds are excluded for this estimate. The random sample of
100 funds referenced here is the same sample of funds as that used
to estimate the percentage of funds whose names implicate the 80%
requirement. See infra section IV.C.3
\469\ 22% of funds that have investment policies specifying a
minimum percentage of investments consistent with a certain fund
focus specify a percentage less than 80%. While 67% of funds have an
investment policy requiring at least 80% of fund investments be
consistent with a certain investment strategy, we estimate that 60%
of funds have names that trigger the 80% requirement (discussed
below). These results suggest that funds may adopt 80% investment
policies even if they are not currently within the scope of the
names rule's current requirement to adopt an 80% investment policy.
\470\ For example, a fund may specify that it invests no more
than a given percentage of fund assets in a given country or
geographic region.
\471\ See section IV.C.3 for details on the current regulatory
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds' use of derivatives has grown in the time since the names
rule was originally adopted in 2001, with 26% of funds now having some
derivatives exposure.\472\ Funds use derivatives in a variety of ways,
including increasing or hedging their exposure to certain risk factors.
Funds primarily do this through the use of futures and swaps contracts
but other derivatives, such as options, are also widely used.\473\ For
example, a fund may wish to hedge the currency risk of a foreign asset
through the use of a forward contract or its interest rate risk using a
swap. Similarly, a fund may gain exposure to certain equities or
commodities through the use of forward and option contracts. Funds also
use derivatives for cash management purposes when fund flows are
high,\474\ for tax efficiency,\475\ or to arbitrage market mispricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\472\ See supra footnote 448 and accompanying text.
\473\ See Kaniel Paper.
\474\ See, e.g., A. Frino, A. Lepone, and B Wong, Derivative
Use, Fund Flows and Investment Manager Performance, Journal of
Banking & Finance, Volume 33, 925-933 (2009).
\475\ For example, 60% of futures contracts profits may be taxed
at the long-term capital gains rate regardless of duration of the
investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Current Regulatory Framework
As discussed above, section 35(d) of the Act authorizes the
Commission to define certain fund names or titles as materially
deceptive or misleading.\476\ The current names rule applies to a
registered investment company and any series of the investment
company.\477\ The rule generally requires that if a fund's name
suggests a particular type of investment, industry, or geographic
focus, the fund must invest at least 80% of its assets in the type of
investment, industry, country, or geographic region suggested by its
name.\478\ The names rule also provides that a fund's 80% investment
policy applies ``under normal circumstances'' \479\--giving funds
flexibility to take cash or other defensive positions during market
crises. The names rule also imposes an 80% investment policy
requirement for tax-exempt funds.\480\ Under the rule, a fund may
generally elect to make its 80% investment policy a fundamental policy
(i.e., a policy that may not be changed without shareholder approval)
or instead provide shareholders notice at least 60 days prior to any
change in the 80% investment policy.\481\ The names rule also requires
a fund with a name suggesting that the fund focuses its investments in
a particular country or geographic region to disclose in its prospectus
the specific criteria used by the fund to select these
investments.\482\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\476\ See supra section I.A.
\477\ Rule 35d-1(d)(1).
\478\ See rule 35d-1(a)(2)(i), (a)(3)(i).
\479\ Id.
\480\ Alternatively, at least 80% of the income that it
distributes will be exempt. See rule 35d-1(a)(4); see also supra
footnote 15.
\481\ See rule 35d-1(a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(iii). An 80% investment
policy relating to a tax-exempt fund, however, must be a fundamental
policy.
\482\ Rule 35d-1(a)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current names rule has no express provision for how derivatives
are to be treated in a fund's 80% calculation. In practice however,
funds typically use a derivative's market value consistent with the
definition of the term ``value'' in the Investment Company Act.\483\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\483\ 2020 Request for Comment, supra footnote 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A review of fund names suggests that approximately 60% of funds
have names that implicate the 80% investment policy requirement, but
that approximately 67% of funds have an investment policy that covers
at least 80% of investment assets.\484\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\484\ This estimate is based on a random stratified sample of
100 fund names. See supra footnote 468.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 80% investment policy requirement generally applies at the time
when an investment company invests its assets.\485\ If an investment
causes a fund to no longer satisfy its 80% investment policy, then all
future investments must be made in a manner that will bring the fund
back into compliance with the 80% investment policy.\486\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\485\ Rule 35d-1(b); see also 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release,
supra footnote 8.
\486\ Rule 35d-1(b). As described in greater detail in the
Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, funds' compliance with the
baseline rule is facilitated by Commission staff review of funds'
initial registration statements, post-effective amendments, proxy
statements, and annual reports. Likewise, the names rule's 80%
investment policy requirement has never been intended to create a
safe harbor from liability under section 35(d) for materially
deceptive or misleading fund names generally. See supra section
II.A.5; see also 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8,
(stating that the Division would ``continue to scrutinize investment
company names not covered by the proposed rule . . . and [i]n
determining whether a particular name is misleading, the Division
w[ould] consider whether the name would lead a reasonable investor
to conclude that the company invests in a manner that is
inconsistent with the company's intended investments or the risks of
those investments''). Funds that anticipate oversight may be more
likely to take steps to align their investment practices with the
terminology used in these funds' names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the current rule applies to all registered investment
companies, it applies to UITs as well as mutual funds and registered
closed-end investment companies.\487\ UITs are passively managed
vehicles that operate pursuant to a trust indenture or a similar
document and have fixed portfolios. They are also generally subject to
the 80% investment policy requirement of the current names rule at the
time of investment. However, UITs that have made an initial deposit of
securities before the compliance date of the original rule are exempted
from this requirement.\488\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\487\ 2001 Names Rule Adopting Release, supra footnote 8.
\488\ Rule 35d-1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BDCs, while not registered investment companies, are subject to
requirements of section 35(d) of the Act, and thus the names rule, by
operation of section 59 of the Act.\489\ Accordingly they must meet the
current rule's 80% investment policy requirement including to either
adopt the required 80% investment policy as a fundamental policy or
provide shareholders 60 days' advance notice for any change in the
investment policy.\490\ Unlisted registered closed-end funds and BDCs,
however, do not issue redeemable shares or list their shares on a
national securities exchange. Shareholders in an unlisted registered
closed-end fund or BDC generally will have no ready recourse, such as
the ability to redeem or quickly sell their shares, if the fund were to
change its investment policy and the investment focus that the fund's
name indicates.\491\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\489\ See supra footnote 13 (citing 15 U.S.C. 80a-58).
\490\ Rule 35d-1(a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(iii).
\491\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.99 and
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All registered management investment companies (other than money
market funds and small business investment companies), as well as ETFs
organized as UITs, file Form N-PORT with the Commission on a monthly
basis. Form N-PORT requires reporting of a fund's complete portfolio
holdings in a structured data language, with every third month
available to the public 60 days after the end of the fund's fiscal
quarter.

D. Benefits, Costs, and Effects on Efficiency, Competition and Capital
Formation

The final amendments are designed to modernize and enhance the
investor protections that the names rule currently provides. The final
amendments are designed to improve, and broaden the scope of, the
requirement for certain funds to adopt a

[[Page 70481]]

policy to invest at least 80% of their assets in accordance with the
investment focus that the fund's name suggests. These amendments
further the name rule's objective of preventing fund names from
misrepresenting a fund's investments and risks by ensuring that a
fund's investment activity is consistent with the investment focus its
name communicates. The final amendments also update the rule's notice
requirements, establish recordkeeping requirements, and require
enhanced prospectus disclosure and reporting on Form N-PORT.
1. Benefits
The investor protections provided by the names rule benefit
investors by helping to ensure investors' assets in funds are invested
in accordance with their investment goals and risk tolerances. The
distinction in the current rule between a type of investment--which
implicates the 80% requirement under the baseline--and an investment
strategy--which does not implicate this requirement--is not useful from
an investor protection perspective because any fund name that may
connote a particular investment focus can result in reasonable investor
expectations regardless of whether the fund's name describes a strategy
or a type of investment. Also, under certain circumstances, the current
structure of the rule may not protect investors from funds departing
from the investment focus suggested by their name over time. For
example, funds may passively hold assets whose characteristics change,
such as a small-cap firm becoming a mid-cap firm. Since funds are
currently required only to assess assets at the time of investment,
changes in the relative value of the assets of a fund could allow a
fund's portfolio to drift such that its holdings no longer reflect the
investment focus suggested by its name, which could mislead new or
existing investors. Additionally, the investor protections provided by
the names rule are not designed to address funds' increasing use of
derivatives.
The benefits associated with the final amendments may vary based on
funds' current practices. We estimate that 82% of funds, and over half
of funds not currently subject to the names rule, currently have in
place practices related to investing a certain percentage of their
assets in a particular type of assets or assets that have certain
characteristics.\492\ Depending on the extent to which those practices
differ across funds or differ from the final amendments' requirements,
the benefits realized by fund investors, as detailed below, may vary
across fund investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\492\ See supra footnote 468 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally, the final rules should increase investor confidence that
funds' portfolios are aligned with the investment focus suggested by
their names. The provisions are intended to align fund investments with
the preferences of investors. To the extent that funds change their
behavior and invest in assets more suited to investor preferences,
allocation efficiency will increase.
One commenter questioned the general benefits of the amendments on
the basis of a lack of enforcement actions or lawsuits arising from the
current names rule.\493\ We disagree with this assessment. There are a
number of factors that determine whether and when the Commission brings
enforcement actions, meaning the presence or absence of such actions
does not necessarily indicate whether rulemaking is or is not
justified. For the reasons discussed throughout, including the
Commission and staff's experience with the names rule over the past two
decades and developments in the fund industry, the Commission believes
that this rulemaking is justified.\494\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\493\ See SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\494\ See supra section II.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Names Suggesting an Investment Focus. To the extent fund names are
not representative of funds' investment focuses, existing and potential
investors may hold, or invest in, funds with risk and return
characteristics that differ from investors' reasonable expectations.
Absent investor protections with respect to fund holdings, existing
investors may expend resources they otherwise would not expend to
confirm that fund investments are consistent with their expectations
based on the fund's name, or they may choose to reduce or eliminate
their investments in funds. Similarly, uncertainty about fund holdings
despite the fund's name could cause potential investors to expend
greater resources to confirm fund investments prior to investment or
could lead potential investors to invest less or forgo investment
altogether. The final amendments would extend the provisions of the
names rule to a broader set of fund names.
Specifically, we estimate that approximately 8,100 (60%) funds are
currently subject to the names rule's 80% investment policy requirement
and that our final amendments would increase this number to
approximately 10,300 (76%) funds.\495\ We believe that investors in
these additional funds would benefit to the extent that the scope
expansion helps ensure that a fund's investment activity is consistent
with the investment focus its name communicates and, thus, the investor
expectations the name creates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\495\ See supra footnotes 468-469. The percentage estimate is
applied to the total number of funds (13,541) listed in section
IV.C.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Temporary Departures. The final amendments will continue to permit
a fund to depart temporarily from the requirement to invest at least
80% of the value of its assets in accordance with the investment focus
its name suggests. The final rule requires that a fund must invest in
accordance with its 80% investment policy under normal circumstances.
Funds must review their portfolios on a quarterly basis for compliance
with the 80% investment requirement. In instances where a fund
identifies that its portfolio is out of compliance with the 80%
investment requirement, the fund must make future investments in a
manner that would bring the fund into compliance as soon as reasonably
practicable and in all circumstances within 90 consecutive days of the
fund's identification that the requirements are no longer met. If the
fund departs from the requirements in other-than-normal circumstances,
the fund is not required to come back into compliance as soon as
reasonably practicable but must come back into compliance within 90
consecutive days of the initial departure.
In addition, funds are permitted under the final rule to
temporarily depart from the 80% investment requirement in connection
with a reorganization (for which the final rule does not specify a
required time frame for accompanying temporary departures) or a fund
launch (departure not to exceed the period of 180 consecutive days) or
when a notice of a change in a fund's policy in certain circumstances
has been provided to fund shareholders.\496\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\496\ See supra section II.A.2 for a full description of the
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current rule requires a fund to determine at the time it
invests whether the security is appropriately included in the fund's
80% basket. As a result, a fund that does not frequently trade could
potentially have assets that comported with the name of the fund at the
time of investment, but whose characteristics have changed with time.
As a result, the requirement in the final rule for a fund to reassess
the characteristics of a fund's assets on a quarterly basis will
benefit investors by

[[Page 70482]]

ensuring that funds cannot passively drift such that their name no
longer reflects their holdings for a prolonged period.
The final rule will also benefit investors by imposing a limit to
the amount of time that a fund can invest less than 80% of the value of
its assets in accordance with the fund's investment focus in other-
than-normal circumstances. The new deadline gives a predictable
timeline for discrepancies to be resolved, during which funds can
investigate a name change and shareholders can determine whether to
redeem their shares. Some commenters highlighted the benefit of
increased investor protection that this would produce.\497\ For
example, the final rule would disallow a departure for longer than 90
consecutive days to address a market disruption. This will benefit
investors to the extent that such a departure would frustrate the
expectation of investors who may expect the fund to invest consistent
with its stated investment focus even during market disruptions, and
therefore may choose to rebalance investments on their own rather than
relying upon the fund to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\497\ See, e.g., NASAA Comment Letter; Center for American
Progress Comment Letter; Consumer Federation of America Comment
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because UITs are passively managed vehicles that have fixed
portfolios, it would be difficult to adjust their portfolios to comply
with the rule's portfolio composition requirements.\498\ Accordingly,
UITs are exempted from this provision and the associated benefits
discussed above do not apply to UITs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\498\ See supra footnote 428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considerations Regarding Derivatives in Assessing Names Rule
Compliance. The final amendments also address the valuation of
derivatives instruments for purposes of determining a fund's compliance
with its 80% investment policy, as well as the derivatives that a fund
may include in its 80% basket. The final amendments generally require
that, in calculating its assets for purposes of names rule compliance,
a fund must value each derivatives instrument using its notional
amount, with certain adjustments.\499\ The final amendments also, in a
change from the proposal, require a fund to exclude from the
calculation derivatives transactions that it uses to hedge currency
risk associated with one or more specific foreign-currency-denominated
equity or fixed-income investments held by the fund provided that: (1)
such currency derivatives are entered into and maintained by the fund
for hedging purposes, and (2) the notional amounts of such derivatives
do not exceed the value of the hedged investments (or the par value
thereof, in the case of fixed-income investments) by more than 10
percent. The final amendments will permit a fund, in determining
compliance with its 80% investment policy, to deduct cash and cash
equivalents and U.S. Treasury securities with remaining maturities of
one year or less from assets (i.e., the denominator in the 80%
calculation) up to the notional amounts of the fund's derivatives
instruments, as well as any closed-out positions if those positions
result in no credit or market exposure to the fund.\500\ The final
amendments also specify that, in addition to any derivatives instrument
that a fund includes in its 80% basket because the derivatives
instrument provides investment exposure to the investments suggested by
the fund's name, the fund also may include in its 80% basket a
derivatives instrument that provides investment exposure to one or more
of the market risk factors associated with the investment focus
suggested by a fund's name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\499\ Interest-rate derivatives must be adjusted to their 10-
year bond equivalent, and options must be delta-adjusted. Physical
short positions must instead use the value of the asset sold short.
See discussion in supra section II.A.3.
\500\ See final rule 35d-1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed above, a derivatives instrument's ``value,'' as
defined in the Act, will not be the same as the investment exposure
created by the derivatives instrument.\501\ We believe the notional
amount generally serves as a better measure (than market value) of the
fund's investment exposure to the underlying reference asset or metric.
Also, as discussed in section II.A.3 above, using derivatives
instruments' market values for purposes of assessing names rule
compliance could result in a fund being in compliance with the fund's
80% investment policy despite the fund having significant exposure to
investments that are not suggested by the fund's name, as is allowed
under the baseline. The final amendments will benefit investors by
allowing funds that use derivatives to use names that may more
effectively communicate their investments and risks and reduce the risk
that a fund may use derivatives to invest in a manner inconsistent with
the investment focus suggested by the fund's name. The final amendments
also provide clarity to funds and investors on how to value derivatives
for the purpose of the 80% investment test, and make the test a more
effective tool in assessing names rule compliance. Comments on
different aspects of the proposed approach to using notional amounts
were mixed; however, commenters largely agreed that using an approach
that better reflects the economic exposure obtained by a derivatives
instrument, rather than the market value, would result in the benefits
outlined for this aspect of the rule.\502\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\501\ See discussion in supra section II.A.3.
\502\ See, e.g., Consumer Federation of America Comment Letter;
Capital Group Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlisted Registered Closed-End Funds and BDCs. Unlisted registered
closed-end funds and BDCs do not issue redeemable shares or list their
shares on a national securities exchange. Under the baseline,
shareholders in an unlisted registered closed-end fund or BDC generally
would have no ready recourse, such as the ability to redeem or quickly
sell their shares, if the fund were to change its investment policy.
Under the final rule amendments, unlisted registered closed-end funds
and BDCs will not be permitted to change their 80% investment policies
without shareholder approval unless an appropriate liquidity event is
offered a certain time prior to the implementation of such a
change.\503\ This rule will increase investor protections by requiring
that investors have a choice when a fund takes action to change its 80%
investment policy, either in the form of a vote or in the ability to
disinvest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\503\ See supra section II.A.4 for a discussion of the rule
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule would have required that 80% investment policies
for unlisted registered closed-end funds and BDCs be fundamental
policies. We believe that the final rule's approach to unlisted
registered closed-end funds and BDCs achieves the same investor
protection benefits that the proposal would have provided relative to
the current rule, because investors who no longer wish to invest in a
fund after a change in investment policy will be able to either vote on
such a change or liquidate their position. For most investors, we
assume that the ability to liquidate is at least as strong a recourse
as the ability to vote in this context.
Effect of Compliance with an 80% Investment Policy. We are adopting
a new provision in the names rule providing that a fund's name may be
materially deceptive or misleading under section 35(d) even if the fund
adopts and implements an 80% investment policy and otherwise complies
with the rule's requirement to adopt and implement the policy.\504\ The

[[Page 70483]]

Commission has previously stated that the names rule's 80% investment
policy requirement is not intended to create a safe harbor for fund
names, and the provision we are adopting codifies this position.\505\
We anticipate that investors will benefit from this codification of the
prior guidance to the extent that it deters funds from investing in a
way such that the source of a substantial portion of the fund's risks
or returns is materially different from that which an investor
reasonably would expect based on the fund's name, as communicated to
investors. It may also lead funds to consider further ways in which
their names could be materially deceptive and misleading even outside
of compliance with the 80% investment policy requirement and modify
their names and/or investment practices accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\504\ See supra section II.A.5 and final rule 35d-1(c).
\505\ See supra section II.B; see also 2001 Names Rule Adopting
Release, supra footnote 8, section II.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prospectus Disclosure. We are also adopting amendments to funds'
registration forms that would require each fund that is required to
adopt and implement an 80% investment policy to disclose in its
prospectus the definitions of the terms used in its name, including the
specific criteria the fund uses to select the investments that the
terms describe, if any.\506\ These provisions are intended to help an
investor understand whether the investment focus the name suggests is
consistent with the investor's investment goals and risk tolerance. The
final amendments will also reduce costs for investors to search for
funds that match their investment preferences and facilitate monitoring
by investors or third parties as well as facilitate oversight by the
Commission.\507\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\506\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.104 and
accompanying text.
\507\ See section II.B, section II.C, section II.E, and section
II.F for discussions of how the proposed prospectus disclosure
requirements, plain English requirements, N-PORT reporting
requirements, and recordkeeping requirements, respectively,
facilitate monitoring of fund investments by investors or third
parties as well facilitate oversight by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final amendments will require funds to tag most of the new
prospectus disclosure in Inline XBRL, a structured, machine-readable
data language.\508\ This requirement is designed to make the tagged
prospectus disclosures more readily accessible for aggregation,
comparison, filtering, and other analysis. As a point of comparison,
XBRL requirements for public operating company financial statement
disclosures have been observed to improve investor understanding of the
disclosed information.\509\ While those observations are specific to
operating company financial statement disclosures (including
footnotes), and not to disclosures from funds outside the financial
statements, they indicate that the final rule's Inline XBRL
requirements will provide fund investors with increased insight into
term definitions and investment selection criteria at specific funds
and across funds, asset managers, and time periods.\510\ An Inline XBRL
requirement is designed to ensure that all disclosures on these forms--
including both structured and unstructured disclosures--will be human-
readable, because Inline XBRL enables a single document to include both
human-readable and machine-readable disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\508\ See supra section II.B. For Forms N-2, N-8B-2, and S-6,
all new prospectus disclosures will be tagged in Inline XBRL. For
Form N-1A, the new summary prospectus disclosures in Item 4 will be
tagged in Inline XBRL. While the new statutory prospectus
disclosures in Item 9(b) will not be tagged in Inline XBRL, this
disclosure will be reported on Form N-PORT, where it will be tagged
in XML format.
\509\ See, e.g., Birt, J., Muthusamy, K. & P. Bir, XBRL and the
Qualitative Characteristics of Useful Financial Information,
Accounting Research Journal, 30 (2017) (finding ``financial
information presented with XBRL tagging is significantly more
relevant, understandable and comparable to non-professional
investors''); Cahan, S.F., Chang, S., Siqueira, W.Z. & K. Tam, The
roles of XBRL and processed XBRL in 10-K readability, Journal of
Business Finance & Accounting (2021) (finding 10-K file size reduces
readability before XBRL's adoption since 2012, but increases
readability after XBRL adoption, indicating ``more XBRL data
improves users' understanding of the financial statements'');
Efendi, J., Park, J.D. & C. Subramaniam, Does the XBRL Reporting
Format Provide Incremental Information Value? A Study Using XBRL
Disclosures During the Voluntary Filing Program, Volume 52, Issue 2,
Abacus, 259 (2016) (finding XBRL filings have larger relative
informational value than HTML filings).
\510\ The SEC's fund XBRL data are frequently accessed; for
example, during the final week of Jun. 2023, over 37,000 investment
company XBRL files were accessed via EDGAR. EDGAR access data is
available at https://www.sec.gov/about/data/edgar-log-file-data-sets. As another example, the Commission's quarterly XBRL datasets
for mutual fund prospectus risk/return summaries garnered over
13,000 pageviews from June 2022 to June 2023, according to a Google
Analytics query of the Commission's XBRL dataset web page. The web
page is available at https://www.sec.gov/dera/data. Even if some
pageviews are not from investors themselves, investors may
indirectly benefit from the processing of XBRL data by information
intermediaries such as financial media, data aggregators, academic
researchers, et al.). See, e.g., Trentmann, N., Companies Adjust
Earnings for Covid-19 Costs, but Are They Still a One-Time Expense?,
The Wall Street Journal (2020) (citing an XBRL research software
provider as a source for the analysis described in the article);
Bloomberg Lists BSE XBRL Data (Mar. 17, 2019), available at https://www.xbrl.org/news/bloomberg-lists-bse-xbrl-data/; Hoitash, R & U.
Hoitash, Measuring accounting reporting complexity with XBRL, The
Accounting Review, Volume 93, 259-287 (2018). Also, in contrast to
XBRL financial statements (including footnotes), which consist of
tagged quantitative and narrative disclosures, the disclosures here
do not expressly require the disclosure of any quantitative values
(if a fund were to include any quantitative values as nested within
the required discussion--for example by disclosing as a selection
criterion a specific upper limit of company revenues from industries
the fund deems incongruent with its definition of ``ESG''--those
values will also be individually detail tagged, in addition to the
block text tagging of the narrative discussion). Tagging narrative
disclosures can facilitate analytical benefits such as automatic
comparison/redlining of these disclosures against prior periods and
the performance of targeted artificial intelligence/machine learning
(``AI/ML'') assessments (tonality, sentiment, risk words, etc.) of
specific definition and selection criteria disclosures rather than
the entire unstructured document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plain English/Established Industry Use Requirement. We are also
requiring that any terms used in the fund's name that suggest either an
investment focus, or that the fund is a tax-exempt fund, must be
consistent with those terms' plain English meaning or established
industry use. This requirement is designed to provide investors with a
better understanding of the fund and its investment objectives by
effectively requiring a fund's name to be consistent with a reasonable
investor's likely understanding of the investment focus or tax status
that the fund's name suggests. Because terms may inherently have
multiple meanings, and the amended rule provides flexibility to funds
to define the terms in their name, this provision will provide a
safeguard to investors by helping to ensure that these chosen
definitions are within a term's plain English meaning or established
industry use.
While many commenters agreed with the benefits of this requirement,
some stated that this benefit may be mitigated in certain instances;
for example, if the name uses terms that evolve over time, or if the
plain English meaning of a term differs from its established industry
use. These commenters suggested that investors would need to look at
the prospectus disclosure to reasonably understand these terms and so
there would be no additional benefit to requiring that terms in the
name comport to either their plain English meaning or established
industry use.\511\ While investors should look to prospectus disclosure
to understand how terms in a fund's name are defined, this provision
would still benefit investors in those circumstances by allowing them
to more quickly search for funds that match their investment goals by
more effectively filtering for funds with names that could be related
to their desired investment allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\511\ See supra footnotes 357-358 and accompanying text for a
discussion responding to the issues raised by these commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Form N-PORT Reporting Requirements. We are also amending Form
N-PORT to include new reporting

[[Page 70484]]

items.\512\ Registered investment companies, other than money market
funds, required to adopt an 80% investment policy would be required to
report on Form N-PORT: (1) with respect to each portfolio investment,
whether the investment is included in the fund's 80% basket, (2) the
value of the fund's 80% basket, as a percentage of the value of the
fund's assets, and (3) the definitions of terms used in the name and
any selection criteria associated with these terms. The new information
that funds will be required to report on Form N-PORT filings will
facilitate the Commission's oversight of funds' names rule compliance
and assist Commission staff in examination, enforcement, and monitoring
with respect to the consistency between funds' portfolio investments
and the investment focus that the fund's name suggests. In addition to
assisting the Commission in its regulatory functions, investors and
other potential users will benefit from the periodic public disclosure
of the information reported on Form N-PORT. Although Form N-PORT is not
primarily designed for disclosing information directly to individual
investors, we intend that entities providing services to investors,
such as investment advisers, broker-dealers, and entities that provide
information and analysis for fund investors, will also utilize and
analyze the new information that will be required by the final
amendments to Form N-PORT to monitor fund investments for consistency
with investment focuses suggested by fund names. The analysis done by
these parties will make it easier for all investors to determine
whether or not a fund's investment strategy is consistent with their
goals and preferences. Accordingly, whether directly or through third
parties, the final new disclosure on Form N-PORT is intended to benefit
all fund investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\512\ As discussed above, the final amendments to Form N-PORT,
like all Form N-PORT reporting requirements, apply to registered
investment companies other than money market funds. BDCs are not
subject to any Form N-PORT reporting requirements and thus would not
be subject to the final amendments to Form N-PORT. See supra
footnote 370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recordkeeping. The final amendments require funds to maintain
certain records if the fund is required to adopt an 80% investment
policy.\513\ While the amendments do not prescribe the particular form
of documentation required to be maintained, funds generally should
maintain appropriate documentation that would be sufficient for a third
party to verify the matter covered by each record and would be readily
available to Commission staff. These requirements will provide our
staff, and a fund's compliance personnel, the ability to evaluate the
fund's compliance with the proposed amendments and thereby will benefit
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\513\ See final rule 35d-1(b)(3). The recordkeeping requirements
will apply to UITs only at the time of initial deposit, and with
respect to any notice sent to shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice Requirement. The final amendments also protect investors by
modifying the current notice requirements when a fund chooses to change
its investment policy. The final amendments are designed to specify
further the content and delivery of the notice, and address more
directly the needs of investors who elect electronic delivery. The rule
change benefits shareholders by requiring more prominent notice, and by
requiring notice of both policy changes and corresponding name changes.
This is intended to help ensure that investors are aware of any name
and/or policy change, including to help prevent confusion when
investors begin receiving fund materials referring to the new name. The
rule change also benefits funds by expressly permitting use of email
for notices and by permitting paper notices to be bundled with other
shareholder correspondence. These changes could result in cost savings
for funds that may be passed on to investors.
2. Costs
We believe that compliance costs associated with the final
amendments, particularly those that expand the current scope of the
names rule or create new requirements, would vary based on a fund's
current practices with respect to adopting policies to invest a
particular percentage of fund assets in investments that have, or whose
issuers have particular characteristics. We assume that certain funds'
current investment policies may already be in line with many of the
final rule's requirements or could be readily conformed without
material change. For example, as discussed in section IV.C.3 above, a
review of fund filings suggests that approximately 7% of funds have
investment policies that cover at least 80% of investment assets but
are not required to do so under the current names rule. Over 80% of
these funds would be newly scoped into the rule. Since we also estimate
that 16% of funds will be newly subject to the rule, this means that
roughly one third of funds that will be newly subject to an 80%
investment policy requirement already have an 80% investment policy,
though the exact implementation of this policy may differ from that
required by the rule. Even more funds not currently scoped into the
names rule already have a minimum investment policy covering less than
80% of assets. These funds will have lower implementation costs than
they would have if they did not already have such an investment policy.
For example, these funds are likely already to track the value of their
assets on an initial and periodic basis for purposes of complying with
such policy, as well as whether a particular asset is part of the
percentage of their assets consistent with the investment policy.\514\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\514\ Implementations of such existing 80% investment policies
may vary, for example with respect to the kind and frequency of the
determinations being made. Cost savings would be greater for funds
whose existing implementation can more easily be adapted to meet the
specific requirements of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We expect that funds would incur costs to review the proposed
rule's requirements and modify, as necessary, their investing
practices, policies and procedures, and recordkeeping to comply with
the proposed rule, or may decide to instead change their name. Even
though we understand that many funds, even those that are not currently
within the scope of the names rule, currently have in place practices
related to investing a certain percentage of their assets in a
particular type of assets or assets that have certain characteristics,
those practices may differ across funds and also may differ from the
proposed rule's requirements.
Certain costs may be fixed, while other costs may vary with the
size of the fund and its investment focus. For instance, certain funds
may determine that, in furtherance of the 80% investment policy that
the rule requires, they will need to create or purchase data to track
whether selected investments are consistent with the fund's investment
focus. In certain circumstances, this cost may be relatively low and
not vary much across similar funds. For example, some growth funds may
rely on U.S. financial data when selecting fund portfolio investments.
Even if different funds use different metrics to choose their
investments, or invest in different industries, the cost of obtaining
and using their data will likely be similar across funds unless they
are able to share this cost across funds in a fund complex. Further,
the cost of aggregating and analyzing financial data is likely to be
relatively low because Generally Accepted Accounting Principles promote
consistency and comparability in reported financial information, and
because in most cases these data are

[[Page 70485]]

already tagged in XBRL so they can be parsed automatically. Conversely,
other growth funds may rely on other metrics or more subjective
criteria, and so the cost of creating or acquiring a dataset to track
whether selected investments are consistent with the fund's investment
focus may be higher. In general, this cost is likely to be relatively
larger for smaller funds or funds with more esoteric or bespoke
strategies.
Similarly, the cost of data that funds will likely use to comply
with the rule may vary across funds based on the investment focus. For
example, funds with an ESG focus may face a lack of consistent and
comparable ESG information since different vendors of ESG ratings come
to different conclusions about the same investment assets. This
disparity arises from differing methodologies as well as differing
inputs. Data vendors may charge a premium for their relatively more
bespoke analysis compared to vendors of other more consistent data,
such as financial statement data. Further, some funds may integrate
multiple sources of information themselves to determine whether a
particular asset is consistent with a fund's investment focus, further
increasing the cost.
Also, while larger funds or funds that are part of a large fund
complex may incur higher costs in absolute terms, larger funds may find
it less costly, per dollar managed, to meet the requirements of the
final amendments. For example, larger funds may have to allocate a
smaller portion of existing resources, and fund complexes may realize
economies of scale in complying with the final amendment's requirements
for several funds.
Names Suggesting an Investment Focus. The final amendments broaden
the scope of the names rule's current 80% investment policy requirement
to also apply to fund names that include terms suggesting that the fund
focuses in investments that have, or whose issuers have, particular
characteristics.\515\ As discussed above, we estimate that this
amendment would subject an additional 2,200 funds to this
requirement.\516\ Fund registration forms currently require each fund
to include disclosure in its prospectus that describes its principal
investment strategies (including the type or types of securities in
which the fund invests or will invest principally).\517\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\515\ See section II.A.1 and supra footnote 56.
\516\ See supra footnote 495 and accompanying text.
\517\ See, e.g., Item 9(b)(1) of Form N-1A. Instruction 2 to
Item 9(b)(1) of Form N-1A states that a fund shall, in determining
whether a strategy is a principal investment strategy, consider,
among other things, the amount of the fund's assets expected to be
committed to the strategy, the amount of the fund's assets expected
to be placed at risk by the strategy, and the likelihood of the
fund's losing some or all of those assets from implementing the
strategy. See also Item 8(2)(b) of Form N-2. Item 8(2)(b) requires
the registrant to disclose the investment objectives and policies of
the registrant that will constitute its principal portfolio emphasis
as well as how it proposes to meet its objectives, including: (1)
the types of securities in which the registrant invests or will
invest principally, and (2) the identity of any particular industry
or group of industries in which the registrant proposes to
concentrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters projected that the costs of compliance with the
expanded scope will be substantially larger than was estimated in the
Proposing Release.\518\ Regarding the modifications of systems to
comply with the proposed amendments, one commenter suggested that
``programming and testing efforts are far more complex and time
consuming than contemplated by the Commission.'' \519\ Another stated
that ``[t]his type of compliance monitoring for an investment strategy
would be novel and potentially require substantial changes and updates
to compliance systems.'' \520\ We believe funds with names that would
be newly scoped into the names rule's 80% investment policy requirement
under the final amendments already have systems in place for monitoring
compliance with existing principal investment strategy disclosure
requirements, as these requirements predate the amendments we are
adopting and funds presumably have systems to ensure that their
investments are in line with these disclosures. Similarly, some of
these funds already have minimum percentage investment policies in
place and would have systems in place to monitor their portfolios in
compliance with these policies.\521\ As a result, we believe that most
funds with names that would be newly scoped in already have internal
systems that could be modified to assess compliance with the final
rule. Further, many fund complexes will use the same automated systems
across their funds, and so these costs could be shared across their
funds. However, funds would need to develop new, or revise existing,
recordkeeping processes as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\518\ See, e.g., J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter, T.
Rowe Comment Letter, Stradley Comment Letter.
\519\ ICI Comment Letter.
\520\ SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\521\ See supra footnotes 419 and 469 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds with names that are not currently scoped into the 80%
investment policy requirement may face costs in the need to determine
whether a specific asset would qualify as part of a fund's 80% basket.
One commenter stated that conducting an 80% test on terms that rely on
judgment on the part of a fund manager ``could become a highly manual
process of confirming and recording the judgment of investment
professionals with respect to each holding in a fund.'' \522\ We
believe that to the extent that fund names covered by the amended rule
include terms that represent the judgment of their fund managers, the
rule could create additional compliance costs. Assessing compliance
with the 80% test for funds with such terms could be more costly
(relative to doing so for terms with more automatable criteria) as this
process is less scalable and potentially introduces more operational
risk than would similar automated compliance processes. For example,
manual entry of data is more prone to error than is an automated
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\522\ J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difficulty in scaling this process was particularly highlighted
by some commenters.\523\ These commenters stated that for certain terms
used in fund names, particularly ``growth'' and ``value,'' there might
be no reliable data from a third-party vendor that would match internal
definitions.\524\ According to these commenters, the definition of
these terms and therefore the classification of certain assets may even
differ across fund managers at the same firm, so any classification
system would need to allow tags at the fund level rather than
globally.\525\ Such classification, in some of these cases, may be
difficult to automate or outsource. As a result, some classifications
may need to be done manually, with costs being incurred each time a
fund performs the classification process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\523\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
\524\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter, SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
\525\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter, SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
T. Rowe Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters' concerns about the scalability of this process were
based on the proposed rule, which in effect would have required funds
to engage in continual compliance testing to reassess the
characteristics of investments in a fund's 80% basket. The final
amendments are considerably less burdensome relative to the proposal in
that such a test would need to take place only quarterly, in
association with Form N-PORT reporting, or for each new investment (not
the entire portfolio) at

[[Page 70486]]

the time of the investment.\526\ A fund subject to the 80% investment
policy requirement that trades its entire portfolio each day would
still be required to make a daily assessment for each asset of whether
the asset belongs in a fund's 80% basket. However, funds whose
disclosure of principal investment strategies indicates that the fund
invests in assets with particular characteristics are presumably
already doing the type of analysis required for such classification at
the time of investment.\527\ The primary new burden of the amended rule
in this respect is that the analysis must be redone for each asset on a
quarterly basis. At this frequency, the classification process should
be manageable even if done manually, though we recognize that this will
be more costly for funds with names that include terms involving
managerial judgment than it will be for funds whose names evoke a
strategy where compliance testing is more easily automated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\526\ See supra section II.A.2.
\527\ See supra footnote 486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many commenters stated that the expanded scope will create
interpretive questions.\528\ For example, funds that were not
previously required to have an 80% investment policy will need to
evaluate whether their current fund name would subject them to this
requirement. In addition, some commenters were concerned that including
more ``subjective'' terms into the scope of the rule would engender
``second-guessing'' by the Commission or staff on a fund's choice of
definition of these key terms.\529\ The amended rule will require that
these definitions comport with their plain English meaning or
established industry use.\530\ So to the extent that a term is
relatively more subjective, funds will have discretion to define it
consistent with the fund's investment strategy. Regardless of the
chosen definition, a fund manager must make investments by applying
specific criteria set forth in the fund's prospectus \531\ related to
the fund's investment focus or strategies such as ``growth'' or
``value.'' \532\ The investment decision is guided by definitions and
methodologies prescribed in advance and publicized by the fund,
mitigating the concern expressed by the commenters. Nonetheless, to the
extent that ``subjective'' terms in a fund's name cause the fund's
managers to be concerned about ``second-guessing,'' funds may spend
more resources to comply with the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\528\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter;
Stradley Comment Letter.
\529\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; CCMC Comment Letter;
Dechert Comment Letter.
\530\ See supra footnote 341 and accompanying text.
\531\ See Forms N-1A, N-2, and N-8B-2, as amended.
\532\ See final rule 35d-1(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters were concerned that wherever fund names that are
newly subject to an 80% test employ terms that are based on projections
or otherwise forward-looking metrics, the Commission might evaluate
their compliance with these terms retrospectively based on the outcomes
of the investments.\533\ For example, a fund that calls itself a
``growth'' fund, on the basis of its projection that fund assets will
grow in value, might be concerned that if those assets do not grow, its
name could be construed as misleading. However, the amended rule is
designed for funds to retain reasonable discretion in establishing
their 80% investment policies and defining the terms in their names.
This discretion includes the use of forward-looking metrics and models
in their selection process, just as is allowed under the baseline in
certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\533\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newly scoped index funds may also face higher costs of compliance
than those already subject to the rule. One commenter was concerned
that ``managers of index funds could be required to develop new
fundamental analysis capabilities to evaluate each index constituent
against the index name,'' and this sentiment was shared by several
commenters.\534\ Commenters also suggested that an index fund's
tracking error could increase as a result, which could also frustrate
investor expectations.\535\ As is true under the baseline, index funds
should generally adopt and implement written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that the names of their selected indexes
are not materially misleading themselves.\536\ However, for terms whose
meanings may vary across people or time, such as ``growth'' or
``value,'' we acknowledge that funds may incur a higher cost for
determining that the indexes they rely on are not themselves
misleading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\534\ WisdomTree Comment Letter. But see also, e.g., Fidelity
Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\535\ See supra footnote 319 and accompanying text.
\536\ See supra section II.A.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, funds may not take a position that would undermine the
investment focus suggested by the fund's name, even if such a position
contributes less than 20% of the fund's total assets. Ensuring that a
fund's investments are not inconsistent with its name in this way is
likely to be costlier for funds that are newly scoped into the rule
than it is for those already subject to an 80% investment policy
requirement. In response to an example in the 2022 Proposal, some
commenters highlighted what they characterized as the subjective nature
of deciding whether an investment is ``antithetical'' to the
description of the fund, particularly when no specific prohibitions are
included in the fund's name.\537\ We agree that such a determination of
whether a substantial portion of the fund's risks or returns is
materially different from that which an investor reasonably would
expect based on the fund's name may be more difficult to make in some
cases and accordingly come with higher costs of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\537\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment Letter. This
release does not incorporate the ``antithetical investment''
language that the 2022 Proposal included, as final rule 35d-1(c) is
designed to codify the existing relationship between the names rule
and section 35(d) and not to create new requirements or standards
with respect to the selection of investments in a fund's 20% basket
that are not now present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, to the extent that funds choose to rename their funds in
more generic ways to avoid having to comply with the amended names
rule, investors may face increased search costs in determining their
optimal fund allocation. However, this cost will exist only to the
extent that those funds who choose to change their name previously had
names that provided useful information to investors for their
investment allocation decision.
Temporary Departures. The final amendments would retain a fund's
ability to depart temporarily from the 80% investment requirement. The
final amendments require that a fund must invest in accordance with its
80% investment policy under normal circumstances. Funds must reassess
their portfolio assets' inclusion in the fund's 80% basket at least
quarterly. In instances where a fund identifies that its portfolio is
out of compliance with the 80% investment requirement, the fund must
make future investments in a manner that would bring the fund into
compliance as soon as reasonably practicable and in all circumstances
within 90 consecutive days of the fund's identification that the
requirements are no longer met. If the fund, in other-than-normal
circumstances, invests in a manner not consistent with the 80%
investment policy, the fund is not required to come back into
compliance as soon as reasonably practicable, but

[[Page 70487]]

must come back into compliance within 90 consecutive days of the
initial departure. Funds are permitted under the final rules to
temporarily depart from the 80% investment requirement in connection
with a reorganization (for which the final rule does not specify a
required time frame for accompanying temporary departures) or a fund
launch (departure not to exceed the period of 180 consecutive days) or
when a notice of a change in a fund's policy in certain circumstances
has been provided to fund shareholders.
This change could create a cost for investors under circumstances
where departing from the 80% investment requirement for an extended
period of time would be beneficial to the fund and its shareholders,
and such a departure would have been allowed absent the adopted
amendments. For example, investors may experience lower returns if
funds are forced to sell assets at depressed prices, or in a tax-
disadvantaged manner, or if funds are forced to purchase less liquid
securities in a compressed timeframe, which could drive up their cost
for those securities. Also, to the extent that funds' assets become
less liquid during a market crisis, funds' ability to manage liquidity
risk may be affected as well as funds' ability to meet redemptions.
These costs are generally mitigated by the length of the period of
time for resolving departures from investment compliance. In many
circumstances, 90 days is significantly longer than we understand would
be required for a fund to remedy departures from its 80% investment
policy.\538\ This cost is also mitigated by flexibility in the amended
rule for funds to instigate a name change as an alternative to
returning to compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\538\ See, e.g., supra footnote 207 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When a fund manager considers purposely departing from the fund's
80% investment policy, the manager must weigh the risks of bearing
these costs against the potential benefit. Accordingly, these costs
should arise only when the likelihood of bearing such costs is small
relative to the upside of the departure. More often, the cost of this
aspect of the rule will be reflected in any unearned excess return that
the fund does not earn because it chose not to depart from its
investment focus or tax treatment when it otherwise would have, absent
the amended rule.
To the extent that funds do not already have systems in place for
doing so, they would have to set up systems to identify departures from
the 80% investment requirement during quarterly testing, and systems to
monitor the time limits for returning to the 80% investment requirement
after a temporary departure. This will entail additional costs.
Many commenters were concerned that a UIT would be required to
monitor and change its assets in a case where its assets passively
drifted such that they would no longer be consistent with the fund's
80% investment policy.\539\ The final rule clarifies that UITs are
subject to the 80% investment policy requirement at the time of initial
deposit, but not on an ongoing basis. As a result, the costs associated
with ongoing monitoring of portfolio investments for consistency with
the fund's 80% investment policy discussed for other funds above will
not be present for UITs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\539\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Invesco Comment
Letter; ICI Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final rule's approach to temporary departures differs from that
in the Proposing Release, which would have enumerated four specific
cases in which funds would be allowed to depart temporarily from
compliance with the 80% test for a period of, generally, no longer than
30 days. Many commenters interpreted this as requiring daily or
otherwise constant monitoring of their assets in regard to the 80%
test, even when they were not trading.\540\ The final amendments
mitigate this concern by requiring a fund to review its portfolio
investments on a quarterly basis to determine whether the fund's
investments continue to be consistent with its 80% investment policy.
Many commenters were also concerned with the enumerated exceptions to
compliance with the 80% requirement and preferred the current standard
in which compliance was required ``under normal circumstances.'' \541\
Some commenters wanted more specific exceptions to be added if the
final rule were to include a prescribed list.\542\ Still more
commenters were concerned that unforeseeable events might occur which
would reasonably cause managers and investors to agree that a temporary
change in investment focus was warranted.\543\ We agree that
enumerating the circumstances in which a fund could deviate from their
80% investment policy would have provided significantly less
flexibility to fund managers. Under the final rule the loss of
flexibility is significantly less than under the proposed rule,
relative to the baseline. A fund's use of its flexibility in accordance
with investors' preferences will also promote capital allocation
efficiency. Conversely, compared to the proposal, the final rule may be
less effective at protecting investors to the extent that fund managers
do not effectively manage their funds to the benefit of the fund's
investors (for example, because fund managers do not fully internalize
investors' preferences over risk or diversification benefits). However,
we intend that the newly established timeline for returning to
compliance with an 80% investment policy will limit this potential
harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\540\ See, e.g., J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter; T.
Rowe Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter.
\541\ See, e.g., Dimensional Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel
Comment Letter; Nasdaq Comment Letter.
\542\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter;
SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\543\ See, e.g., SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; Dimensional Comment
Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considerations Regarding Derivatives in Assessing Names Rule
Compliance. The final amendments address the valuation of derivatives
instruments for purposes of determining the fund's compliance with its
80% investment policy requirement. Specifically, the final amendments
require that, in calculating its assets for purposes of names rule
compliance, a fund must generally use the notional amount \544\ of each
derivatives instrument, with certain adjustments as discussed above,
and may reduce the value of its assets by excluding cash, cash
equivalents, and certain Treasury securities up to the notional amounts
of the derivatives instrument(s) and the value of asset(s) sold short
and by excluding closed-out derivative positions.\545\ An exception to
this requirement is the use of currency derivatives associated with one
or more specific foreign-currency-denominated equity or fixed-income
investments held by the fund, that are entered into and maintained by
the fund for hedging purposes, which must be excluded.\546\ The final
rule also specifies that a fund may include in its 80% basket
derivatives that provide investment exposure to one or more of the
market risk factors associated with investments suggested by the fund's
name.\547\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\544\ In the case of a physical short, a fund would use the
value of the asset sold short.
\545\ See final rule 35d-1(g).
\546\ See supra discussion following footnote 234.
\547\ See final rule 35d-1(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our understanding is that funds that use derivatives typically
calculate notional amounts for purposes other than names rule
compliance, and that such a calculation, if not already performed,
would not be burdensome.\548\ As such, we do not

[[Page 70488]]

anticipate that there will be additional costs associated with
calculating notional values. While some funds may not currently
calculate one or more of the adjustments to notional value required by
the rule, we do not expect that doing so will entail significant costs.
The inputs required for these calculations are widely available,
including on most platforms that allow for trading these derivatives,
and they can be automated with widely used and accessible software. The
level of sophistication required to implement these calculations is
significantly lower than that needed to manage the risk of the
derivatives instruments in question. We understand, however, that
meeting the requirements of this aspect of the final amendments could
require reprogramming of internal systems for funds not currently
subject to the names rule, and reprogramming of existing systems used
for monitoring names rule compliance by funds currently subject to the
names rule. However, we anticipate that the marginal contributions to
cost of calculating the adjusted notional value will be minimal given
that these same systems will need to be updated to comply with the rule
generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\548\ For example, rule 18f-4 includes an exception from certain
of the rule's requirements that requires the calculation of notional
amounts. More generally, however, funds that use derivatives
typically consider notional amounts, and not solely their market
value, when entering into derivatives contracts or when considering
the economic effects of a derivatives contract within an existing
portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The goal of the treatment of derivatives under the final rule is to
align the value of the derivative being used for compliance with the
80% requirement with the exposure that this derivative provides to
investors. There are inherent trade-offs in achieving this goal,
however, because derivatives instruments are so varied in their
purposes and details of execution. On the one hand, a uniform standard
has the danger of being inappropriate in certain cases that could alter
the incentives for its use. On the other hand, allowing greater
flexibility runs the risk of being too permissive in a way which could
undermine the purpose of this aspect of the amended rule.
Many commenters were particularly concerned with the costs
associated with a uniform derivatives valuation approach that limits
their flexibility to choose a valuation that would be most appropriate.
Some of these commenters suggested alternatives, such as additional
flexibility to decide whether to incorporate the required adjustments
or whether the notional value or some other value would best represent
a particular derivative's exposure, which they stated could alleviate
these costs.\549\ One particular concern shared by many commenters was
that derivatives used to hedge risk exposures unrelated to the name of
the fund could cause the fund to fail an 80% test.\550\ As discussed
above, the final amendments require currency derivatives used as a
hedge to be excluded from the 80% test calculation, and this approach
addresses certain of the concerns commenters raised. However, this
exception is limited to only currency hedges, and there are other
possible hedges (such as those on interest rates) whose notional values
will remain in the denominator, and not the numerator, of an 80% test
calculation. As a result, the final amendments may disincentivize some
funds from using derivatives to hedge risks other than those related to
currency risk in the part of a fund's portfolio that is not used to
satisfy the 80% requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\549\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter;
Dechert Comment Letter.
\550\ See, e.g., Dechert Comment Letter; Fidelity Comment
Letter; ICI Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final rule will also allow funds to include derivatives in
their 80% basket for the purposes of complying with an 80% investment
policy test so long as those derivatives provide exposure to one or
more risk factors associated with the name. While in most cases, this
will more accurately account for the derivative's effect on a
portfolio's exposure to risks associated with the name, there may be
instances in which this will overstate the amount of exposure a
derivative creates. For example, in certain cases, a derivative may be
modifying the risk of another asset in the portfolio rather than
creating a new exposure. It may be possible for a fund to count both
the derivative (at its notional value) and the underlying asset in the
80% basket for the purposes of compliance with an 80% test, even though
a more useful valuation might rightfully treat these as a single asset
for the purposes of representing risk exposures. This double counting
could, in these instances, make the 80% test more lenient than
intended. To the extent that this reduces the investor protection
intended in the rule, this would create a cost to investors. This cost
is mitigated by the rule's codification of the effect of compliance
with an 80% investment policy since a fund's name may still be
misleading even if the fund technically complies with the 80%
investment policy requirement.\551\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\551\ See supra section II.A.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlisted Registered Closed-End Funds and BDCs. Under the current
rule, unless a fund's name suggests that it is a tax-exempt fund, an
unlisted registered closed-end fund's or BDC's 80% investment policy
must either be a fundamental policy or subject to a requirement in the
rule to provide shareholders 60-days' advance notice of any change in
the policy. Under the final rule amendments, unlisted registered
closed-end funds and BDCs will not be permitted to change their 80%
investment policies without shareholder approval unless, among other
things, the fund provides a 60-day notice and a tender or repurchase
offer that is not oversubscribed.\552\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\552\ This will only impact existing funds if they currently
rely on a 60-day notice period, since funds whose 80% investment
policy is a fundamental policy already require a shareholder vote to
change the policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds that currently rely on a 60-day notice period thus have two
options for complying with the final amendments. Some funds may choose
to seek shareholder approval to change their 80% investment policy.
These funds would incur costs including legal and accounting fees
incurred in connection with preparing proxy materials, the costs of
printing and mailing the proxy materials, the cost of an external proxy
solicitor, if one is used, and the cost of holding an annual or special
meeting of the shareholders.\553\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\553\ In 2019, the ICI surveyed its member firms with respect to
the costs of obtaining shareholder approval for proposals requiring
funds to obtain a quorum of greater than 50% to approve. The ICI
reports that 64 member firms with over $18 trillion of US-registered
fund assets responded. Cost estimates for 145 separate campaigns
totaled $373 million. The ICI also reports that: (1) 22 campaigns
had costs greater than, or equal to, $1 million, (2) eight had costs
greater than or equal to $10 million, and (3) the most expensive
campaign was $107 million. The ICI report does not disaggregate data
on the cost of obtaining shareholder approval for changes to a
fund's fundamental investment policies. See Comment Letter of the
Investment Company Institute regarding the SEC Roundtable on the
Proxy Process (File No. 4-725) (Dec. 23, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/4-725/4725-6580709-201124.pdf. In a 2002
rulemaking related to fund mergers, we estimated the cost of
obtaining shareholder approval to be $75,000. We did not receive any
comments on that estimate. See Investment Company Mergers,
Investment Company Act Release No. 25666 (July 18, 2002). Adjusting
for inflation, $75,000 at the beginning of 2002 would imply a cost
of approximately $128,800 as of May 2023. See Bureau of Labor
Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator, available at https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. While this estimate is
significantly lower than the average estimate from ICI, the
distribution of costs in their sample is heavily skewed by a
relatively small number of very expensive campaigns. The Commission
estimate is more analogous to the median of that distribution.
Further, the kinds of votes included in the ICI survey are much
broader than those considered here and contain votes on more
contentious issues over which funds may spend more resources on
marketing and other costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other funds may instead opt to make a repurchase or tender offer if
doing so

[[Page 70489]]

is cheaper or otherwise more advantageous to the fund's sponsor than
holding a shareholder vote. The costs incurred would include legal and
accounting fees associated with preparing offer documents and filing
documents with the Commission such as Schedule TO, the cost of
disseminating offer materials and information, and underwriting costs.
There may also be costs associated with the fund needing to fulfill the
offer and thus no longer having an adequate capital stock to take
advantage of some investment opportunities. Some commenters noted that
many of the funds subject to this requirement already make periodic
tender or repurchase offers and so allowing this alternative would
significantly reduce their costs.\554\ For such funds, if the proposed
change in the investment policy would not create an oversubscription to
their regular tender or repurchase offer, the cost of compliance may be
minimal. Exercising this option will be more costly for funds that are
not already regularly providing tender or repurchase offers.\555\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\554\ See, e.g., Stradley Comment Letter; Dechert Comment
Letter; ICI Comment Letter.
\555\ We are unable to quantify the total of these costs because
we do not have data on the magnitude of many of the sources of these
costs, such as underwriting costs, which are privately negotiated.
Further, these costs are likely to vary largely depending on the
specific circumstances of the fund. However, the SEC has previously
estimated the PRA burden of a Schedule TO at approximately $9,000
per response. See Filing Fee Disclosure and Payment Methods
Modernization, Investment Company Act Release No. 34396 (Oct. 13,
2021) [86 FR 70166 (Dec. 9, 2021)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cost of the final rule will therefore be the difference between
the cost of either seeking shareholder approval or making a tender or
repurchase offer and the cost of issuing notice under the baseline.
Instead of incurring these costs some funds may instead choose simply
not to change their policy when faced with these costs. The value of
any foregone investment opportunities that would have benefited
investors if the fund had changed its investment policy would be a cost
of the final rule.
The Proposing Release would have required that 80% investment
policies for unlisted registered closed-end funds and BDCs be
fundamental policies, with no alternative. While unlisted registered
closed-end funds and BDCs generally offer a periodic repurchase tender
offer, these offers are limited and unlikely to provide recourse to
investors in the case where a large number of investors are
dissatisfied with the change. Even discretionary repurchases as
permitted under 17 CFR 270.23c-3(c) are generally limited to 25% of the
common stock outstanding.\556\ This amount could be too low to address
the investor protection the rule is designed to address. In the
Proposing Release, we were concerned that a large tender offer for all,
or substantially all, of the outstanding shares could prove even more
costly to these funds than a shareholder vote and could result in the
fund's liquidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\556\ See 17 CFR 270.23c-3(a)(3), (b)(5), and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters highlighted the costs of the proposed
approach,\557\ and stated that an alternative in which investors were
able to liquidate would be valuable.\558\ We believe that the costs of
the final rule are lower than those of the proposed rule, since these
funds may now, instead, offer a repurchase opportunity, and funds can
choose the lower-cost alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\557\ See, e.g., Invesco Comment Letter; Stradley Comment
Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\558\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; Simpson Thacher Comment
Letter; Dechert Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Compliance with an 80% Investment Policy. The amended
rule states that a fund's name may be materially deceptive or
misleading under section 35(d) even if the fund adopts an 80%
investment policy and otherwise complies with the rule's requirement to
adopt and implement the policy.\559\ The Commission has previously
stated that the names rule's 80% investment policy requirement is not
intended to create a safe harbor for fund names, and the final
amendments will codify this view to make it clear.\560\ Because the
provision will codify an existing Commission position that that 80%
investment policy is not intended to create a safe harbor for fund
names and restate the existing scope and effect of section 35(d), we do
not anticipate that the provision creates new costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\559\ Final rule 35d-1(c).
\560\ See Proposing Release, supra footnote 2, at n.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some commenters stated that they believed that this provision
created new requirements that were not clear from previous statements
by the Commission. These comments largely addressed a fund's
responsibilities to monitor the indexes that they track \561\ and
relatively small positions that commenters questioned whether, in
response to an example in the 2022 Proposal, would be ``antithetical''
to those suggested by a fund's name.\562\ To the extent that funds
comply with the final rules in a way that may be costlier for names
with certain terms, this represents a cost of the rule's scope
expansion, and not from a separate provision under the final
amendments.\563\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\561\ See, e.g., Fidelity Comment Letter; Dechert Comment
Letter; SIFMA Comment Letter.
\562\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter; Capital Group Comment Letter; see also
supra footnote 537.
\563\ See supra the text following footnote 525 through the text
accompanying footnote 537 for a discussion of these costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prospectus Disclosure. The final amendments to funds' registration
forms--specifically, Form N-1A, Form N-2, Form N-8B-2, and Form S-6--
require each fund that is required to adopt and implement an 80%
investment policy to include disclosure in its prospectus that defines
the terms used in its name, including the specific criteria the fund
uses to select the investments that the terms describe, if any.\564\ We
received one comment stating that the costs of prospectus disclosure
were underestimated.\565\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\564\ See instruction to Item 4(a)(1) of Form N-1A; instruction
to Item 9(b)(1) of Form N-1A; instruction 2 to Item 8(2) of Form N-
2; instruction 2 to Item 11 of Form N-8B-2, and instruction 1(a) of
the Instructions as to the Prospectus of Form S-6. Based on the
results of the PRA analysis provided in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 infra
it is estimated that the annual internal costs, plus initial costs
annualized over a 3-year period, attributable to information
collection requirements associated with this aspect of the final
amendments will be $53,694,312. The annual external costs are
estimated to be $12,453,730. However, as we understand that
including the prospectus disclosure that the final amendments would
require is currently a common practice, the PRA estimates likely
overestimate the costs associated with the final amendments for
those funds whose disclosure is currently in line with the
disclosure the amendments would require. See infra section V.C.
\565\ See BlackRock Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final amendments require funds to tag most of the new
prospectus disclosure in Inline XBRL.\566\ This will impose on Form N-
1A and Form N-2 filers the cost of adding new data tags for the new
disclosures on Form N-1A and Form N-2, but will not include any initial
implementation costs associated with structuring data, because those
forms are already subject to structuring requirements. Thus,
notwithstanding one commenter's statement that the costs associated
with Inline XBRL tagging as proposed would be significant, we do not
believe the Inline

[[Page 70490]]

XBRL tagging requirement would impose significant costs on Form N-1A
and Form N-2 filers.\567\ For UITs and their sponsors, as noted by
another commenter, the cost of adding new Inline XBRL tags for the new
disclosures on Form N-8B-2 and Form S-6 is more likely to entail
initial implementation costs because UITs are not currently subject to
Inline XBRL requirements.\568\ As discussed in further detail below,
notwithstanding this commenter's recommendation to except UITs from
Inline XBRL tagging requirements, we are including all funds (including
UITs) within the scope of tagging requirements under the final
rule.\569\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\566\ See supra footnote 508. Based on the results of the PRA
analysis provided in Table 7 infra it is estimated that the ongoing
external costs attributable to Inline XBRL tagging requirements will
be $749,550 for Form N-1A, Form N-2, Form N-8B-2 and Form S-6
filers, and the ongoing internal costs, plus initial costs
annualized over a 3-year period, will be $1,562,678 for those
filers. Form N-8B-2 and Form S-6 filers (i.e., UITs) are not subject
to any current Inline XBRL requirements (or Inline XBRL requirements
with compliance dates in the future) and will thus incur initial
implementation costs associated with structuring disclosures in
Inline XBRL (such as the cost of training in-house staff to prepare
filings in Inline XBRL, and the cost to license Inline XBRL filing
preparation software from vendors). For Form N-1A and Form N-2
filers, who are subject to current Inline XBRL requirements, the PRA
estimate does not incorporate any such implementation costs.
\567\ See SIFMA Comment Letter.
\568\ See supra text accompanying footnote 337; Invesco Comment
Letter.
\569\ See infra section IV.E.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plain English/Established Industry Use Requirement. For funds that
are required to adopt an 80% investment policy, the final amendments
would require that any terms used in the fund's name that suggest
either an investment focus, or that the fund is a tax-exempt fund, must
be consistent with those terms' plain English meaning or established
industry use.\570\ To the extent that funds are currently using terms
in their names that are not consistent with either, funds would bear
costs to either change their name or their investment policy so that
they can define the terms in such a way that would comply with this
provision. These costs will be similar to those described above for
funds changing their name or investment policies and practices for
other reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\570\ See supra footnote 341 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Form N-PORT Reporting Requirements. The final amendments
include new Form N-PORT reporting items regarding the 80% investment
policy that a fund will be required to adopt in compliance with the
names rule.\571\ As proposed, the final rule requires N-PORT funds that
are required to adopt an 80% investment policy to report on Form N-
PORT: (1) whether each investment in the fund's portfolio is in the
fund's 80% basket; (2) the value of the fund's 80% basket, as a
percentage of the value of the fund's assets. The final amendments also
add a new reporting item, in which funds will report the definitions of
terms used in the fund's name including specific criteria a fund uses
to select the investments the term describes, if any.\572\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\571\ Based on the results of the PRA analysis provided in Table
6, it is estimated that the ongoing annual internal costs, plus
initial costs annualized over a 3-year period, attributable to
information collection requirements for reporting about an 80%
investment policy are $8,059,912. The annual external costs are
estimated to be $11,216,380.
\572\ Based on the results of the PRA analysis provided in Table
6, it is estimated that the ongoing annual internal costs, plus
initial costs annualized over a 3-year period, attributable to
information collection requirements for investments to be included
in a fund's 80% basket are $56,419,384. The annual external costs
are estimated to be $11,216,380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the baseline, funds covered by the rule likely already
tracked whether a particular asset was a part of the fund's 80% basket,
as well as the total value of the 80% basket as a share of the total
assets of the fund, as an aspect of their compliance practices.
However, we recognize that reporting these items on Form N-PORT could
necessitate periodic reassessments that might not otherwise occur. It
may also require modifications to compliance systems and the use of
third-party service providers.
Although the final amendments will not increase the frequency of
public disclosure, they will increase the amount of information
available about certain funds' portfolio investments. Form N-PORT data,
however, is made public only for the third month of each quarter, and
on a 60-day delayed basis. We do not believe that quarterly public
disclosure with a 60-day lag will have a significant, additional
competitive impact.
The proposed rule required reporting information for each month of
the quarter, while the final rule instead requires reporting
information only for the last day of the third month of the quarter.
The proposed rule also would have required certain information to be
reported on Form N-PORT that is not included in the final Form N-PORT
amendments (the number of days that that the value of the fund's 80%
basket fell below 80% of the value of the fund's total assets during
the reporting period), although the final reporting requirements
include a new reporting item that was not included in the proposal (the
definitions of terms used in the fund's name and criteria for selecting
the investments the name describes, if any). The final rule should, on
balance, have lower costs compared to the proposal because of the
reduced amount of information reported on net, and efficiency gains in
aligning a fund's compliance review with its reporting
obligations.\573\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\573\ See supra section II.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The compliance cost associated with the new Form N-PORT reporting
requirements includes the cost of adding new data tags for the newly
reported items.\574\ It does not include any initial implementation
costs associated with structuring data, because the form is already
subject to structuring requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\574\ See supra footnote 571.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recordkeeping. The final rule requires funds to maintain certain
records if the fund is required to adopt an 80% investment policy.\575\
The final rule does not prescribe the particular form of documentation
required to be maintained but would instead provide flexibility in how
a fund documents the information delineated in the recordkeeping
requirements. However, a fund that is subject to the requirement to
adopt an 80% investment policy generally should maintain appropriate
documentation that would be sufficient for a third party to verify the
matter covered by each record and would be readily available to
Commission staff.\576\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\575\ See final rule 35d-1(b)(3). The recordkeeping requirements
will apply to UITs only at the time of initial deposit, and with
respect to any notice sent to shareholders.
\576\ Based on the results of the PRA analysis provided in Table
1, it is estimated that the internal annual costs, plus initial
costs annualized over a 3-year period, attributable to recordkeeping
requirements would be $30,450 per fund, with an additional $565 of
external annual costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We anticipate that much of the recordkeeping required in this rule
can be at least partially automated for most funds.\577\ For example,
we anticipate that records relating to the value of the fund's 80%
basket and whether a particular investment is included in that basket
can be automated for most funds, though for some funds this process may
necessitate more manual steps as outlined above. For those records that
can be automated, we believe that the marginal contribution to the
costs of automating these systems above and beyond those which would be
required to otherwise comply with the rule are relatively small, since
the systems that retain this information will be similar to those
necessary to ensure compliance at the time of investment or on a
quarterly reassessment. We recognize, however, that some records, such
as those documenting the reasons for any departures from the 80%
investment policy, are unlikely to be easily automated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\577\ See supra footnote 419 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final rule differs from the proposed amended rule in ways that
may reduce costs in comparison to the proposal. First, under the final
amendments funds are required to reassess the characteristics of
individual assets on only a quarterly rather than ongoing basis. Since
it may be difficult for some funds to fully automate the creation of a
record with the basis for an asset's inclusion in the 80% basket,

[[Page 70491]]

particularly if its 80% investment policy relies on managerial
judgment, this change could substantially lower the cost. However, to
the extent that funds hold particular assets for less than two
consecutive days, this change will not provide much cost mitigation
since funds are also required to keep such records at the time of
investment.
Further, this rule as initially proposed would have additionally
required funds that are not required to adopt an 80% investment policy
to also maintain records of their analysis in that determination. Since
the final rule will omit this requirement, the cost of complying with
the rule will be lower for these funds than under the proposal.
Notice Requirement. The names rule requires that unless the 80%
investment policy is a fundamental policy of the fund, notice must be
provided to fund shareholders of any change in the fund's 80%
investment policy.\578\ The final amendments would incorporate some
modifications to the current notice requirement that are designed to
better address the needs of shareholders who have elected electronic
delivery and to incorporate additional specificity about the content
and delivery of the notice. We do not believe that these alterations
would materially increase the cost to prepare the notice.\579\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\578\ Final rule 35d-1(a)(2)(ii).
\579\ Like the current rule, based on the results of the PRA
analysis provided in Table 1, it is estimated that the internal
annual costs, plus initial costs annualized over a 3-year period,
attributable to notice requirements would be $8,500 per fund, for
those funds providing notices. We also estimate an additional $565
in external annual costs attributable to notice requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quantified Compliance Costs. We estimate that the initial costs to
establish and implement practices designed to meet the requirements of
the final amendments as described above will range from $50,000 to
$500,000 per fund, depending on the particular facts and circumstances
of the fund.\580\ We believe the costs would be closer to the lower end
of the range for funds whose current practices are more similar to the
requirements of the final rule.\581\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\580\ We believe that the low end of this range is reflective of
a fund that incurs costs only to analyze the application of the
rule, or that is covered by the rule and already has practices in
place that could be readily adapted to meet the final rule's
requirements. In the latter case the fund would incur costs
associated with analyzing its current practices relative to the
final rule's requirements.
\581\ We believe the costs would be closer to the lower end of
the range for funds that belong to large fund families because
certain aspects of the costs, such as most aspects of system
automation or the costs of reviewing rule requirements, are fixed
costs that could be spread across multiple funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The direct estimated costs of compliance are broadly attributable
to the following activities: (1) reviewing the final rule's
requirements; (2) determining whether to change a fund's name or comply
with the new requirements, as applicable; (3) developing new (or
modifying existing) practices, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements to align with the requirements of the final rule; (4)
integrating and implementing those practices, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements to the rest of the funds' activities; and
(5) preparing new training materials and administering training
sessions for staff in affected areas.
The estimated range in this section is aimed at quantifying the
full direct compliance cost associated with the final amendments'
provisions. As a result, the estimates in this section encompass more
costs than do the estimates discussed below in section V for purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''). Further, note that
the estimated range of costs above is the same as that included in the
economic analysis in the proposing release. Keeping the estimated range
the same reflects our assessment that the funds with the highest
compliance costs, such as those whose entire portfolio turns over on a
nearly daily basis, will face costs similar to those that would have
been incurred under the proposed rule. The low end of the range is
reflective of a fund that only incurs cost associated with analyzing
the requirements of the rule.
However, the final amendments are different from the proposed
amendments in many ways that mitigate costs for most but not all funds.
Compared to the Proposing Release, we believe that the largest
reduction in cost comes from changing the provisions that would have
effectively required continual, manual monitoring of whether funds'
portfolio investments are consistent with the fund's 80% investment
policy. This is consistent with many commenters' concerns.\582\ Since
this is not required under the final rule unless all assets are traded
daily, and other changes have also been made to mitigate costs, we
believe that the typical cost for a fund to comply with the final rule
will, while still contained within the same range, be significantly
lower than the cost of compliance under the approach that the Proposing
Release described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\582\ See, e.g., J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter; T.
Rowe Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some funds may change their name rather than comply with the
amended rule. For these funds, we estimate that the total direct
burden, including analyzing the rule and deciding to change their name,
is a one-time cost range of $75,000 to $250,000. Funds that decide to
change their name rather than comply with the new requirements will
also incur indirect costs associated with changing fund names, which
include a potential loss in market share. However, this will translate
to a cost to investors only to the extent that there is a decrease in
efficiency resulting from investors being less able to find appropriate
funds as a result of the rule.
Without providing specifics, some commenters requested the
Commission analyze Commission rules and proposals holistically.\583\
The Commission's economic analysis in each adopting release considers
the incremental benefits and costs for the specific rule--that is the
benefits and costs stemming from that rule compared to the baseline.
One commenter stated that the Commission should consider ``practical
realities such as the implementation timelines as well as operational
and compliance requirements.'' \584\ The Commission acknowledges that
resource limitations can lead to higher compliance costs in some cases
when two or more rules affecting the same parties have overlapping
compliance periods. In determining compliance periods, the Commission
considers the benefits of the rules as well as the costs of delayed
compliance periods and potential overlapping compliance periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\583\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter III (``The Commission has
issued a wide range of interconnected rule proposals . . . [that] in
the aggregate warrant further analysis by the Commission. . . . The
Commission's failure to consider the Interconnected Rules
holistically is a widespread concern among other market
participants.''); USCOC Comment Letter (urging the Commission to
``determine the cumulative impact of its regulatory agenda upon
economic activity or capital formation''). Commenters also
specifically suggested the Commission consider the interaction
between the final rule and the ESG Disclosure Proposal and/or its
proposal relating to outsourcing by investment advisers. See Dechert
Comment Letter, ICI Comment Letter, and AIC Comment Letter; see also
Outsourcing by Investment Advisers, Investment Advisers Act Release
No. 6176 (Oct. 26, 2022) [87 FR 68816 (Nov. 16, 2022)]. These
proposals have not been adopted and thus have not been considered as
part of the baseline here. To the extent those proposals are adopted
in the future, the baseline in those subsequent rulemakings will
reflect the regulatory landscape that is current at that time.
\584\ ICI Comment Letter III. See also USCOC Comment Letter
(``Regulated entities would have to divert substantial resources to
comply with a host of new rules in a condensed time frame.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this regard, some commenters \585\ mentioned the recent
Shareholder

[[Page 70492]]

Reports Final Rule \586\ and the recent Money Market Funds Final
Rule.\587\ Overlapping compliance periods for these rules may result in
economic costs for some entities that are also in the scope of the
final amendments.\588\ For the reasons discussed above, we have adopted
longer compliance periods relative to the proposal.\589\ In analyzing
the costs of this final rule relative to the proposal, we believe the
potential for heightened costs is mitigated by those longer compliance
periods. The costs from overlapping compliance periods for smaller
entities are even further mitigated by the longer compliance period for
those entities relative to the compliance period for larger entities.
Moreover, commenters raised concerns about the costs of overlapping
compliance periods in the context of the proposal and, as discussed
above, we have taken steps to reduce costs of the final rule in several
ways from the proposal.\590\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\585\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter III.
\586\ See Tailored Shareholder Reports for Mutual Funds and
Exchange-Traded Funds; Fee Information in Investment Company
Advertisements, Investment Company Act Release No. 34731 (Oct. 26,
2022) [87 FR 72758 (Nov. 25, 2022)] (``Shareholder Reports Final
Rule''). The compliance date for those rules will be in July 2024.
Certain fund managers, such as managers to mutual funds and ETFs,
that will manage funds subject to the final rule are also generally
subject to different aspects of the Shareholder Reports Final Rule.
\587\ See Money Market Fund Reforms; Form PF Reporting
Requirements for Large Liquidity Fund Advisers; Technical Amendments
to Form N-CSR and Form N-1A, Investment Company Act Release No.
34959 (Jul. 12, 2023) [88 FR 51404 (Aug. 3, 2023)] (``Money Market
Fund Final Rule''). The compliance dates for these rules vary
between Oct. 2023 and Oct. 2024. Certain fund managers, namely
managers to money market funds, who will be subject to the final
rule will also be subject to the Money Market Funds Final Rule.
\588\ The Commission also considered the fact that, to the
extent recently adopted rules address matters related to those in
the final rules, the benefits of the final rules may be impacted to
the extent recently adopted rules already offer certain investor
protections or to the extent that recently adopted rules and the
final rules offer synergies. However, we do not believe that there
are significant interacting effects with recently adopted rules with
respect to benefits in this case, because recently adopted rules do
not address the same set of issues as those addressed in the final
rule.
\589\ As discussed above, the tiered compliance period we are
adopting is designed to strike the appropriate balance between
allowing funds adequate time to adjust their compliance practices,
and allowing investors and shareholders to benefit from the amended
names rule framework. See supra section II.H; see also infra section
IV.D.3.
\590\ For example, as discussed throughout this section,
relative to the proposed rule the final rule has fewer recordkeeping
tasks, fewer items on Form N-PORT, and removes the need for daily
assessments of portfolio compliance with an 80% investment policy
for assets that are not actively traded. See supra section IV.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result, we believe that for both larger and smaller entities,
any higher costs due to overlapping compliance periods raised in the
context of the proposal may generally be mitigated under the final
rules. We therefore do not believe that the overlap between the final
rules, the Shareholder Reports Final Rule, and the Money Market Funds
Final Rule will significantly increase the compliance costs of the
final rule for small or large entities.
3. Effects on Efficiency, Competition and Capital Formation
To the extent the final amendments will help ensure that fund names
are more appropriately representative of a fund's investment focus, we
predict that investors will benefit. Developing a dollar figure for
this predicted benefit is complex, however. We do not observe
investors' decision-making and resources expended in the management of
their investment portfolio, nor do we observe the cost to investors
from being invested in a fund that does not match their preferences. To
the extent fund names would be more appropriately representative of the
fund investment focus under the final amendments and to the extent
those more appropriately representative fund names will allow investors
to more easily select funds that better match their preferences,
however, we would expect the efficiency of investment to increase.
Conversely, if, as a result of the final rules, some funds change their
names and investment policies in ways that lead to less efficient
matching between funds and some investors or increase search costs for
some investors, capital allocation efficiency may decrease. For
example, some funds may decide to use more generic names so as not to
convey an investment focus with their name. If these funds previously
had names that conveyed information that investors found more useful,
then investors will either face higher costs in finding the funds best
suited to their goals, or choose funds less tailored to those goals.
Additionally, the final amendments may disincentivize some funds
from investing in assets with characteristics that do not readily lend
themselves to popular investment focuses and incentivize investment in
assets that do. Depending on whether any such change aligns with the
preferences of investors or runs counter to their preferences, capital
allocation efficiency may increase or decrease.
To the extent the final amendments increase efficiency of
investment in the fund market, then we may observe a change in
investment in funds. For example, if there are investors who currently
do not invest in certain funds (or invest less than they would have)
because they lack confidence that funds' names accurately convey funds'
investment focuses, then to the extent the final amendments lower those
costs and enhance investor protections, we would expect to observe more
investors entering the funds market.\591\ The increased demand for
securities could, in turn, facilitate capital formation. We note,
however, that to the extent increased investment in funds reflects
substitution from other investments, the effect on capital formation
would be attenuated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\591\ For example, by decreasing potential greenwashing
concerns, the final amendments, in turn, may increase investor
confidence in selecting funds with names implying an ESG strategy
and increase capital formation among ESG issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

More investors entering the funds market could also increase
competition, to the extent that competition in a market is related to
the size of the market. The final amendments may affect competition
through an additional channel: certain funds may have established
reputations for making investments consistent with the investment focus
the fund's name suggests. Investors wishing to invest in funds with
specific investment focuses may have greater confidence investing in
funds with established reputations for investing in a way consistent
with the investment focus the fund's name suggests.\592\ There may be
investors who do not invest in funds lacking established reputations
for making investments consistent with the focuses their names suggest
(or invest less than they would have) because those investors are less
confident that such funds will make investments consistent with their
names. We would expect the investor protections offered by the final
amendments, which are designed to ensure that funds' names accurately
convey funds' investment focuses, could enhance the ability of funds
without established reputations to compete with those funds with
established reputations. This could, in turn, lead to increased
investment for funds without established reputations.\593\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\592\ Investors may believe that these funds have an incentive
to protect the value of their reputations by continuing to invest in
ways consistent with their names. See Klein, Benjamin and Keith B.
Leffler, The Role of Market Forces in Assuring Contractual
Performance, Journal of Political Economy 89, 615-641 (1981)
(``Klein Paper'').
\593\ This argument assumes that fund reputation and investor
protections provided by regulatory requirements are substitute
mechanisms for providing assurances to investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the compliance costs of the rule may also result in
negative competitive effects by causing firms to close their funds and
reducing the competitive alternatives investors have. Relative to the
proposed rule, the final rule took steps to mitigate these costs in
several ways. For example, relative to

[[Page 70493]]

the proposed rule, the final rule has fewer recordkeeping tasks, fewer
items on Form N-PORT, and removes the need for daily assessments of
portfolio compliance with an 80% investment policy for assets that are
not actively traded.\594\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\594\ See supra section IV.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, as stated above, some commenters requested the
Commission consider interactions between the economic effects of the
proposed rule and other recent Commission rules, as well as practical
realities such as implementation timelines.\595\ As discussed above,
the Commission acknowledges that overlapping compliance periods may in
some cases increase costs.\596\ This may be particularly true for
smaller entities with more limited compliance resources. This effect
can negatively impact competition because these entities may be less
able to absorb or pass on these additional costs, making it more
difficult for them to remain in business or compete. However, in
addition to mitigating the overall costs of the final rules relative to
the proposal,\597\ we believe we have mitigated the potential for
heightened costs by adopting longer compliance periods for all entities
relative to the proposal, and even longer compliance periods for
smaller entities. The compliance periods for the rules mentioned by
commenters, the Shareholder Reports Final Rule and the Money Market
Funds Final Rule,\598\ culminate in approximately July-October 2024
while the compliance dates for the final rule are [FILL IN date 24
months following amendments' effective date] for larger entities, and
[FILL IN date 30 months following amendments' effective date] for
smaller entities. We therefore do not expect the risk of negative
competitive effects from increased compliance costs from simultaneous
compliance periods to be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\595\ See supra section IV.D.
\596\ See supra section IV.D.2.
\597\ See supra footnote 594 and accompanying text.
\598\ See supra section IV.D.2; see also, e.g., ICI Comment
Letter III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, to the extent that the final amendments disincentivize
some funds from investing in assets with characteristics that do not
readily lend themselves to popular investment focuses that fund names
suggest and incentivizes investment in assets that do, the final
amendments could affect capital formation. For example, it may be
relatively more difficult for funds to conclude that certain issuers--
for example, firms that are newer, smaller, or whose strategies and
performance objectives are not as well publicized or as clearly
articulated--should appropriately be included in a fund's 80% basket,
and therefore funds that are within the scope of the 80% investment
policy requirement may invest relatively less in these issuers. These
issuers could consequently face increased costs of capital. Conversely,
assets whose appropriate inclusion in a fund's 80% basket is relatively
easier for a fund to determine (for example, because they exhibit
quantifiable criteria that assist in this determination) may receive
more fund attention and consequently face reduced costs of capital.

E. Reasonable Alternatives Considered

1. Disclosure-Based Framework
The final rule expands the scope of names that require an 80%
investment policy. For certain categories of names, we considered
whether a disclosure-based framework would be more appropriate.
Specifically, we considered whether a fund whose name suggests a
particular investment focus should be required to have additional
disclosure in that fund's prospectus describing the investment strategy
in lieu of the requirement to maintain an 80% investment policy.\599\
Such a requirement could have been accompanied either by no scope
expansion at all for the 80% investment policy requirement or by a
less-encompassing scope expansion. The additional disclosure could have
included definitions of the terms in the name of the fund, criteria for
investment selection, or other information that would clarify for
investors how a fund's name relates to the investment strategy pursued
by the fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\599\ This approach was suggested by many commenters (see, e.g.,
ICI Comment Letter, Dechert Comment Letter; Cato Institute Comment
Letter) and offered by Commissioner Peirce (see statement, available
at https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-fund-names-statement-052522).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are cognizant of the differential cost and benefits of this
alternative relative to the adopted expansion of the 80% investment
policy requirement. In particular, funds whose names include terms that
are defined at least partially using managerial judgment are likely to
face higher costs and lower benefits from an 80% test relative to funds
with names that include more objective terms.\600\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\600\ For a fuller discussion, see supra section IV.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, we also considered the costs associated with excluding
certain terms or types of terms from the requirement. Excluding certain
types of funds names, or terms used in fund names, from the requirement
would incentivize funds to follow strategies associated with these
exclusions and thus limit the investment options available to
investors. This, however, may be balanced by the effect of investors
seeking funds covered by the amended rule. In addition, to the extent
that investor behavior is affected by the name of the fund itself,
additional prospectus disclosure on its own would not provide
additional investor protection. There is significant evidence from
academic literature that a fund's name does affect investor behavior
above and beyond what can be explained by any observable aspect of the
fund's actual investment strategy.\601\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\601\ See supra section IV.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Alternatives to 90-Day Temporary Departure Limit
The final amendments require a fund to invest consistent with its
80% investment policy under normal circumstances. In the event that a
fund identifies that its portfolio is no longer invested consistent
with its 80% investment policy, a fund must return to compliance as
soon as is reasonably practicable and in no more than 90 consecutive
days. Separately, if the fund decides to invest in a manner not
consistent with the 80% investment policy under other-than-normal
circumstances, the fund is not required to come back into compliance as
soon as reasonably practicable but must come back into compliance
within 90 consecutive days. As an alternative, we considered whether to
require instead that, if a temporary departure persists past 30 days,
the fund's board must approve, or be informed in writing about, the
temporary departure. We also considered whether to adopt a limit
greater than 90 days. In the context of requiring board approval, we
also considered requiring a majority of the independent directors to
approve the departure. In the context of requiring board notification,
we considered requiring a written report or notification that includes
a recommendation from the fund's adviser to be provided to the board
immediately or at the next regularly scheduled board meeting.
Collectively, these alternatives may provide more flexibility for
funds to address the conditions that necessitate temporary departures
than the final amendments. Either they would not limit the duration for
which a fund could engage in a temporary departure, provided that the
board either approves or is notified of the departure, or they would
increase the allowable length of time that a fund could depart from its

[[Page 70494]]

80% investment policy. These approaches could provide funds with more
flexibility to reduce loss during market crises and manage liquidity
risk, which could, in turn, reduce any adverse effects that a fund's
trading activity may have on the markets for the investments in its
portfolio.
Conversely, these alternatives may have been less effective than
the final amendments at addressing the concerns highlighted above
regarding portfolio ``drift'' or extended-length intentional
departures. That is, fund managers and boards may not fully internalize
investors' preferences for certain elements of a portfolio, such as
risk and diversification benefits, that a fund name suggests, and so
could be willing to extend departures for longer than would be optimal
for investors. For example, a fund board could determine to engage in a
departure for longer than 90 days to address a market disruption, but
this action might frustrate the expectation of investors who may expect
the fund to invest consistent with its named investment focus even
during market disruptions, and therefore may choose to rebalance
investments on their own rather than relying upon the fund to do so. We
also believe that the alternative that includes board notification or
approval would increase burdens on fund boards, particularly if we were
to require the approval or notification be immediate. Further, in
determining not to use a longer time frame for this requirement, we
considered the fact that in practice funds may be out of compliance for
more than 90 days, since funds will be required to reassess their
portfolio assets' inclusion in the fund's 80% basket no less than
quarterly and funds may unknowingly be out of compliance between
assessments.
3. Permit But Not Require the Use of Derivatives' Notional Values for
Purposes of Names Rule Compliance
As an alternative, we considered permitting, but not requiring,
funds to value derivatives using notional values for purposes of
assessing names rule compliance. As discussed in section II.A.3 above,
an approach where a fund uses notional values for these purposes could
allow a fund to use a name that effectively communicates its
investments where it would not be able to do so under the current rule.
However, allowing a fund to use derivatives instruments' market values
for purposes of assessing names rule compliance could result in a fund
being in compliance with the fund's 80% investment policy despite the
fund having significant exposure to investments that are not suggested
by the fund's name. Because we believe the use of notional values
better reflects the investment exposure of derivatives investments than
market values for purposes of assessing names rule compliance in most
cases, we are requiring, rather than permitting, the use of notional
values.
4. Exclude Unit Investment Trusts From Requirements for Tagging
Prospectus Disclosure
Under the final amendments, the new prospectus disclosure of term
definitions and investment selection criteria submitted by UITs on Form
N-8B-2 and Form S-6 will be tagged in Inline XBRL. Alternatively, we
could have changed the scope of the tagging requirement for the new
prospectus disclosures by excepting UITs from this requirement. Such an
exception was suggested by one commenter, who noted that UITs are not
currently required to tag any filings in Inline XBRL.\602\ Under this
alternative, UITs would submit their prospectus disclosures in
unstructured HTML or ASCII, and forgo the initial Inline XBRL
implementation costs (such as the cost of training in-house staff to
prepare filings in Inline XBRL, and the cost to license Inline XBRL
filing preparation software from vendors) and ongoing Inline XBRL
compliance burdens that would result from the tagging requirement.\603\
However, narrowing the scope of tagging requirements to exclude UITs
would diminish the extent of informational benefits that would accrue
as a result of the disclosure requirements by making UITs' disclosures
comparatively costlier to process and analyze.\604\ As such, we are not
excluding UITs from Inline XBRL tagging requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\602\ See supra footnote 433.
\603\ See infra section V.E. Funds file registration statements
and amendments using the Commission's EDGAR electronic filing
system, which generally requires filers to use ASCII or HTML for
their document submissions, subject to certain exceptions. EDGAR
Filer Manual (Volume II) version 66 (June 2023), at 5-1; see 17 CFR
232.301 (incorporating EDGAR Filer Manual into Regulation S-T). To
the extent UITs are part of the same fund family as other types of
funds that are subject to Inline XBRL requirements, they may be able
to leverage those other funds' existing Inline XBRL tagging
experience and software, which would mitigate the initial Inline
XBRL implementation costs that UITs will incur under the final
amendments.
\604\ In addition, one commenter noted that UITs can avail
themselves of the same applications and processes used by other fund
types that report information using Inline XBRL. See supra footnote
433.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

A. Introduction

Certain provisions of the final rules and form amendments contain
``collection of information'' requirements within the meaning of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'').\605\ We are submitting the
final collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for review in accordance with the PRA.\606\ The titles for
the collections of information are: (1) ``Rule 35d-1 under the
Investment Company Act of 1940, Investment Company Names'' (OMB Control
No. 3235-0548); (2) ``Form N-1A under the Investment Company Act of
1940 and Securities Act of 1933, registration statement of Open-End
Management Investment Companies'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0307); (3)
``Form N-2 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Securities Act
of 1933, Registration Statement of Closed-End Management Companies''
(OMB Control No. 3235-0026); (4) ``Form N-8B-2, Registration Statement
of Unit Investment Trusts Which Are Currently Issuing Securities'' (OMB
Control No. 3235-0186); (5) ``Form S-6, Registration Under the
Securities Act of 1933 of Unit Investment Trusts Registered on Form N-
8B-2'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0184); (6) ``Form N-PORT under the
Investment Company Act of 1940'' (OMB Control No. 3235-730); and (7)
``Investment Company Interactive Data'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0642). An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\605\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
\606\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission published notice soliciting comments on the
collection of information requirements in the Proposing Release and
submitted the proposed collections of information to OMB for review in
accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. The Commission
received some comments that specifically addressed the estimated PRA
burdens and costs in the Proposing Release, as well as some comments
that discussed the overall burdens of implementing aspects of the
proposal associated with collections of information. We discuss these
comments below along with discussing updated estimates of the
collection of information burdens associated with the final amendments
to rule 35d-1, Form N-1A, Form N-2, Form N-8B-2, Form S-6, Form N-PORT;
and the interactive data requirements under the final

[[Page 70495]]

amendments. A description of the final amendments, including the need
for the information and its use, as well as a description of the likely
respondents, may be found in sections I and II above, and a discussion
of the economic effects of the final amendments may be found in section
IV above.

B. Rule 35d-1

Rule 35d-1 is designed to address certain broad categories of
investment company names that, in the Commission's view, are likely to
mislead an investor about a company's investments and risks. The final
amendments will expand the scope of funds covered by the 80% investment
policy requirement of rule 35d-1. In addition to those fund names
currently subject to the rule, the final amendments specify that any
fund with a name suggesting that the fund focuses its investments in
investments that have, or whose issuers have, particular
characteristics will have to adopt an 80% investment policy.
We are also adopting amendments to the names rule's notice
requirement. These amendments are designed to specify further the
content and delivery of the notice, and address more directly the needs
of investors who elect electronic delivery. The final amendments will
require notices not only to describe a change in the fund's 80%
investment policy, but also a change to the fund's name that
accompanies the investment policy change.
The final amendments also include certain new recordkeeping
requirements. These amendments will newly require a fund that is
required to adopt an 80% investment policy to maintain a written record
documenting its compliance with the rule, including among other things
the fund's record of which assets are invested in the fund's 80%
basket, the basis for including each such asset in the fund's 80%
basket, and certain information regarding departures from the fund's
80% investment policy. A fund also will be required to keep records of
any notice sent to the fund's shareholders pursuant to the rule. In a
modification to the proposal, the final amendments will not require
funds that do not adopt an 80% policy to maintain a record of the
fund's analysis that such policy is not required under the names
rule.\607\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\607\ See supra section II.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 35d-1, including the final amendments to the rule, contains
collection of information requirements. These collection of information
requirements include, as detailed in the chart below, the notice
requirement and recordkeeping requirements for funds that are required
to adopt an 80% investment policy. Compliance with these requirements
is mandatory. Responses to these requirements will not be kept
confidential.
The Commission received only one comment that specifically
addressed the PRA analysis for the proposed amendments to rule 35d-1,
stating that the Commission had ``significantly underestimated'' the
costs related to preparing and providing notices to shareholders.\608\
The Commission received other comments that did not specifically
address the PRA analysis but suggested that the Commission had
generally underestimated the compliance costs associated with the
proposed notice and recordkeeping requirements.\609\ Some commenters
stated that the costs of providing notices would likely increase in
light of the rule's increase in scope.\610\ With respect to the
proposed recordkeeping requirements, commenters stated that funds would
face significant compliance costs related to the requirement to
document each investment included in the 80% basket.\611\ Some
commenters also stated that the proposed recordkeeping requirements may
not be easily automated, including the requirement to include a basis
for including each investment in the 80% basket, and the reasons for
departure from the fund's 80% investment policy.\612\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\608\ ICI Comment Letter.
\609\ ICI Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG
Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment Letter.
\610\ ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter; T. Rowe
Comment Letter; Dechert Comment Letter.
\611\ ICI Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter; SIFMA Comment
Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment Letter.
\612\ Invesco Comment Letter; Seward & Kissel Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have adjusted the proposal's estimated annual burden hours and
total time costs to reflect these comments and to reflect changes from
the proposal. Specifically, we are increasing the estimated annual
burden associated with the recordkeeping requirement to reflect that
certain records may not easily lend themselves to automation. The final
estimate also reflects that funds will be required under the final
amendments to reassess the characteristics of investments in the fund's
80% basket on a quarterly basis, in contrast to the proposed rule,
which would have required funds to engage in continual compliance
testing to reassess the characteristics of investments in the fund's
80% basket.\613\ Because we are not adopting the proposed recordkeeping
requirement for funds that are not required to adopt 80% investment
policies, the burdens associated with that requirement are omitted from
the final estimates below. We have also adjusted the proposal's
estimated annual burden hours and total time costs to reflect updated
wage rates. Because funds already have in place systems required to
provide notice to shareholders, we do not believe that per-fund costs
of providing notice to shareholders will materially increase as result
of the rule's increased scope under the final amendments. We also do
not believe that per-fund costs of providing notice will increase as a
direct result of exception under the final amendments related to
unlisted registered closed-end funds and BDCs because we believe that
the costs associated with providing notice under this exception are
comparable to the costs that a fund not relying on this exception would
incur by providing notices associated with the shareholder vote that
would otherwise be required for a change to the fund's investment
policy. The proposed estimate of funds that would provide notices under
the names rule over-estimated the number of unlisted registered closed-
end funds and BDCs that would provide notices, as it did not subtract
unlisted registered closed-end funds and BDCs from the overall estimate
of registered closed-end funds and BDCs (even though the proposal did
not anticipate that unlisted registered closed-end funds and BDCs would
provide notices under the names rule, as they would have to conduct a
shareholder vote in connection with a change in an 80% investment
policy). We are therefore not changing our analysis in our estimates of
the final rules' PRA burdens to increase the proposed estimate, even
though the final amendments (unlike the proposal) would permit unlisted
registered closed-end funds and BDCs to send notices to shareholders in
connection with a change in an 80% investment policy instead of holding
a shareholder vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\613\ See supra section II.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The table below summarizes our PRA initial and ongoing annual
burden estimates associated with the final notice and recordkeeping
amendments to rule 35d-1.

[[Page 70496]]

Table 1--PRA Estimates for Rule 35d-1 Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Initial Annual hours \1\ Wage rate \2\ Internal time costs external cost
hours burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Aproved Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice Requirement................... 0 20 hours \3\................... $425 (estimate of wage $8,500........................ ..............
Number of Funds...................... ....... x 38 funds \4\................. rate in most recently x 38 funds....................
approved supporting
statement).
Current Burden Estimates............. ....... 760 hours...................... ....................... $323,000...................... $0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Estimated Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice Requirement................... 0 20 hours \5\................... $425 (blended rate for $8,500........................ \7\ 496
Number of Funds...................... ....... x 34 funds \6\................. attorneys). x 34 funds....................
Total New Burden for Notice ....... 680 hours...................... ....................... $289,000...................... 16,864
Requirement (I).
Recordkeeping for Funds with an 80% \9\ 9 50 hours....................... $356 (1:1 blend for $17,800....................... 496
Policy \8\. ....... x 10,394 funds................. compliance attorney x 10,394 funds................
Number of Funds...................... and senior programmer).
Total New Burden for Recordkeeping ....... 519,700 hours.................. ....................... $185,013,200.................. 5,155,424
For Funds Required to Adopt 80%
Policy (II).
Recordkeeping For Funds Not Required 0 1 hour......................... $425 (blended rate for $425.......................... 496
to Adopt 80% Policy. x 3,465 funds \10\............. attorneys). x 3,465 funds.................
Total New Burden for Recordkeeping ....... 3,465 hours.................... ....................... $1,472,625.................... 1,718,640
For Funds Not Required to Adopt 80%
Policy (III).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Proposed Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden (I + II + ....... 523,845 hours.................. ....................... $186,774,825.................. 6,890,910
III).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Estimated Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice Requirement................... 0 20 hours \5\................... $425 (blended rate for $8,500........................ \11\ 565
Number of Funds...................... ....... x 34 funds \6\................. attorneys). x 34 funds....................
Total New Burden for Notice ....... 680 hours...................... ....................... $289,000...................... 19,210
Requirement (I).
Recordkeeping for Funds with an 80% \9\ 9 75 hours \12\.................. $406 (1:1 blend for $30,450....................... 565
Policy \8\. ....... x 10,291 funds................. compliance attorney x 10,291 funds................
Number of Funds...................... and senior programmer).
Total New Burden for Recordkeeping ....... 771,825 hours.................. ....................... $313,360,950.................. 5,814,415
(II).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Final Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden (I + II)..... ....... 772,505 hours.................. ....................... $313,649,950.................. 5,833,625
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a 3-year period.
\2\ The estimated wage figures are based on published rates for the professionals described in this chart, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-
year and inflation. The estimated figures for the proposed and final burdens were multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits, and overhead. See Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2013.
\3\ This estimate assumed that these notices are typically short, one-page documents that are sent to shareholders with other written materials. The
Commission anticipated that each respondent would only incur these burden hours once.
\4\ The currently-approved burden takes into account the Commission's previous estimate, across approximately 13,182 open-end funds and 676 closed-end
funds then registered with the Commission, that there are approximately 11,502 funds that have names covered by the rule or 83% of funds covered by
the rule (13,858 funds x 83% = 11,502). The Commission estimated that 1% of these funds, or 115 funds, would, within the next three years, provide a
notice to shareholders pursuant to rule 35d-1. Therefore, over the course of 3 years, the Commission estimated that, on average approximately 38 funds
per year would provide a notice to shareholders under rule 35d-1.
\5\ The final amendments would make some changes to the current notice requirement, including requiring funds to provide additional specificity about
the content and delivery of notice. Because funds already have in place systems required to provide notice to shareholders, the Commission continues
to believe, as in the proposal, that these proposed alterations would not increase the burden hours needed to prepare the notice. Although the final
rules, unlike the proposed rules, would permit unlisted registered closed-end funds and BDCs to make changes to their 80% investment policies without
a shareholder vote under certain circumstances, including that a fund provide certain notice to shareholders, we have not increased our estimates as a
result of this provision. The costs associated with providing notice under this exception are comparable to the costs that a fund would incur by
providing notices associated with the shareholder vote that would otherwise be required for a CEF/BDC to change its 80% investment policy under the
final rule.
\6\ The currently-approved PRA burden for rule 35d-1 was based on the Commission's estimate that 83% of funds were covered by rule 35d-1. The Commission
at proposal estimated that 75% of funds would have names subject to the 80% investment policy. The prior PRA burden was based on an estimate using a
different analytical approach than the Commission employed at proposal, based on its updated economic analysis. Based on that analysis, the Commission
estimated that 62% of funds were subject to rule 35d-1 at the time of proposal and that the proposed rule amendments would increase this estimate to
75% of funds. The Commission estimated, across approximately 14,532 open-end and closed-end funds registered with the Commission, that there were
approximately 10,394 funds that have names that would be covered by the proposed rule amendments, or 75% of funds covered by the rule amendments. The
Commission estimated that 1% of these 10,394 funds, or 103 funds, would within the next three years provide a notice to shareholders pursuant to the
proposed rule amendments. Therefore, over the course of 3 years, the Commission estimated that, on average approximately 34 funds per year would
provide a notice to shareholders under the proposed rule amendments. The Commission now estimates, pursuant to its current economic analysis, that 60%
of funds are currently subject to the 80% investment policy requirement, and that 76% of funds would be subject to this requirement under the final
amendments. The Commission estimates, across approximately 13,541 open-end and closed-end funds registered with the Commission, that there are
approximately 10,291 funds that have names that would be covered by the final rule amendments, or 76% of funds covered by the rule amendments (9,533
mutual funds (other than money market funds) + 2,735 non-UIT ETFs + 355 money market funds = 12,975 open end funds + 748 registered closed-end funds +
125 BDCs + 45 UITs = 13,541 funds x 76% = 10,291 funds). The Commission estimates that 1% of these 10,291 funds, or 103 funds, would within the next
three years provide a notice to shareholders pursuant to the final rule amendments. Therefore, over the course of 3 years, the Commission estimates
that on average approximately 34 funds per year would provide a notice to shareholders under the final rule amendments.
\7\ This estimate was based on the estimated wage rate of $496, for 1 hour of outside legal services. The Commission's estimate of the relevant wage
rates for external time costs, such as outside legal services, took into account staff experience, a variety of sources including general information
websites, and adjustments for inflation.
\8\ For funds that adopt an 80% investment policy under the proposed rule, the recordkeeping requirements under proposed rule 35d-1(b)(3) would require
records documenting the fund's compliance under paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed rule 35d-1. Written records documenting the fund's compliance
include: the fund's record of which assets are invested in the 80% basket and the basis for including each such asset in the fund's 80% basket; the
percentage of the value of the fund's assets that are invested in the 80% basket; the reasons for any departures from the fund's 80% investment policy
(including why the fund determined that circumstances are other-than-normal); the dates of any departures from the 80% investment policy; and any
notice sent to the fund's shareholders pursuant to proposed rule 35d-1(e). The Commission based its proposed estimate on its understanding that these
records would generally need to be made daily, but that the vast majority of records would be automated. The Commission stated that it understood,
however, that some records, specifically, records documenting the reasons for any departures from the 80% investment policy, may not be automated and
may require a fund to spend more time to make. The proposed PRA estimates took these considerations into account. The recordkeeping requirements under
the final rule are substantially similar to the proposed requirements, but do not include the proposed requirement for funds that do not adopt an 80%
investment policy to maintain a record of their analysis that such a policy is not required.

[[Page 70497]]

\9\ This estimate initial burden for the proposed recordkeeping requirement accounts for the time the Commission estimates that fund will need to
establish recordkeeping procedures for the records that must be kept.
\10\ The Commission at proposal estimated that, across approximately 14,532 open-end and closed-end funds registered with the Commission, there were
approximately 3,465 funds that have names that would be not covered by the proposed rule amendments, or 25% of funds covered by the rule amendments.
\11\ This estimate is based on the estimated wage rate of $565, for 1 hour of outside legal services. The Commission's estimate of the relevant wage
rates for external time costs, such as outside legal services, takes into account staff experience, a variety of sources including general information
websites, and adjustments for inflation.
\12\ The Commission's estimates of the internal annual time burdens associated with the recordkeeping requirement under the final rules have been
increased by 50% from the proposal to account for records that may not be easily automatable. This estimate reflects that funds will be required under
the final amendments to reassess the characteristics of investments in the fund's 80% basket on a quarterly--as opposed to continual--basis.
Therefore, while we recognize that some records may not be able to be automated, as commenters discussed, we are not increasing the proposed estimates
to the degree that commenters suggested would be appropriate in light of the final rule's comparatively less-burdensome approach to reassessing
investments in the fund's 80% basket.

C. Prospectus Disclosure

We are adopting amendments to funds' registration forms--
specifically, Form N-1A, Form N-2, Form N-8B-2, and Form S-6--that will
require each fund that is required to adopt and implement an 80%
investment policy to include disclosure in its prospectus that defines
the terms used in its name, including the specific criteria the fund
uses to select the investments that the term describes, if any. These
amendments are designed to help investors better understand how a
fund's investment strategy corresponds with the investment focus that
the fund's name suggests as well as to provide additional information
about how the fund's management seeks to achieve the fund's objective.
While this is not currently required in a fund's prospectus, we
understand that including similar disclosure is currently common
industry practice, and believe that that the impact that the final
amendments will have on funds subject to the names rule will generally
be minor. Therefore, the PRA estimates for the final prospectus
disclosure amendments likely overestimate the costs for those funds
whose disclosure is currently in line with the disclosure the
amendments would require.
The final amendments to Form N-1A, Form N-2, Form N-8B-2, and Form
S-6 all contain collection of information requirements. Compliance with
the disclosure requirements of each form is mandatory. Responses to
these disclosure requirements will not be kept confidential.
The Commission received one comment stating that the costs of
prospectus disclosure were underestimated.\614\ We have adjusted the
proposal's estimated annual burden hours and total time costs to
reflect updated wage rates, and in light of developments in our
analysis with respect to estimating the burdens associated with initial
disclosure-related burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\614\ See supra footnote 565.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The table below summarizes our PRA initial and ongoing annual
burden estimates associated with the amendments to Form N-1A, Form N-2,
Form N-8B-2, and Form S-6.
1. Form N-1A

Table 2--Form N-1A PRA Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Annual external cost
hours Annual hours \1\ Wage rate \2\ Internal time costs burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Aproved Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparing and Filing Reports on ....... 278........................ $284 (estimate of $78,952.................... $21,849.
Form N-1A Generally. wage rate in most
recently approved
supporting
statement).
Number of Responses............... ....... 6,002 \3\.................. .................... 6,002...................... 6,002.
Current Burden Requirement........ ....... 1,672,077 hours............ .................... $474,392,078............... $132,940,008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propoproposed Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed New Names Rule Disclosure 7 10 hours................... $356 (1:1 blend of $3,560..................... $992.\6\
Number of funds................... ....... x 9,731 funds \4\.......... attorney and senior x 9,731 funds.............. x 9,731 funds.
programmer).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Proposed Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden........... ....... 97,310 hours............... .................... $34,643,250................ $9,653,152.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Estimated Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Names Rule Disclosure......... \5\ 15 12 hours................... $406 (1:1 blend of $4,872..................... $1,130.\6\
Number of funds................... x 9,593 funds \7\.......... attorney and senior x 9,593 funds.............. x 9,593 funds.
programmer).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Final Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden........... ....... 115,116 hours.............. .................... $46,737,096................ $10,840,090.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a 3-year period.
\2\ The estimated wage figures are based on published rates for the professionals described in this chart, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-
year and inflation. The estimates for the proposed and final burdens were multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead. See Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013.
\3\ The currently-approved burden was based on the Commission's estimate that included all open-end funds, including ETFs, then registered on Form N-1A.
\4\ The currently-approved PRA burden for rule 35d-1 was based on the Commission's estimate that 83% of funds were covered by rule 35d-1. This estimate
assumed that 75% of funds would be covered by our proposed rule amendments. The prior PRA burden was based on an estimate using a different analytical
approach than we are now employing. The Commission estimated at proposal that 62% of funds were currently subject to rule 35d-1, and that the proposed
rule amendments would increase this estimate to 75% of funds. The Commission estimated, across approximately 12,975 open-end funds including ETFs
registered with the Commission, that there are approximately 9,731 open-end funds that have names that would have been covered by the proposed rule
amendments, or 75% of open-end funds covered by the rule amendments (10,223 mutual funds (other than money market funds) + 2,320 non-UIT ETFs + 432
money market funds = 12,975 open end funds x 75% = 9,731 open-end funds).

[[Page 70498]]

\5\ The estimated initial burden has been increased based on developments in our analysis with respect to estimating the burdens associated with initial
disclosure-related burdens. This burden has been increased to reflect internal review processes that we understand are conventional when updating
prospectus disclosures to reflect a new disclosure requirement, as well as the time that we understand, based on staff experience with the disclosure
review process, drafting disclosure in response to new disclosure requirements typically takes.
\6\ The estimated burdens at proposal were based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, and at adoption are based on the estimated wage rate of $565/
hour, for 2 hours, for outside legal services. The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rate for external time costs, such as outside legal
services, take into account staff experience, a variety of sources including general information websites, and adjustments for inflation.
\7\ Based on our current analysis, we estimate that 60% of funds are currently subject to rule 35d-1, and that the final amendments will increase this
estimate to 76% of funds. The Commission estimates, across approximately 12,623 open-end funds including ETFs registered with the Commission, that
there are approximately 9,467 open-end funds that have names that will be covered by the final amendments (9,533 mutual funds (other than money market
funds) + 2,735 non-UIT ETFs + 355 money market funds = 12,623 x 76% = 9,593 open-end funds).

2. Form N-2

Table 3--Form N-2 PRA Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Annual external cost
hours Annual hours \1\ Wage rate \2\ Internal time costs burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Aproved Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparing and Filing Reports on ....... 2,426....................... $400 (estimate of $970,533.................... $160,523.
Form N-2 Generally. wage rate in most
recently approved
supporting
statement).
Number of Responses............... ....... 298......................... ..................... 298......................... 298.
Current Burden Requirement........ ....... 722,948 hours............... ..................... $289,218,834................ $47,835,854.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed New Names Rule Disclosure 7 10 hours.................... $356 (1:1 blend of $3,560...................... $992.\5\
Number of Funds................... ....... x 626 funds \3\............. attorney and senior x 626 funds................. x 626.
programmer).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Proposed Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden........... ....... 6,260 hours................. ..................... $2,228,560.................. $620,992.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Estimated Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Names Rule Disclosure......... \4\ 15 12 hours.................... $406 (1:1 blend of $4,872...................... $1,130.\5\
Number of Funds................... ....... x 663 funds \6\............. attorney and senior x 663 funds................. x 663.
programmer).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Final Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden........... ....... 7,956 hours................. ..................... $3,230,136.................. $749,190.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a 3-year period.
\2\ The estimated wage figures are based on published rates for the professionals described in this chart, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-
year and inflation. The estimates for the proposed and final burdens were multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead. See Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013.
\3\ The currently-approved PRA burden for rule 35d-1 was based on the Commission's estimate that 83% of funds were covered by rule 35d-1. We now
estimate that 75% of funds would be covered by our proposed rule amendments. The prior PRA burden was based on an estimate using a different
analytical approach than we are now employing. The Commission estimated that 62% of funds were currently subject to rule 35d-1, and that the proposed
rule amendments would increase this estimate to 75% of funds. The Commission estimated, across approximately 835 closed-end funds registered with the
Commission, that there were approximately 626 closed-end funds that had names that would be covered by the proposed rule amendments, or 75% of closed-
end funds covered by the rule amendments (736 registered closed-end funds +99 BDCs = 835 Form N-2 registrants x 75% = 626 Form N-2 registrants).
\4\ The estimated initial burden has been increased based on developments in our analysis with respect to estimating the burdens associated with initial
disclosure-related burdens. This burden has been increased to reflect internal review processes that we understand are conventional when updating
prospectus disclosures to reflect a new disclosure requirement, as well as the time that we understand, based on staff experience with the disclosure
review process, drafting disclosure in response to new disclosure requirements typically takes.
\5\ The estimated burdens at proposal were based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, and at adoption are based on the estimated wage rate of $565/
hour, for 2 hours, for outside legal services. The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rate for external time costs, such as outside legal
services, take into account staff experience, a variety of sources including general information websites, and adjustments for inflation.
\6\ Based on our current analysis, we estimate that 60% of funds are currently subject to rule 35d-1, and that the final amendments will increase this
estimate to 76% of funds. The Commission estimates, across approximately 873 closed-end funds registered with the Commission, that approximately 663
closed-end funds have names that will be covered by the final rule, or 76% of closed-end funds (748 registered closed-end funds + 125 BDCs = 873 Form
N-2 registrants x 76% = 663 Form N-2 registrants).

3. Form N-8B-2

Table 4--Form N-8B-2 PRA Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of internal Annual cost burden per
Annual hours \1\ Wage rate \2\ burden per portfolio portfolio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Aproved Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparing and Filing Reports on UITs................... 10 hours............... $351 (estimate of $3,510................ $10,000.
Form N-8B-2 Generally. wage rate in most
recently approved
supporting
statement).
UIT ETFs............... 18 hours............... $351 (estimate of $6,318................ $0.
wage rate in most
recently approved
supporting
statement).
Number of Responses.............. ....................... 1 \3\.................. ................... 1..................... 1.
Current Burden Requirement....... ....................... 28 hours............... ................... $9,828................ $10,000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 70499]]

Proposed Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed New Names Rule 7...................... 10 hours............... $356 (1:1 blend of $3,560................ $992.\6\
Disclosure. ....................... x 1 UIT \4\............ compliance x 1 UIT............... x 1 UIT.
Number of Responses.............. attorney and
senior programmer).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden.......... ....................... 10 hours............... ................... $3,560................ $992.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Estimated Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Names Rule Disclosure........ 15 \5\................. 12 hours............... $406 (1:1 blend of $4,872................ $1,130.\6\
Number of Responses.............. ....................... x 1 UIT \4\............ compliance x 1 UIT............... x 1 UIT.
attorney and
senior programmer).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Final Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden.......... ....................... 12 hours............... ................... $4,872................ $1,130.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a 3-year period.
\2\ The estimated wage figures are based on published rates for the professionals described in this chart, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-
year and inflation. The estimates for the proposed and final burdens were multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead. See Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013.
\3\ Based on Commission records, in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, during that four-year period, the Commission received 1 filing, submitted in 2019, on
Form N-8B-2. The cumulative 4-year average is, therefore, 0.25 filings per year.
\4\ The Commission's proposed estimate was 1 annual filing and we continue to assume 1 filing annually.
\5\ The estimated initial burden has been increased based on developments in our analysis with respect to estimating the burdens associated with initial
disclosure-related burdens. This burden has been increased to reflect internal review processes that we understand are conventional when updating
prospectus disclosures to reflect a new disclosure requirement, as well as the time that we understand, based on staff experience with the disclosure
review process, drafting disclosure in response to new disclosure requirements typically takes.
\6\ The estimated burdens at proposal were based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, and at adoption are based on the estimated wage rate of $565/
hour, for 2 hours, for outside legal services. The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rate for external time costs, such as outside legal
services, take into account staff experience, a variety of sources including general information websites, and adjustments for inflation.

4. Form S-6

Table 5--Form S-6 PRA Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial
hours Annual hours \1\ Wage rate \2\ Internal costs Annual external costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Aproved Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft and Update Disclosures on 24 18 hours................... $356 (1:1 blend of $6,408..................... $27,265.
Form S-6 \3\. compliance attorney
and senior
programmer).
Number of Responses............... ....... 2,498...................... .................... 2,498...................... 2,498.
Current Burden Requirement........ ....... 107,359.................... .................... $16,007,184................ $68,107,970.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed New Names Rule Disclosure 7 10 hours................... $356 (1:1 blend of $3,560..................... $992.\6\
compliance attorney
and senior
programmer).
Number of Responses............... ....... 785 filings................ .................... x 785 filings \4\.......... x 785 filings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Proposed Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden........... ....... 7,850 hours................ .................... $2,794,600................. $778,720.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Estimated Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Names Rule Disclosure......... \5\ 15 12 hours................... $406 (1:1 blend of $4,872..................... $1,130.\6\
compliance attorney
and senior
programmer).
Number of Responses............... ....... x 764 filings \7\.......... .................... x 764 filings.............. 764 filings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Final Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden........... ....... 9,168 hours................ .................... $3,722,208................. $863,320.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a 3-year period.
\2\ The estimated wage figures are based on published rates for the professionals described in this chart, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-
year and inflation. The estimates for the proposed and final burdens were multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead. See Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013.
\3\ Form S-6 incorporates the disclosure requirements of Form N-8B-2 for UITs on an ongoing basis. Because Form S-6 incorporates the requirements of
Form N-8B-2, the amendments would indirectly affect these entities. UITs that have made their initial deposit of securities prior to the effective
date of any final rule would be required to update their disclosure on Form S-6 to comply with the amended requirements of Form N-8B-2. As discussed
above, UITs formed after the adoption of any final rules would be required to comply with the proposed disclosure requirements upon formation when
those UITs file Form N-8B-2 with the Commission.

[[Page 70500]]

\4\ The currently-approved PRA burden for rule 35d-1 was based on the Commission's estimate that 83% of funds were covered by rule 35d-1. The Commission
estimated that 75% of funds would be covered by our proposed rule amendments, based on this proposal's economic analysis above. The prior PRA burden
was based on an estimate using a different analytical approach than we are now employing. The Commission estimated that 62% of funds are currently
subject to rule 35d-1 and that our proposed rule amendments would increase this estimate to 75% of funds. The Commission estimated 49 non-separate
account and non-ETF UITs registered with the Commission. However, the Commission based its estimate on the belief that using the number of filings
instead of registrants would form a more accurate estimate of annual disclosure burdens. The Commission estimated 1,047 filings based on the average
number of filings made on Form S-6 from 2018 to 2020. The Commission therefore estimated that there would be approximately 785 filings for funds that
have names that would be covered by the proposed rule amendments, or 75% of the filings for UITs covered by the rule amendments (1,047 filings x 75% =
785 filings).
\5\ The estimated initial burden has been increased based on developments in our analysis with respect to estimating the burdens associated with initial
disclosure-related burdens. This burden has been increased to reflect internal review processes that we understand are conventional when updating
prospectus disclosures to reflect a new disclosure requirement, as well as the time that we understand, based on staff experience with the disclosure
review process, drafting disclosure in response to new disclosure requirements typically takes.
\6\ The estimated burdens at proposal were based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, and at adoption are based on the estimated wage rate of $565/
hour, for 2 hours, for outside legal services. The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rate for external time costs, such as outside legal
services, take into account staff experience, a variety of sources including general information websites, and adjustments for inflation.
\7\ Based on our current analysis, we estimate that 60% of funds are currently subject to rule 35d-1, and that the final amendments will increase this
estimate to 76% of funds. The Commission estimates 45 non-separate account and non-ETF UITs registered with the Commission. However, consistent with
the Commission's methodology at proposal, we believe that using the number of filings instead of the number of registrants will form a more accurate
estimate of annual disclosure burdens. The Commission estimates 1,005 filings based on the average number of filings made on Form S-6 from 2020 to
2022. The Commission therefore estimates that there will be approximately 764 filings for funds that have names that will be covered by the final
amendments, or 76% of the filings for UITs covered by the rule amendments (1,005 filings x 76% = 764 filings).

D. Form N-PORT Reporting Requirements

We are adopting amendments to Form N-PORT to include new reporting
items for N-PORT funds regarding the 80% investment policy that such a
fund adopts in compliance with the names rule. As proposed, the final
amendments require N-PORT funds that are required to adopt an 80%
investment policy to report on Form N-PORT: (1) whether each investment
in the fund's portfolio is in the fund's 80% basket; and (2) the value
of the fund's 80% basket, as a percentage of the value of the fund's
assets.
The final amendments contain some modifications from the
proposal.\615\ First, the final Form N-PORT amendments modify the
proposed reporting approach by requiring reported information for the
third month of each calendar quarter, instead of for every month. This
modified reporting frame corresponds with the period for review that
will otherwise be mandated by the final amendments. Secondly, the final
amendments add a new reporting item, in which funds will be required to
report the definitions of terms used in a fund's name. Lastly, we are
not adopting the proposed requirement that funds report the number of
days that that the value of the fund's 80% basket fell below 80% of the
value of the fund's total assets during the reporting period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\615\ See supra section II.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form N-PORT, including the final amendments, contains collection of
information requirements. Compliance with the requirements of the form
is mandatory. Responses to these reporting requirements will be kept
confidential, subject to the provisions of applicable law, for reports
filed with respect to the first two months of each quarter. Responses
to the new Form N-PORT reporting requirements for the third month of
the quarter will not be kept confidential, but made public sixty days
after the quarter end.
The Commission did not receive public comment regarding the PRA
estimates for the amendments to Form N-PORT in the proposing release,
but it did receive comments on the overall costs and burdens associated
with this aspect of the proposal. Some commenters stated that the costs
and operational burdens of the proposed requirement for N-PORT funds
subject to the 80% investment policy requirement to indicate whether
each of its portfolio investments is included in the fund's 80% basket
would be significant.\616\ Commenters specifically expressed concern
about the costs and burden of reporting this information for each
investment on a monthly basis.\617\ Some commenters also stated that
the proposed new reporting item would require the build-out of new
systems, for daily testing and validation of names rule compliance
information, and for mapping this information over for reporting on
Form N-PORT.\618\ Commenters also stated that funds may need to hire
third-party vendors for supplemental and specially-tailored data on
their portfolio investments, in order to comply with the proposed new
reporting requirements.\619\ With respect to the proposed requirement
that a fund report the number of days that the value of the fund's 80%
basket fell below 80% of the value of the fund's total assets during
the reporting period, commenters stated that monitoring individual
securities on a daily basis for name rule compliance would be
operationally onerous.\620\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\616\ See, e.g., MFS Comment Letter; J.P. Morgan Asset
Management Comment Letter; T. Rowe Comment Letter.
\617\ See MFS Comment Letter.
\618\ See, e.g., T. Rowe Comment Letter; Invesco Comment Letter;
Seward & Kissel Comment Letter.
\619\ See, e.g., ICI Comment Letter; SIFMA AMG Comment Letter.
\620\ See, e.g., J.P. Morgan Asset Management Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have adjusted the proposal's estimated annual burden hours and
total time costs to reflect these comments as well as the changes from
the proposed requirements. We recognize that complying with the new
reporting requirements will entail compliance activities, and
potentially systems and operational modifications as well as the use of
third-party service providers, and that reporting will be required for
each of a fund's portfolio holdings. As a result, we have adjusted the
estimated initial and annual hours associated with the requirement for
funds to report whether each of its investments is part of its 80%
basket. On the other hand, we expect that the modified reporting time
frame will reduce the burdens associated with the final amendments'
collection of information requirements. The burdens associated with the
proposal will also be reduced because we are not adopting the proposed
requirement to report the number of days that the value of the 80%
basket fell below 80% of the value of the fund's total assets. We do
not anticipate the new reporting item under the final amendments
requiring funds to include definitions of terms used in a fund's name
will entail significant costs because this reporting requirement
leverages the same disclosure that funds will also, under the final
amendments, be required to include in their prospectuses. Moreover, any
costs associated with this requirement should be recurring costs only
to the extent a fund determines to change its name or its definition of
the terms used in its name.
The table below summarizes the estimates for internal burdens
associated with the new requirements under the final amendments to Form
N-PORT.

[[Page 70501]]

Table 6--Form N-PORT PRA Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial
hours Annual hours \1\ Wage rate \2\ Internal time costs Annual external cost burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Aproved Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparing and Filing Reports on ....... 44,500..................... $344.19 (estimate of $15,316,455................ $4,684,296.
Form N-PORT Generally. wage rate in most
recently approved
supporting
statement).
Number of Responses............... ....... 2,696...................... .................... 2,696...................... 2,696.
Current Burden Requirement........ ....... 1,839,903 hours............ .................... $654,658, 288.............. $113,858,133.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Reporting About 80% Investment 4 9 hours.................... $356 (blend of $3,204..................... $992.\4\
Policy \3\. compliance attorney
and senior
programmer).
Number of Funds................... ....... x 9,996 funds \3\.......... .................... x 9,996 funds.............. x 9,996 funds.
Total New Burden for New Reporting ....... 89,964 hours............... .................... $32,027,184................ $9,916,032.
About 80% Investment Policy (I).
Investments to be Included in a 4 10 hours................... $356 (rate for $3,560..................... $992.\6\
Fund's 80% Basket \4\. ....... x 9,996 funds \4\.......... compliance attorney x 9,996 funds.............. x 9,996 funds.
Number of Funds................... and senior
programmer).
Total New Burden for Investments ....... 99,960 hours............... .................... $35,585,760................ $9,916,032.
to be Included in a Fund's 80%
Basket (II).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Proposed Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden (I + II).. ....... 189,924 hours.............. .................... $67,612,944................ $19,832,064.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Estimated Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Reporting About 80% Investment 4 2 hours.................... $406 (blend of $812....................... $1,130.\4\
Policy \3\. compliance attorney
and senior
programmer).
Number of Funds................... ....... x 9,926 funds \3\.......... .................... x 9,926 funds.............. x 9,926 funds.
Total New Burden for New Reporting ....... 19,852 hours............... .................... $8,059,912................. $11,216,380.
About 80% Investment Policy (I).
Investments to be Included in a 15 14 hours................... $406 (rate for $5,684..................... $1,130.\6\
Fund's 80% Basket\4\. compliance attorney
and senior
programmer).
Number of Funds................... ....... x 9,926 funds \6\.......... x 9,926 funds....... x 9,926 funds..............
Total New Burden for Investments ....... 138,964 hours.............. .................... $56,419,384................ $11,216,380.
to be Included in a Fund's 80%
Basket (II).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Final Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total New Annual Burden (I + II).. ....... 158,816 hours.............. .................... $64,479,296................ $22,432,760.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a 3-year period.
\2\ The estimated wage figures are based on published rates for the professionals described in this chart, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-
year and inflation. The estimates for the proposed and final burdens were multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead. See Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013.
\3\ This burden corresponds to the requirement for a fund to report the value of its 80% basket as a percentage of the value of its assets. The proposed
estimate also reflects the burden associated with the requirement for funds to report the number of days that the value of the 80% basket fell below
80% of the value of the fund's total assets. Because we are not adopting this requirement under the final rule, the final annual hours burden estimate
has been reduced by 33% compared to the proposed estimate. The final annual hours estimate has also been reduced by a factor of 3 to reflect the
modified reporting timeframe under the final amendments (i.e., quarterly as opposed to monthly). Accordingly, the adjustment from proposed annual
hours burden estimate to the final estimate reflects the following calculation: 9 hours x (\2/3\) = 6 hours/3 = 2 hours.
\4\ This burden corresponds to the requirement for funds that are required to adopt 80% policies to indicate, with respect to each portfolio investment,
whether the investment is included in the fund's calculation of assets in the fund's 80% basket; and for the final estimate (but not the proposed
estimate), the requirement for funds to report definitions of the terms used in their names. Our final estimate of the initial hours burden has been
increased by a factor of 2 compared to the proposed estimate to reflect costs associated with systems and operational modifications that may be
required for compliance with these requirements. Our final estimate of the annual hours burden also reflects these increased costs compared to the
proposed estimate; however it has been reduced in order to reflect the modified reporting timeframe under the final amendments (i.e., quarterly as
opposed to monthly), resulting in an overall estimate for the annual hours burden that is lower that the proposed estimate. Specifically, the
adjustment from the proposed annual hours burden estimate to the final estimate reflects the following calculation: 10 hours x 2 = 20 hours/3 = 6.67
(rounded to 7 hours).
\3\ The currently-approved PRA burden for rule 35d-1 was based on the Commission's estimate that 83% of funds were covered by rule 35d-1. The Commission
estimated that 75% of funds would be covered by our proposed rule amendments. The prior PRA burden was based on an estimate using a different
analytical approach than we are now employing. The Commission estimated that 62% of funds are currently subject to rule 35d-1 and that the proposed
rule amendments would increase this estimate to 75% of funds. The Commission estimated, across approximately 14,001 open-end and closed-end funds
registered with the Commission, not including money market funds, that there would have been approximately 10,394 funds that have names that would be
covered by the proposed rule amendments, or 75% of funds covered by the rule amendments (10,223 mutual funds (other than money market funds) + 2,320
non-UIT ETFs = 12,543 open end funds + 736 registered closed-end funds + 49 UITs = 13,328 funds x 75% = 9,996 funds).
\4\ See id.
\5\ The estimated burdens at proposal were based on the estimated wage rate of $496/hour, and at adoption are based on the estimated wage rate of $565/
hour, for 2 hours, for outside legal services. The Commission's estimates of the relevant wage rate for external time costs, such as outside legal
services, take into account staff experience, a variety of sources including general information websites, and adjustments for inflation.
\6\ Based on our current analysis, we estimate that that 60% of funds are currently subject to rule 35d-1, and that the final amendments will increase
this estimate to 76% of funds. The Commission estimates, across approximately 13,061 open-end and closed-end funds registered with the Commission, not
including money market funds, that there will be approximately 10,318 funds that have names that will be covered by the proposed rule amendments, or
76% of the funds covered by the rule amendments (9,533 mutual funds (other than money market funds) + 2,735 non-UIT ETFs + = 12,268 open end funds +
registered closed-end funds + 45 UITs = 13,061 funds x 76% = 10,318 funds).

E. Investment Company Interactive Data

We are adopting amendments to Form N-2, Form N-8B-2, and Form S-6,
as well as rules 485 and 497 under the Securities Act and rule 11 and
405 of Regulation S-T, to require certain new structured data reporting
requirements for funds.\621\ The final amendments

[[Page 70502]]

include new structured data requirements that will require funds to tag
the information in their registration statements about their fund name
using Inline XBRL.\622\ The purpose of these information collections is
to make information regarding fund names easier for investors to
analyze and to help automate regulatory filings and business
information processing, and to improve consistency across all types of
funds with respect to the accessibility of fund name information they
provide to the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\621\ The Investment Company Interactive Data collection of
information do not impose any separate burden aside from that
described in our discussion of the burden estimates for this
collection of information. The amendments we are adopting to rules
485 and 497 under the Securities Act, as well as rules 11 and 405 to
Regulation S-T, are conforming amendments that have no associated
PRA burden. While the new names-related information that open-end
funds will be required to disclose under our final amendments to
Form N-1A also will be required to be tagged using Inline XBRL, the
final amendments to Form N-1A will create no additional PRA burden.
The final rule amends Item 4 of Form N-1A; Form N-1A registrants are
already required to submit the information that they provide in
response to Item 4 using Inline XBRL. See supra footnote 115.
Therefore, the burdens associated with tagging Item 4 disclosure are
already accounted for under the current Investment Company
Interactive Data collection of information.
\622\ See supra section II.B; see also instruction to Item
4(a)(1) of Form N-1A; instruction to Item 9(b)(1) of Form N-1A;
instruction to Item 8(2) of Form N-2; instruction to Item 11 of Form
N-8B-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds filing registration statements on Form N-2 already submit
certain information using Inline XBRL format. Based on filing data as
of December 2022, we estimate that 663 funds filing registration
statements on these forms would be subject to the proposed interactive
data amendments. UITs filing initial registration statements on Form N-
8B-2 and post-effective amendments on Form S-6 are not currently
subject to requirements to submit information in structured form.
Because these UITs have not previously been subject to Inline XBRL
requirements, we assume that these funds will experience additional
burdens related to one-time costs associated with becoming familiarized
with Inline XBRL reporting. These costs will include, for example, the
acquisition of new software or the services of consultants, and the
training of staff. Based on filing data as of December 30, 2020, we
estimate that 796 filings would be subject to these proposed
amendments. In our most recent Paperwork Reduction Act submission for
Investment Company Interactive Data, we estimated a total aggregate
annual hour burden of 323,724 hours, and a total aggregate annual
external cost burden of $16,041,450. Compliance with the interactive
data requirements is mandatory, and the responses will not be kept
confidential.
The Commission did not receive public comment regarding the PRA
estimates for the investment company interactive data requirements. We
have adjusted the proposal's estimated annual burden hours and total
time costs, however, to reflect updated wage rates.
The table below summarizes our PRA initial and ongoing annual
burden estimates associated with the proposed amendments to Form N-1A,
Form N-2, Form N-8B-2, and Form S-6, as well as Regulation S-T.

Table 7--Investment Company Interactive Data PRA Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal initial Internal annual burden Annual external cost
burden hours hours \1\ Wage rate \2\ Internal time costs burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Names rule information for 1 1 hour \4\............... $356 (blended rate $356..................... $50.\5\
current XBRL filers \3\. for compliance
attorney and
senior
programmer).
Number of funds................ .................. x 626 funds \6\.......... .................. x 626 funds.............. x 626 funds.
Names rule information for new 9 4 hours \8\.............. $356 (blended rate $1,424................... $900.\9\
XBRL filers \7\. for compliance
attorney and
senior
programmer).
Number of filings.............. .................. x 785 filings \10\....... .................. x 785 filings............ x 785 filings.
Total new aggregate annual .................. 3,766 hours \11\......... .................. $1,340,696 \12\.......... $737,800.\13\
burden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Proposed Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current aggregate annual burden .................. + 252,602 hours.......... .................. ......................... + $15,350,750.
estimates.
Revised aggregate annual burden .................. 256,368 hours............ .................. ......................... $16,088,550.
estimates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Estimated Burdens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Names rule information for 1 1 hour \4\............... $406 (blended rate $406..................... $50.\5\
current XBRL filers \3\. for compliance
attorney and
senior
programmer).
Number of funds................ .................. x 663 funds \6\.......... .................. x 663 funds.............. x 663 funds.
Names rule information for new 9 4 hours \8\.............. $406 (blended rate $1,625................... $900.\9\
XBRL filers \7\. for compliance
attorney and
senior
programmer).
Number of filings.............. .................. x 796 filings \14\....... .................. x 796 filings............ x 796 filings.
Total new aggregate annual .................. 3,847 hours \11\......... .................. $1,562,678 \12\.......... $749,550.\13\
burden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Final Estimated Burdens Including Amendments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current aggregate annual burden .................. + 323,724 hours.......... .................. ......................... + $16,041,450.
estimates.
Revised aggregate annual burden .................. 324,571 hours............ .................. ......................... $16,791,000
estimates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a 3-year period.
\2\ See supra table 1 regarding estimated wage rates.

[[Page 70503]]

\3\ This estimate represents the average burden for a filer on Form N-2 that is currently subject to interactive data requirements.
\4\ This estimate included initial burden estimates annualized over a three-year period, plus 0.67 hour of ongoing annual burden hours. The estimate of
1 hour was based on the following calculation: ((1 initial hour/3) + 0.67 hour of additional ongoing burden hours) = 1 hour.
\5\ The Commission estimated an incremental external cost for filers on Form N-2, as they already submit certain information using Inline XBRL.
\6\ Based on filing data as of December 30, 2020, the Commission estimated 626 funds, including BDCs, filing on Form N-2. Based on filing data as of
December 2022, we have adjusted that estimate to 663 funds.
\7\ This estimate represents the average burden for a filer on Form N-8B-2 and Form S-6 that is not currently subject to interactive data requirements.
\8\ Includes initial burden estimates annualized over a three-year period, plus 1 hour of ongoing annual burden hours. The estimate of 10 hours is based
on the following calculation: ((27 initial hours/3) + 1 hour of additional ongoing burden hours) = 10 hours.
\9\ This estimate assumes an external cost for filers on Form N-8B-2 and Form S-6 of $900 to reflect one-time compliance and initial set-up costs.
Because these filers have not been previously been subject to Inline XBRL requirements, this estimate reflects that these funds would experience
additional burdens related to one time-costs associated with becoming familiar with Inline XBRL reporting. These costs would include, for example, the
acquisition of new software or the services of consultants.
\10\ The Commission estimated 49 non-separate account and non-ETF UITs registered with the Commission. However, the Commission based the proposed
estimate on the belief that the number of filings instead of registrants would form a more accurate estimate of annual burdens. The Commission
estimated 1,047 filings based on the average number of filings made on Form S-6 from 2018 to 2020, and therefore estimated that there are
approximately 785 filings for funds that have names that would have been covered by the proposed rule amendments, or 75% of the filings for UITs
covered by the rule amendments (1,047 filings x 75% = 785 filings).
\11\ With respect to the proposed estimate, 3,766 hours = (626 funds x 1 hour = 626 hours) + (785 filings x 4 hours = 3,140 hours). With respect to the
final estimate, 3,847 hours = (663 funds x 1 hours = 663 hours) + (796 filings x 4 hours = 3,184 hours).
\12\ With respect to the proposed estimate, $1,340,696 internal time cost = (626 funds x $356 = $222,856) + (785 filings x $1,424 = $1,117,840). With
respect to the final estimate, $1,562,678 internal time cost = (663 funds x $406 = $269,178) + (796 filings x $1,625 = $1,293,500).
\13\ With respect to the proposed estimate, $737,800 annual external cost = (626 funds x $50 = $31,300) + (785 filings x $900 = $706,500). With respect
to the final estimate, $749,550 annual external cost = (663 funds x $50 = $33,150) + (796 filings x $900 = $716,400).
\14\ Based on our current analysis, we estimate that 76% of funds will be subject to rule 35d-1 under the final amendments, and therefore estimate that
796 filings for funds that have names that will be covered by the final amendments (1,047 filings x 76% = 796 filings).

VI. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Commission has prepared the following Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA'') in accordance with section 604 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'').\623\ It relates to final
amendments to rule 35d-1 and Forms N-1A, N-2, N-8B-2, S-6, and N-PORT,
as well as final conforming amendments to rules 11 and 405 of
Regulation S-T and rules 485 and 497 under the Securities Act
(collectively, ``final amendments'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\623\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for and Objectives of the Rule and Form Amendments

Section 35(d) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company
from adopting as part of its name or title any word or words that the
Commission finds are materially deceptive or misleading. Rule 35d-1
addresses certain broad categories of investment company names that are
likely to mislead an investor about a company's investments and risks.
We are adopting final amendments designed to increase investor
protection by improving, and broadening the scope of, the requirement
for certain funds to adopt a policy to invest at least 80% of their
assets in accordance with the investment focus that the fund's name
suggests, updating the rule's notice requirements, and establishing
recordkeeping requirements. The Commission also is adopting enhanced
prospectus disclosure requirements for terminology used in fund names
and additional requirements for funds to report information on Form N-
PORT regarding compliance with the names-related regulatory
requirements. The reasons for, and objectives of, the final amendments
are discussed in more detail in sections I and II above.

B. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments

In the Proposing Release, the Commission requested comment on every
aspect of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA''),
including the number of small entities that would be affected by the
proposed rule and form amendments, the existence or nature of the
potential impact of the proposals on small entities discussed in the
analysis, and how to quantify the impact of the proposed amendments.
The Commission also requested comment on the proposed compliance
burdens and the effect these burdens would have on small entities.
Although the Commission did not receive comments specifically
addressing the IRFA, one commenter stated that many small or innovative
funds would be ``disproportionately'' burdened by the legal and
compliance costs of the expanded scope of fund names that would be
subject to the proposed amendments.\624\ In addition, the Commission
received comments stating that the proposed requirement that funds use
a derivatives instrument's notional amount to determine the fund's
compliance with its 80% investment policy would create costly technical
and operational challenges for small fund groups.\625\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\624\ See Freeman Capital Management Comment Letter. But see
PIABA Comment Letter (stating that most instances of misleading fund
names involve small and medium funds).
\625\ See Dechert Comment Letter; ICI Comment Letter; Center for
American Progress Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smaller funds may incur costs associated with the final amendments
as funds comply with all aspects of the final amendments, including the
specific aspects that commenters discussing small entities
highlighted.\626\ As discussed above, compliance costs associated with
the final amendments, particularly those that expand the current scope
of the names rule, would vary based on a fund's current practices with
respect to adopting policies to invest a particular percentage of fund
assets in investments that have, or whose issuers have, particular
characteristics. With respect to potential costs incurred to comply
with other aspects of the amendments that commenters discussing small
entities identified, we expect that funds would incur costs to review
the final amendments' requirements and modify, as necessary, their
investing practices, policies and procedures, and recordkeeping
practices to comply with these requirements, or may decide to instead
change their names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\626\ See supra sections IV.D.2 and V for a discussion of costs
associated with the final amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Small Entities Subject to Rule Amendments

For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, an investment company is a small entity if,
together with other investment companies in the same group of related
investment companies, it has net assets of $50 million or less as of
the end of its most recent fiscal year (``small fund'').\627\
Commission staff estimates that, as of December 2022, approximately 34
registered open-end mutual funds (including one money market fund), 9
registered ETFs, 27 registered closed-end funds, 3 UITs, and

[[Page 70504]]

10 BDCs (collectively, 83 funds) are small entities.\628\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\627\ See rule 0-10(a) under the Act [17 CFR 270.0-10(a)].
\628\ This estimate is derived from an analysis of data obtained
from Morningstar Direct as well as data reported to the Commission
for the period ending June 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements

The final amendments include reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements. First, the final amendments expand the types
of fund names subject to the names rule's 80% investment policy
requirement, and any fund that has or adopts a newly covered name will
need to adopt an 80% investment policy.\629\ The final amendments also
include other changes to the current names rule, such as permitting a
fund to engage in temporary departures from an 80% investment
requirement for a limited period of time under other than normal
circumstances, which will also necessitate an update to funds' existing
practices regarding names rule compliance. Funds will be required to
review their portfolio investments to determine whether they continue
to be consistent with the fund's 80% investment policy at least
quarterly. The final amendments also specify that a fund's name may be
materially deceptive or misleading under section 35(d) even if the fund
adopts an 80% investment policy and otherwise complies with the rule's
requirement to adopt and implement the policy. The final amendments
further require a fund that is required to adopt an 80% investment
policy to maintain certain records documenting its compliance with the
rule, including, the fund's record of which assets are invested in
accordance with the investment focus that the fund's name suggests (or
consistent with the tax-exempt treatment its name suggests).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\629\ While the final rule amendments will add BDCs to the
definition of ``fund'' under the rule, we do not anticipate that
this addition will have a significant impact on small entities. BDCs
are currently subject to the requirements of section 35(d) pursuant
to section 59 of the Act. We understand that BDCs currently comply
with the names rule because they are subject to the requirements of
section 35(d). See also supra footnote 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final amendments also require disclosure in the fund's
prospectus regarding the definitions of terms used in the fund's name,
including a requirement that funds must tag new information that will
be included using Inline XBRL. Under the final amendments, funds (other
than money market funds and BDCs) that are required to adopt an 80%
investment policy also newly must report certain information on Form N-
PORT regarding names rule matters. This will necessitate that certain
funds either must change their names or adjust their investment
strategies, and thus potentially their portfolio investments, to ensure
compliance. Lastly, the final amendments include exceptions for certain
UITs. We discuss the specifics of these burdens in the Economic
Analysis and Paperwork Reduction Act sections above. These sections
also discuss the professional skills that we believe compliance with
the final amendments will require.
1. 80% Investment Policy Requirements--Scope Expansion and Other
Amendments
All funds, including small funds, that have names that include
terms suggesting that the fund focuses its investments in investments
that have, or whose issuers have, particular characteristics will be
required to adopt an 80% investment policy under the final
amendments.\630\ Further, in order to comply with this element of the
final amendments, a fund may have to engage in a name change or change
its portfolio investments so that the fund's name reflects its 80%
basket or vice-versa. Funds that have an existing 80% investment policy
will need to change their practices to comply with the names rule to
address other aspects of the final amendments: (1) changes to how the
rule addresses temporary departures from the 80% investment
requirement, (2) changes to address derivatives in calculating
compliance with the 80% investment policy requirement, (3) the plain
English/established industry use requirement, and (4) updates to the
rule's notice requirement. Lastly, a fund that is an unlisted
registered closed-end fund or BDC may be required to amend its existing
80% investment policy so that it is a fundamental policy and, on a
going-forward basis, engage in shareholder votes to change its 80%
investment policy.\631\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\630\ See supra section VI.C for a discussion of the number of
small entities subject to the amendments.
\631\ As discussed above, under the final amendments such funds
will be permitted to make changes to their 80% policies without this
vote if the fund conducts a tender or repurchase offer in advance of
the change, the fund provides at least 60 days' prior notice of any
change in the policy in advance of that offer, and that offer is not
oversubscribed, and in the event of a tender offer, the fund
purchases shares at their net asset value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These requirements are designed to help ensure that a fund's
investment activity is consistent with the investment focus its name
communicates and, thus, the investor expectations the name creates.
These requirements will impose burdens on all funds, including those
that are small entities.
While we expect larger funds or funds that are part of a large fund
complex to incur higher costs related to these requirements in absolute
terms relative to a smaller fund or a fund that is part of a smaller
fund complex, we generally expect a smaller fund to find it more
costly, per dollar managed, to comply with the final requirements
because it will not be able to benefit from a larger fund complex's
economies of scale. Smaller funds may be more likely than larger funds
with significant in-house resources to hire outside assistance in
connection with understanding and assisting in compliance with the
final amendments--for example, retaining outside counsel to analyze the
implications of the final amendments' scope expansion on existing fund
names. And a larger fund complex may be able to develop a process with
in-house or outside counsel or utilize existing systems to make these
changes more efficiently across all of their funds that a smaller fund
with less resources may find too costly. For example, a larger unlisted
BDC or closed-end fund may be able to use existing procedures to
develop a method of soliciting shareholder votes regarding name changes
that smaller unlisted BDCs or closed-end funds do not have.\632\
Notwithstanding the economies of scale experienced by larger versus
smaller funds, we generally do not expect the costs of compliance
associated with the new requirements to be meaningfully different for
smaller versus larger funds. The costs of compliance will vary only
based on fund characteristics tied to their name. That is, whether a
fund would now need to adopt, or change, its 80% investment policy, or
its practices to comply with the names rule, will be as a consequence
of that fund having a name that suggests an investment focus under the
final amendments, not based upon the size of the fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\632\ The final amendments' approach that permits unlisted
registered closed-end funds and BDCs to make changes to their 80%
investment policies without a shareholder vote under certain
circumstances could, however, result in fewer costs to smaller
unlisted registered closed-end funds and BDCs, to the extent that
this additional permissible approach to changing their 80%
investment policies is less costly than obtaining a shareholder
vote. See supra sections II.A.4; IV.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Effect of Compliance With an 80% Investment Policy
We are adopting a new provision in the names rule providing that a
fund's name may be materially deceptive or misleading under section
35(d) even if the fund adopts an 80% investment

[[Page 70505]]

policy and otherwise complies with the rule's requirement to adopt and
implement the policy. The final provision makes clear that a fund name
may be materially deceptive or misleading even where the fund complies
with its 80% investment policy, for example, potentially where a fund
complies with its 80% investment policy but invests in a way such that
the source of a substantial portion of the fund's risks or returns is
materially different from that which an investor reasonably would
expect based on the fund's name. This new provision is consistent with
prior Commission statements that the 80% investment requirement under
the names rule is not intended to create a safe harbor from liability
under section 35(d) for materially deceptive or misleading fund names.
This provision applies to all funds subject to the names rule's 80%
investment policy requirement, including those that are small entities.
However, because this provision restates section 35(d), we believe that
it will not result in any additional costs beyond those already
attendant on compliance with the Act itself.
3. Recordkeeping Requirements
The recordkeeping requirements are designed to help ensure
compliance with the rule's requirements and aid in oversight. A fund
that will be required to adopt an 80% investment policy under the final
amendments will be required to maintain a written record documenting
its compliance under the 80% investment policy provisions of the rule.
Specifically, the written records documenting the fund's compliance
that these funds will be required to maintain include: (1) the fund's
record of which assets are invested in accordance with the investment
focus the fund's name suggests (or, as applicable, consistent with the
tax treatment suggested by a tax-exempt fund's name) and the basis for
including each such asset in the 80% basket; (2) the value of the
fund's 80% basket, as a percentage of the value of the fund's assets;
(3) the reasons for any departures from the 80% investment policy; (4)
the dates that the fund identifies any departures from the 80%
investment policy; and (5) any notice sent to the fund's shareholders
pursuant to the rule. The records under this requirement must be
maintained for at least six years following the creation of each
required record (or, in the case of notices, following the date the
notice was sent), the first two years in an easily accessible place.
These requirements impose burdens on all funds, including those
that are small entities. We expect that smaller funds--and more
specifically, smaller funds that are not part of a fund complex--may
not have recordkeeping systems that will meet all the elements that
will be required under the final amendments. Also, while we expect
larger funds or funds that are part of a large fund complex to incur
higher costs related to the requirements in absolute terms relative to
a smaller fund or a fund that is part of a smaller fund complex, we
expect a smaller fund to find it more costly, per dollar managed, to
comply with the requirements because it will not be able to benefit
from a larger fund complex's economies of scale.
4. Disclosure and Reporting Requirements
The requirement for a fund that is subject to the 80% investment
policy requirement to define the terms used in the fund's name,
including the specific criteria the fund uses to select the investments
the term describes, if any, in the fund's prospectus is designed to
help investors better understand how the fund's investment strategies
correspond with the investment focus that the fund's name suggests as
well as to provide additional information about how the fund's
management seeks to achieve the fund's objective. The final amendments
require funds to tag this disclosure in Inline XBRL.
The final amendments also require funds (other than money market
funds and BDCs) that will be required to adopt an 80% investment policy
to report certain new information on Form N-PORT: (1) the percentage of
the value of the fund's assets that are invested in accordance with the
investment focus that the fund's name suggests (or consistent with the
tax treatment suggested by a taxexempt fund's name); (2) with respect
to each portfolio investment, whether the investment is included in the
fund's calculation of assets in the fund's 80% basket; and (3) the
definitions of the terms used in the fund's name, including the
specific criteria the fund uses to select the investments that the term
describes, if any. These Form N-PORT reporting requirements are
designed to provide investors with information that may allow them to
make better investment choices consistent with their investment
preferences, as well as to increase the effectiveness of the
Commission's oversight of a fund's compliance with the names rule.
These requirements will impose burdens on all funds, including
those that are small entities. While we expect larger funds or funds
that are part of a large fund complex to incur higher costs related to
these requirements in absolute terms relative to a smaller fund or a
fund that is part of a smaller fund complex, we expect a smaller fund
to find it more costly, per dollar managed, to comply with these
requirements because it would not be able to benefit from a larger fund
complex's economies of scale. Notwithstanding the economies of scale
experienced by larger versus smaller funds, we do not expect the costs
of compliance associated with the new Form N-PORT requirements to be
meaningfully different for smaller versus larger funds. The costs of
compliance vary only based on fund characteristics tied to their name.
For example, a fund whose investments move relatively more frequently
in and out of the fund's 80% basket may incur a higher burden to comply
with the requirement to report whether each portfolio investment is
included in the fund's 80% basket, than a fund whose investments'
inclusion in the 80% basket is relatively more stable. Furthermore,
based on our experience implementing tagging requirements that use the
XBRL, we recognize that some funds that will be affected by the
requirement, particularly filers with no Inline XBRL tagging
experience, likely will incur initial costs to acquire the necessary
expertise and/or software as well as ongoing costs of tagging required
information in Inline XBRL. The incremental effect of any fixed costs,
including ongoing fixed costs, of complying with the Inline XBRL
requirement may be greater for smaller filers. However, we believe that
smaller funds in particular may benefit more from any enhanced exposure
to investors that could result from these requirements. If reporting
the disclosures in structured data language increases the availability
of, or reduces the cost of collecting and analyzing, key information
about funds, smaller funds may benefit from improved coverage by third-
party information providers and data aggregators.
5. Treatment of UITs
The final rule amendments provide that the 80% investment policy
and recordkeeping requirements will apply to UITs only at the time of
initial deposit. This modification is designed to accommodate the
practical realities that UITs would encounter if required to comply
with the new provisions in the final amendments that require periodic
review and potential rebalancing of a fund's portfolio. As a result,
UITs that have names that are implicated by the final amendments and
whose initial deposit occurs after the compliance date

[[Page 70506]]

of the final amendments will need to adopt an appropriate 80%
investment policy, including making such a policy fundamental or
providing notice to investors in the event of a change of the policy,
if appropriate. However, such UITs will not be required to engage in
the monitoring and other requirements associated with the final
amendments' temporary departure requirements nor will they be required
to keep records under the final amendments beyond the initial deposit.
All UITs will be subject to the rule's other requirements under the
final amendments, as applicable, as well as those of the Federal
securities laws generally, including section 35(d) of the Investment
Company Act. This treatment will be available to UITs of all sizes,
including smaller UITs.

E. Agency Action To Minimize Effect on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs the Commission to consider
significant alternatives that would accomplish our stated objective,
while minimizing any significant economic impact on small entities. We
considered the following alternatives for small entities in relation to
our proposal: (1) exempting funds that are small entities from the
proposed reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements,
to account for resources available to small entities; (2) establishing
different reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements
or frequency, to account for resources available to small entities; (3)
clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying the compliance and reporting
requirements under the proposal for small entities; and (4) using
performance rather than design standards.
We do not believe that exempting small funds from the provisions of
the final amendments will permit us to achieve our stated objectives.
Only those investment companies that have certain names, such as those
suggesting an investment focus or particular tax treatment, will be
required to comply with most of the aspects of the final amendments.
Further, consistent with the current rule, the 80% investment
requirement in the final amendments allows a fund to maintain up to 20%
of its assets in other investments. A fund seeking maximum flexibility
with respect to its investments will continue to be free to use a name
that does not require the fund to adopt an 80% investment policy.
We estimate that 82% of funds have investment policies specifying a
minimum percentage of investments consistent with a certain investment
focus and, of these, approximately 67% have an investment policy
requiring at least 80% of fund investments be consistent with a certain
investment focus.\633\ This estimate indicates that some funds,
including some small funds, will not bear the costs of adopting a new
80% investment policy, though such funds will likely need to update
existing policies to account for elements of the final amendments.
However, for small funds that will be more significantly affected by
the final amendments, providing an exemption for them could subject
investors in small funds to a higher degree of risk than investors to
large funds that will be required to comply with the 80% investment
policy and related elements of the final amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\633\ See supra footnotes 468 and 469.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We also do not believe, as a general matter, that it is appropriate
to subject small funds to different reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements or frequency. Similar to the concerns discussed
above, if the final rules were to include different requirements for
small funds, this could raise investor protection concerns for
investors in small funds in that a small fund would not be subject to
requirements addressing materially deceptive and misleading fund names
that are as robust as those requirements on a large fund. Also, this
would result in the Commission and other market participants having
less transparency and insight with respect to those smaller funds' 80%
investment policies and related investments. However, as discussed in
detail above, we do agree that additional time for smaller entities,
which would include small funds, to come into compliance with the final
rules would be appropriate to the extent that these entities may face
additional or different challenges in coming into compliance with the
amendments than larger entities. As result, small funds will have an
additional six months to come into compliance with the final rules
relative to larger entities.
We do not believe that clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying
the compliance requirements under the final amendments for small funds,
beyond that already required for all funds, would permit us to achieve
our stated objectives. Again, this approach would raise investor
protection concerns for investors in small funds and, as discussed
above, the final amendments apply most of the rule's requirements and
corresponding compliance burdens--only to certain fund names that are
required to adopt an 80% investment policy.
The costs associated with the final amendments will vary depending
on the fund's particular circumstances, and thus the amendments may
result in different burdens on funds' resources. In particular, we
expect that a fund that has a name that will be required to adopt an
80% investment policy under the final amendments will have higher costs
than those that do not. Thus, to the extent a fund that is a small
entity has a name that will not require the fund to adopt an 80%
investment policy under the final amendments, we believe it will incur
relatively low compliance costs. Further, some funds with names that
will be newly subject to the 80% investment policy requirement may
already have adopted an investment policy that requires them to invest
80% or more of the value of their assets in investments consistent with
the name, or otherwise may already have investments that reflect the
name's focus totaling 80% or more of the value of the fund's assets.
These funds will not have to bear the burden of adjusting their
portfolios or changing their name, and the burden of adopting an
investment policy consistent with the names rule's requirements also
could be relatively lower for these funds. However, we believe that it
is appropriate for the costs associated with the final amendments to
correlate with the costs of ensuring that the fund's name reflects its
investments (and thus the expectations fostered with investors), as
opposed to adjusting these costs to account for a fund's size, in light
of how the final amendments are designed to further our investor
protection objectives.
Finally, with respect to the use of performance rather than design
standards, the final amendments generally use performance standards for
all funds subject to the amendments, regardless of size. We believe
that providing funds with the flexibility permitted in the final
amendments with respect to designing 80% investment policies is
appropriate because of the fact-specific nature of the investment focus
of funds.

Statutory Authority

The Commission is adopting the amendments to rule 35d-1 under the
authority set forth in sections 8, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 59, and 64 of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30,
80a-33, 80a-34, 80a-37, 80a-58, and 80a-63]. The Commission is adopting
amendments to Form N-1A, Form N-2, Form N-8B-2, Form S-6, and Form N-
PORT under the authority set forth in sections 8, 30, 35, and 38 of the
Investment Company Act

[[Page 70507]]

of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-18, 80a-34, and 80a-37], sections 5, 6,
7, 8, 10, and 19 of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77e, 77f,
77g(a), 77h, 77j, and 77s(a)], and sections 10, 13, 15, 23, and 35A of
the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78j, 78m, 78o, 78w, and 78ll]. The
Commission is adopting amendments to rules 11 and 405 of Regulation S-T
under the authority set forth in section 23 of the Exchange Act [15
U.S.C. 78w]. The Commission is adopting amendments to rules 485 and 497
under the authority set forth in sections 10 and 19 of the Securities
Act [15 U.S.C. 77j and 77s].

List of Subjects

17 CFR Part 230

Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

17 CFR Part 232

Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Part 239

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Parts 270 and 274

Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

Text of Rule and Form Amendments

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 17, chapter II of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 230--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

0
1. The authority citation for part 230 continues to read, in part, as
follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77b, 77b note, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h,
77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78o-
7 note, 78t, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-28, 80a-29, 80a-
30, and 80a-37, and Pub. L. 112-106, sec. 201(a), sec. 401, 126
Stat. 313 (2012), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
Sections 230.400 to 230.499 issued under secs. 6, 8, 10, 19, 48
Stat. 78, 79, 81, and 85, as amended (15 U.S.C. 77f, 77h, 77j, 77s).
* * * * *

0
2. Amend Sec. 230.485 by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 230.485 Effective date of post-effective amendments filed by
certain registered investment companies.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) A registrant's ability to file a post-effective amendment,
other than an amendment filed solely for purposes of submitting an
Interactive Data File, under paragraph (b) of this section is
automatically suspended if a registrant fails to submit any Interactive
Data File (as defined in Sec. 232.11 of this chapter) required by the
registration form on which the registrant is filing the post-effective
amendment. A suspension under this paragraph (c)(3) shall become
effective at such time as the registrant fails to submit an Interactive
Data File as required by the relevant registration form. Any such
suspension, so long as it is in effect, shall apply to any post-
effective amendment that is filed after the suspension becomes
effective, but shall not apply to any post-effective amendment that was
filed before the suspension became effective. Any suspension shall
apply only to the ability to file a post-effective amendment pursuant
to paragraph (b) of this section and shall not otherwise affect any
post-effective amendment. Any suspension under this paragraph (c)(3)
shall terminate as soon as a registrant has submitted the Interactive
Data File required by the relevant registration form.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec. 230.497 by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) to
read as follows:

Sec. 230.497 Filing of investment company prospectuses--number of
copies.

* * * * *
(b) For unit investment trusts filing on Sec. 274.12 of this
chapter (Form N-8B-2) or Sec. 239.16 of this chapter (Form S-6),
within five days after the effective date of a registration statement
or the commencement of a public offering after the effective date of a
registration statement, whichever occurs later, 10 copies of each form
of prospectus used after the effective date in connection with such
offering shall be filed with the Commission in the exact form in which
it was used. A registrant must submit an Interactive Data File (as
defined in Sec. 232.11 of this chapter) if required by the form on
which it files its registration statement.
(c) For investment companies filing on Sec. Sec. 239.15A and
274.11A of this chapter (Form N-1A), Sec. Sec. 239.17a and 274.11b of
this chapter (Form N-3), Sec. Sec. 239.17b and 274.11c of this chapter
(Form N-4), or Sec. Sec. 239.17c and 274.11d of this chapter (Form N-
6), within five days after the effective date of a registration
statement or the commencement of a public offering after the effective
date of a registration statement, whichever occurs later, 10 copies of
each form of prospectus and form of Statement of Additional Information
used after the effective date in connection with such offering shall be
filed with the Commission in the exact form in which it was used. A
registrant must submit an Interactive Data File (as defined in Sec.
232.11 of this chapter) if required by the form on which it files its
registration statement.
(d) After the effective date of a registration statement no
prospectus which purports to comply with section 10 of the Act and
which varies from any form of prospectus filed pursuant to paragraph
(b) or (c) of this section shall be used until 10 copies thereof have
been filed with, or mailed for filing to, the Commission. A registrant
must submit an Interactive Data File (as defined in Sec. 232.11 of
this chapter) if required by the Form on which it files its
registration statement.
(e) For investment companies filing on Form N-1A, Form N-3, Form N-
4, or Form N-6, after the effective date of a registration statement,
no prospectus that purports to comply with Section 10 of the Act (15
U.S.C. 77j) or Statement of Additional Information that varies from any
form of prospectus or form of Statement of Additional Information filed
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section shall be used until five
copies thereof have been filed with, or mailed for filing to the
Commission. A registrant must submit an Interactive Data File (as
defined in Sec. 232.11 of this chapter) if required by the Form on
which it files its registration statement.
* * * * *

PART 232--REGULATION S-T--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
ELECTRONIC FILINGS

0
4. The general authority citation for part 232 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3,
77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-6(c),
80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, 80b-4, 80b-6a, 80b-10, 80b-11, 7201
et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec. 232.11 by revising the definition of ``Related Official
Filing'' to read as follows:

Sec. 232.11 Definition of terms used in this part.

* * * * *
Related Official Filing. The term Related Official Filing means the
ASCII or HTML format part of the official filing with which all or part
of an Interactive Data File appears as an exhibit or, in the case of a
filing on Form N-1A (Sec. Sec. 239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter),
Form N-2 (Sec. Sec. 239.14 and 274.11a-1 of this chapter), Form N-3

[[Page 70508]]

(Sec. Sec. 239.17a and 274.11b of this chapter), Form N-4 (Sec. Sec.
239.17b and 274.11c of this chapter), Form N-6 (Sec. Sec. 239.17c and
274.11d of this chapter), Form N-8B-2 (Sec. 274.12 of this chapter),
Form S-6 (Sec. 239.16 of this chapter), and Form N-CSR (Sec. 274.128
of this chapter), and, to the extent required by Sec. 232.405 (Rule
405 of Regulation S-T) for a business development company as defined in
Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
2(a)(48)), Form 10-K (Sec. 249.310 of this chapter), Form 10-Q (Sec.
249.308a of this chapter), and Form 8-K (Sec. 249.308 of this
chapter), the ASCII or HTML format part of an official filing that
contains the information to which an Interactive Data File corresponds.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec. 232.405 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3)(i) introductory text, (a)(3)(ii),
and (a)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(2) introductory
text, and (b)(2)(iv) and (v);
0
d. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(vi); and
0
e. Revising the last sentence in Note 1 to Sec. 232.405.
The revision and addition read as follows.

Sec. 232.405 Interactive Data File submissions.

This section applies to electronic filers that submit Interactive
Data Files. Section 229.601(b)(101) of this chapter (Item 601(b)(101)
of Regulation S-K), General Instruction F of Sec. 249.311 (Form 11-K),
paragraph (101) of Part II--Information Not Required to be Delivered to
Offerees or Purchasers of Sec. 239.40 of this chapter (Form F-10),
Sec. 240.13a-21 of this chapter (Rule 13a-21 under the Exchange Act),
paragraph 101 of the Instructions as to Exhibits of Sec. 249.220f of
this chapter (Form 20-F), paragraph B.(15) of the General Instructions
to Sec. 249.240f of this chapter (Form 40-F), paragraph C.(6) of the
General Instructions to Sec. 249.306 of this chapter (Form 6-K), Sec.
240.17Ad-27(d) of this chapter (Rule 17Ad-27(d) under the Exchange
Act), Note D.5 of Sec. 240.14a-101 of this chapter (Rule 14a-101 under
the Exchange Act), Item 1 of Sec. 240.14c-101 of this chapter (Rule
14c-101 under the Exchange Act), General Instruction I of Sec. 249.333
of this chapter (Form F-SR), General Instruction C.3.(g) of Sec. Sec.
239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter (Form N-1A), General Instruction I
of Sec. Sec. 239.14 and 274.11a-1 of this chapter (Form N-2), General
Instruction C.3.(h) of Sec. Sec. 239.17a and 274.11b of this chapter
(Form N-3), General Instruction C.3.(h) of Sec. Sec. 239.17b and
274.11c of this chapter (Form N-4), General Instruction C.3.(h) of
Sec. Sec. 239.17c and 274.11d of this chapter (Form N-6), General
Instruction 2.(l) of Sec. 274.12 of this chapter (Form N-8B-2),
General Instruction 5 of Sec. 239.16 of this chapter (Form S-6), and
General Instruction C.4 of Sec. Sec. 249.331 and 274.128 of this
chapter (Form N-CSR) specify when electronic filers are required or
permitted to submit an Interactive Data File (Sec. 232.11), as further
described in note 1 to this section. This section imposes content,
format, and submission requirements for an Interactive Data File, but
does not change the substantive content requirements for the financial
and other disclosures in the Related Official Filing (as defined in
Sec. 232.11 of this chapter).
(a) * * *
(2) Be submitted only by an electronic filer either required or
permitted to submit an Interactive Data File as specified by Item
601(b)(101) of Regulation S-K, General Instruction F of Sec. 249.311
(Form 11-K), paragraph (101) of Part II--Information Not Required to be
Delivered to Offerees or Purchasers of Sec. 239.40 of this chapter
(Form F-10), Sec. 240.13a-21 of this chapter (Rule 13a-21 under the
Exchange Act), paragraph 101 of the Instructions as to Exhibits of
Sec. 249.220f of this chapter (Form 20-F), paragraph B.(15) of the
General Instructions to Sec. 249.240f of this chapter (Form 40-F),
paragraph C.(6) of the General Instructions to Sec. 249.306 of this
chapter (Form 6-K), Rule 17Ad-27(d) under the Exchange Act, Note D.5 of
Rule 14a-101 under the Exchange Act), Item 1 of Rule 14c-101 under the
Exchange Act, General Instruction I to Sec. 249.333 of this chapter
(Form F-SR), General Instruction C.3.(g) of Sec. Sec. 239.15A and
274.11A of this chapter (Form N-1A), General Instruction I of
Sec. Sec. 239.14 and 274.11a-1 of this chapter (Form N-2), General
Instruction C.3.(h) of Sec. Sec. 239.17a and 274.11b of this chapter
(Form N-3), General Instruction C.3.(h) of Sec. Sec. 239.17b and
274.11c of this chapter (Form N-4), General Instruction C.3.(h) of
Sec. Sec. 239.17c and 274.11d of this chapter (Form N-6), General
Instruction 2.(l) of Sec. 274.12 of this chapter (Form N-8B-2),
General Instruction 5 of Sec. 239.16 of this chapter (Form S-6), or
General Instruction C.4 of Sec. Sec. 249.331 and 274.128 of this
chapter (Form N-CSR), as applicable;
(3) * * *
(i) If the electronic filer is not a management investment company
registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a et
seq.), a separate account as defined in Section 2(a)(14) of the
Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(14)) registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, a business development company as defined in
Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
2(a)(48)), a unit investment trust as defined in Section 4(2) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-4), or a clearing agency
that provides a central matching service, and is not within one of the
categories specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, as partly
embedded into a filing with the remainder simultaneously submitted as
an exhibit to:
* * * * *
(ii) If the electronic filer is a management investment company
registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a et
seq.), a separate account (as defined in Section 2(a)(14) of the
Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(14)) registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, a business development company as defined in
Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
2(a)(48)), a unit investment trust as defined in Section 4(2) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-4), or a clearing agency
that provides a central matching service, and is not within one of the
categories specified in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, as partly
embedded into a filing with the remainder simultaneously submitted as
an exhibit to a filing that contains the disclosure this section
requires to be tagged; and
(4) Be submitted in accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual and, as
applicable, Sec. 229.601(b)(101) of this chapter (Item 601(b)(101) of
Regulation S-K), General Instruction F of Sec. 249.311 of this chapter
(Form 11-K), paragraph (101) of Part II--Information Not Required to be
Delivered to Offerees or Purchasers of Sec. 239.40 of this chapter
(Form F-10), Sec. 240.13a-21 of this chapter (Rule 13a-21 under the
Exchange Act), paragraph 101 of the Instructions as to Exhibits of
Sec. 249.220f of this chapter (Form 20-F), paragraph B.(15) of the
General Instructions to Sec. 249.240f of this chapter (Form 40-F),
paragraph C.(6) of the General Instructions to Sec. 249.306 of this
chapter (Form 6-K), Rule 17Ad-27(d) under the Exchange Act, Note D.5 of
Rule 14a-101 under the Exchange Act, Item 1 of Rule 14c-101 under the
Exchange Act, General Instruction I to Sec. 249.333 of this chapter
(Form F-SR), General Instruction C.3.(g) of Sec. Sec. 239.15A and
274.11A of this chapter (Form N-1A), General Instruction I of
Sec. Sec. 239.14 and 274.11a-1 of this chapter (Form N-2), General
Instruction C.3.(h) of Sec. Sec. 239.17a and 274.11b of this chapter
(Form N-3), General Instruction C.3.(h) of Sec. Sec. 239.17b

[[Page 70509]]

and 274.11c of this chapter (Form N-4), General Instruction C.3.(h) of
Sec. Sec. 239.17c and 274.11d of this chapter (Form N-6); Instruction
2.(l) of Sec. 274.12 of this chapter (Form N-8B-2); General
Instruction 5 of Sec. 239.16 of this chapter (Form S-6); or General
Instruction C.4 of Sec. Sec. 249.331 and 274.128 of this chapter (Form
N-CSR).
(b) * * *
(1) If the electronic filer is not a management investment company
registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a et
seq.), a separate account (as defined in Section 2(a)(14) of the
Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(14)) registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, a business development company as defined in
Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
2(a)(48)), a unit investment trust as defined in Section 4(2) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-4), or a clearing agency
that provides a central matching service, an Interactive Data File must
consist of only a complete set of information for all periods required
to be presented in the corresponding data in the Related Official
Filing, no more and no less, from all of the following categories:
* * * * *
(2) If the electronic filer is an open-end management investment
company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, a separate
account (as defined in section 2(a)(14) of the Securities Act)
registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a et
seq.), a unit investment trust as defined in Section 4(2) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-4), or a clearing agency
that provides a central matching service, an Interactive Data File must
consist of only a complete set of information for all periods required
to be presented in the corresponding data in the Related Official
Filing, no more and no less, from the information set forth in:
* * * * *
(iv) Items 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 18 of Sec. Sec. 239.17c and
274.11d of this chapter (Form N-6);
(v) Any disclosure provided in response to Item 18 of Sec. Sec.
249.331 and 274.128 of this chapter (Form N-CSR), or
(vi) Item 11 of Sec. 274.12 of this chapter (Form N-8B-2) pursuant
to Instruction 2, including to the extent required by Sec. 239.16 of
this chapter (Form S-6); as applicable.
* * * * *

Note 1 to Sec. 232.405:
* * * For an issuer that is a management investment company or
separate account registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.), a business development company as defined
in Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a-2(a)(48)), or a unit investment trust as defined in Section 4(2)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-4), General
Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A (Sec. Sec. 239.15A and 274.11A of
this chapter), General Instruction I of Form N-2 (Sec. Sec. 239.14
and 274.11a-1 of this chapter), General Instruction C.3.(h) of Form
N-3 (Sec. Sec. 239.17a and 274.11b of this chapter), General
Instruction C.3.(h) of Form N-4 (Sec. Sec. 239.17b and 274.11c of
this chapter), General Instruction C.3.(h) of Form N-6 (Sec. Sec.
239.17c and 274.11d of this chapter), General Instruction 2.(l) of
Form N-8B-2 (Sec. 274.12 of this chapter), General Instruction 5 of
Form S-6 (Sec. 239.16 of this chapter), and General Instruction C.4
of Form N-CSR (Sec. Sec. 249.331 and 274.128 of this chapter), as
applicable, specifies the circumstances under which an Interactive
Data File must be submitted.

PART 239--FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

0
7. The general authority citation for part 239 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77sss, 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78o-7 note, 78u-5, 78w(a), 78ll,
78mm, 80a-2(a), 80a-3, 80a-8, 80a-9, 80a-10, 80a13, 80a-24, 80a-26,
80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, and sec. 71003 and sec. 84001, Pub. L. 114-
94, 129 Stat. 1321, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Form S-6 (referenced in Sec. Sec. 239.16) by adding General
Instruction 5.

Note: Form S-6 is attached as Appendix A to this document. Form
S-6 will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

* * * * *

PART 270--RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

0
9. The general authority citation for part 270 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq., 80a-34(d), 80a-37, 80a-39,
and Pub. L. 111-203, sec. 939A, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), unless
otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 270.35d-1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 270.35d-1 Investment company names.

(a) Materially deceptive and misleading fund names. For purposes of
section 35(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-34(d)), a materially deceptive
and misleading name of a fund includes:
(1) Names suggesting guarantee or approval by the United States
Government. A name suggesting that the fund or the securities issued by
it are guaranteed, sponsored, recommended, or approved by the United
States Government or any United States Government agency or
instrumentality, including any name that uses the words ``guaranteed''
or ``insured'' or similar terms in conjunction with the words ``United
States'' or ``U.S. Government.''
(2) Names suggesting an investment focus. A name that includes
terms suggesting that the fund focuses its investments in: a particular
type of investment or investments; a particular industry or group of
industries; particular countries or geographic regions; or investments
that have, or whose issuers have, particular characteristics (e.g., a
name with terms such as ``growth'' or ``value,'' or terms indicating
that the fund's investment decisions incorporate one or more
environmental, social, or governance factors), unless:
(i) The fund has adopted a policy to invest, under normal
circumstances, at least 80% of the value of its assets in investments
in accordance with the investment focus that the fund's name suggests.
For a name suggesting that the fund focuses its investments in a
particular country or geographic region, investments that are in
accordance with the investment focus that the fund's name suggests are
investments that are tied economically to the particular country or
geographic region suggested by its name;
(ii) The policy described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section is
a fundamental policy, or the fund has adopted a policy to provide the
fund's shareholders with at least 60 days' prior notice of any change
in the policy described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, and any
change in the fund's name that accompanies the change, that meets the
provisions of paragraph (e) of this section; and
(iii) Any terms used in the fund's name that suggest that the fund
focuses its investments as described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section are consistent with those terms' plain English meaning or
established industry use.
(3) Tax-exempt funds. A name suggesting that the fund's
distributions are exempt from Federal income tax or from both Federal
and State income tax, unless:
(i) The fund has adopted a fundamental policy:
(A) To invest, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of the
value of its assets in investments the income from which is exempt, as
applicable,

[[Page 70510]]

from Federal income tax or from both Federal and State income tax; or
(B) To invest, under normal circumstances, its assets so that at
least 80% of the income that it distributes will be exempt, as
applicable, from Federal income tax or from both Federal and State
income tax; and
(ii) Any terms used in the fund's name that suggest that the fund
invests its assets as described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section
are consistent with those terms' plain English meaning or established
industry use.
(b) Operation of policies and related recordkeeping. (1) The
requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) and (a)(3)(i) of this section apply
at the time a fund invests its assets, provided that:
(i) The fund must review its portfolio investments' inclusion in
the fund's 80% basket, as defined in paragraph (g) of this section, at
least quarterly. If, subsequent to an investment, the fund identifies
that the requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this
section, as applicable, are no longer met, the fund must make future
investments in a manner that will bring the fund into compliance with
those paragraphs as soon as reasonably practicable, and in all
circumstances within 90 consecutive days of the fund's identification
that those requirements are no longer met;
(ii) If the fund departs from the requirements of paragraph
(a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section, as applicable, in other-than-
normal circumstances, the fund must come back into compliance with the
requirements of those paragraphs within 90 consecutive days, measured
from the time of the initial departure; and
(iii) A fund may temporarily invest less than 80% of the value of
its assets in accordance with the fund's investment focus as otherwise
required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section, as
applicable, to reposition or liquidate the fund's assets in connection
with a reorganization, to launch the fund, or when notice of a change
in a fund's policy as described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section
has been provided to fund shareholders.
(2) For the purpose of determining the fund's compliance with an
investment policy adopted under paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i)(A) of
this section, in addition to any derivatives instrument that the fund
includes in its 80% basket because the derivatives instrument provides
investment exposure to investments suggested by the fund's name, a fund
may include in its 80% basket a derivatives instrument that provides
investment exposure to one or more of the market risk factors
associated with the investment focus that the fund's name suggests.
(3) A fund must maintain written records documenting its compliance
under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable. A fund
must maintain written records, at the time a fund invests its assets,
documenting: whether the investment the fund makes is included in the
fund's 80% basket and, if so, the basis for including such investment
in the fund's 80% basket; and the value of the fund's 80% basket, as a
percentage of the value of the fund's assets. A fund must maintain
written records documenting its review of its portfolio investments'
inclusion in the fund's 80% basket, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)
of this section, including whether each investment is included in the
fund's 80% basket and the basis for including such investment in the
80% basket. If during the review of portfolio investments' inclusion in
the fund's 80% basket or otherwise, the fund identifies that the
requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section, as
applicable, are no longer met, the fund must maintain written records
documenting: the date this was identified; and the reason for any
departure from the policies described in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(a)(3)(i) of this section. If the fund departs from the requirements of
paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this section, as applicable, in
other-than-normal circumstances as described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of
this section, or as described in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section,
the fund must keep records documenting: the date of any departure from
the policies described in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(3)(i) of this
section; and the reason for any such departure (including why the fund
determined that circumstances are other-than-normal). A fund must
maintain records of any notice sent to the fund's shareholders pursuant
to paragraph (d) of this section. Written records documenting the
fund's compliance under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be
maintained for a period of not less than six years following the
creation of each required record (or, in the case of notices, following
the date the notice was sent), the first two years in an easily
accessible place.
(c) Effect of compliance with policy adopted under paragraph
(a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i). A fund name may be materially deceptive or
misleading under section 35(d) of the Act even if the fund adopts and
implements a policy under paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of this
section and otherwise complies with the requirements of paragraph
(a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, as applicable.
(d) Notice. A policy to provide a fund's shareholders with notice
of a change in a fund's policy as described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
this section must provide that:
(1) The notice will be provided in plain English separately from
any other documents (provided, however, that if the notice is delivered
in paper form, it may be provided in the same envelope as other written
documents);
(2) The notice will contain the following prominent statement, or
similar clear and understandable statement, in bold-face type:
``Important Notice Regarding Change in Investment Policy [and Name]'',
provided that:
(i) If the notice is provided in paper form, the statement also
will appear on the envelope in which the notice is delivered; and
(ii) If the notice is provided electronically, the statement also
will appear on the subject line of the email communication that
includes the notice or an equivalent indication of the subject of the
communication in other forms of electronic media; and
(3) The notice must describe, as applicable, the fund's policy
adopted under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, the nature of the
change to the policy, the fund's old and new names, and the effective
date of any policy and/or name changes.
(e) Unit investment trusts. The requirements of paragraphs
(a)(2)(i), (a)(3)(i), and (b)(3) of this section shall apply to any
unit investment trust (as defined in section 4(2) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
80a-4(2)) only at the time of initial deposit of portfolio securities.
(f) Unlisted registered closed-end funds and business development
companies. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
this section, if the fund is a closed-end company or business
development company, and the fund does not have shares that are listed
on a national securities exchange, any policy adopted pursuant to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section can be changed only if authorized by
the vote of the majority of the outstanding voting securities of such
fund unless:
(1) The fund conducts a tender or repurchase offer to allow
shareholders to redeem shares, in accordance with all applicable
Commission rules, in advance of any change in such policy;
(2) The fund provides the fund's shareholders with at least 60
days' prior notice of any change in such policy in advance of the
tender or repurchase offer described in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section;

[[Page 70511]]

(3) The tender or repurchase offer described in paragraph (f)(1) of
this section is not oversubscribed; and
(4) In the event of a tender offer, the fund purchases shares at
their net asset value.
(g) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
Assets means net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for
investment purposes. In determining the value of a fund's assets for
purposes of this section, a fund must value each derivatives instrument
using the instrument's notional amount (which must be converted to 10-
year bond equivalents for interest rate derivatives and delta adjusted
for options contracts) and must value each physical short position
using the value of the asset sold short. The fund may reduce the value
of its assets by excluding any cash and cash equivalents, and U.S.
Treasury securities with remaining maturities of one year or less, up
to the notional amount of the derivatives instrument(s) and the value
of asset(s) sold short, and also exclude any closed-out derivatives
positions if those positions result in no credit or market exposure to
the fund. A fund must exclude from this calculation derivatives
instruments used to hedge currency risks associated with one or more
specific foreign-currency-denominated equity or fixed-income
investments held by the fund, provided that such currency derivatives
are entered into and maintained by the fund for hedging purposes and
that the notional amounts of such derivatives do not exceed the value
of the hedged investments (or the par value thereof, in the case of
fixed-income investments) by more than 10 percent.
Derivatives instrument means any swap, security-based swap, futures
contract, forward contract, option, any combination of the foregoing,
or any similar instrument.
Eighty percent (80%) basket means investments that are invested in
accordance with the investment focus that the fund's name suggests (or
as described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section).
Fund means a registered investment company or a business
development company, including any separate series thereof.
Fundamental policy means a policy that a fund adopts under section
8(b)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-8(b)(3)) or, in the case of a
business development company, a policy that is changeable only if
authorized by the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting
securities of the fund.
Launch means a period, not to exceed 180 consecutive days, starting
from the date the fund commences operations.
Oversubscribed means shareholders have tendered or requested
repurchase of a greater number of shares than the fund has offered to
purchase in accordance with applicable Commission rules.

PART 274--FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

0
11. The authority for part 274 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 78c(b), 78l, 78m,
78n, 78o(d), 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-26, 80a-29, and 80a-37 unless
otherwise noted.

0
12. Amend Form N-1A (referenced in Sec. Sec. 239.15A and 274.11A) by
revising paragraph (a)(1) of Item 4 and adding new instruction 8 to
paragraph (b)(1) of Item 9.

Note: Form N-1A is attached as Appendix B to this document. Form
N-1A will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
13. Amend Form N-2 (referenced in Sec. Sec. 239.14 and 274.11a-1) by
revising Item 8.

Note: Form N-2 is attached as Appendix C to this document. Form
N-2 will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
14. Amend Form N-8B-2 (referenced in Sec. 274.12) by adding new
General Instruction 2.(l) and by revising the Instruction to Item 11.

Note: Form N-8B-2 is attached as Appendix D to this document.
Form N-8B-2 will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
15. Amend Form N-PORT (referenced in Sec. 274.150) by revising General
Instruction A, Part B, and Part C.

Note: Form N-PORT is attached as Appendix E to this document.
Form N-PORT will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

By the Commission.

Dated: September 20, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.

Note: The following appendices will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

Appendix A--Form S-6

Form S-6

* * * * *

General Instructions

* * * * *

Instruction 5. Interactive Data

(a) An Interactive Data File (as defined in Sec. 232.11 of this
chapter) is required to be submitted to the Commission in the manner
provided by Sec. 232.405 of this chapter (Rule 405 of Regulation S-
T) for any registration statement or post-effective amendment
thereto filed on Form S-6 that includes or amends information
provided in response to Instruction 2 to Item 11 of Form N-8B-2 (as
provided on this Form pursuant to Instruction 1(a) of the
Instructions as to the Prospectus of this Form).
(1) Except as required by paragraph (a)(2), the Interactive Data
File must be submitted as an amendment to the registration statement
to which the Interactive Data File relates. The amendment must be
submitted on or before the date the registration statement or post-
effective amendment that contains the related information becomes
effective.
(2) In the case of a post-effective amendment to a registration
statement filed pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii), (v), or
(vii) of Sec. 230.485 of this chapter (Rule 485 under the
Securities Act), the Interactive Data File must be submitted either
with the filing, or as an amendment to the registration statement to
which the Interactive Data Filing relates that is submitted on or
before the date the post-effective amendment that contains the
related information becomes effective.
(b) An Interactive Data File is required to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Rule 405 of Regulation S-T for
any form of prospectus filed pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (d) of
Rule 497 under the Securities Act that includes information provided
in response to Instruction 2 to Item 11 of Form N-8B-2 (as provided
on this Form pursuant to Instruction 1(a) of the Instructions as to
the Prospectus of this Form) that varies from the registration
statement. The Interactive Data File must be submitted with the
filing made pursuant to Rule 497.
(c) All interactive data must be submitted in accordance with
the specifications in the EDGAR Filer Manual.
* * * * *

Appendix B--Form N-1A

Form N-1A

* * * * *

Item 4. Risk/Return Summary: Investments, Risks, and Performance

Include the following information, in plain English under rule
421(d) under the Securities Act, in the order and subject matter
indicated:
(a) Principal Investment Strategies of the Fund.
(1) Based on the information given in response to Item 9(b),
summarize how the Fund intends to achieve its investment objectives
by identifying the Fund's principal investment strategies (including
the type or types of securities in which the Fund invests or will
invest principally) and any policy to concentrate in securities of
issuers in a particular industry or group of industries.
Instruction: If the Fund is subject to paragraph (a)(2)(i) or
(a)(3)(i) of rule 35d-1 [17 CFR 270.35d-1], the Fund's disclosure
provided in response to Item 4(a)(1) must summarize the definitions
of the terms used

[[Page 70512]]

in its name, including the specific criteria the Fund uses to select
the investments the term describes, if any. For purposes of this
instruction, ``terms'' means any word or phrase used in a Fund's
name, other than any trade name of the Fund or its adviser, related
to the Fund's investment focus or strategies.
* * * * *

Item 9. Investment Objectives, Principal Investment Strategies, Related
Risks, and Disclosure of Portfolio Holdings

* * * * *
(b) * * * Instructions
* * * * *
8. If the Fund is subject to paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of
rule 35d-1 [17 CFR 270.35d-1], the Fund's disclosure provided in
response to Item 9(b)(1) must include the definitions of the terms
used in its name, including the specific criteria the Fund uses to
select the investments the term describes, if any. For purposes of
this instruction, ``terms'' means any word or phrase used in a
Fund's name, other than any trade name of the Fund or its adviser,
related to the Fund's investment focus or strategies.

Appendix C--Form N-2

Form N-2

* * * * *

Part A--Information Required in a Prospectus

* * * * *

Item 8. General Description of the Registrant

* * * * *
2. * * *
b. * * *

Instructions

1. Concentration, for purposes of this Item, is deemed 25
percent or more of the value of the Registrant's total assets
invested or proposed to be invested in a particular industry or
group of industries. The policy on concentration should not be
inconsistent with the Registrant's name.
2. If the Fund is subject to paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of
rule 35d-1 [17 CFR 270.35d-1], the Fund's disclosure provided in
response to Item 8(2)(b)(2) must include definitions of the terms
used in its name, including the specific criteria the Fund uses to
select the investments the term describes, if any. For purposes of
this instruction, ``terms'' means any word or phrase used in a
Fund's name, other than any trade name of the Fund or its adviser,
related to the Fund's investment focus or strategies.
* * * * *

Appendix D--Form N-8B-2

Form N-8B-2

* * * * *

General Instructions for Form N-8B-2

* * * * *

2. Preparation and Filing of Registration Statement

(l) Interactive Data

(1) An Interactive Data File as defined in rule 11 of Regulation
S-T [17 CFR 232.11] is required to be submitted to the Commission in
the manner provided by rule 405 of Regulation S-T [17 CFR 232.405]
for any registration statement on Form N-8B-2 that includes
information provided in response to Item 11 pursuant to Instruction
2 of that Item. The Interactive Data File must be submitted with the
filing to which it relates on the date such filing becomes
effective.
(2) All interactive data must be submitted in accordance with
the specifications in the EDGAR Filer Manual.
* * * * *

II. General Description of the Trust and Securities of the Trust

* * * * *

Information Concerning the Securities Underlying the Trust's
Securities

* * * * *
Instructions:
1. The registrant need disclose information only with respect to
an issuer that derived more than 15% of its gross revenues from the
business of a broker, a dealer, an underwriter, or an investment
adviser during its most recent fiscal year. If the registrant has
issued more than one class or series of securities, the requested
information must be disclosed for the class or series that has
securities that are being registered.
2. If the trust is subject to paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i)
of rule 35d-1 [17 CFR 270.35d-1], the trust's disclosure provided in
response to item 11 must include definitions of the terms used in
its name, including the specific criteria used to select the
investments the term describes, if any. For purposes of this
instruction, ``terms'' means any word or phrase used in a trust's
name, other than any trade name of the trust or its depositor,
related to the trust's investment focus.
* * * * *

Appendix E--Form N-PORT

Form N-PORT

* * * * *

General Instructions

A. Rule as To Use of Form N-PORT

Form N-PORT is the reporting form that is to be used for monthly
reports of Funds other than money market funds and SBICs under
section 30(b) of the Act, as required by rule 30b1-9 under the Act
(17 CFR 270.30b1-9). Funds must report information quarterly about
their portfolios and each of their portfolio holdings as of the last
business day, or last calendar day, of each month, other than the
information reported in Items B.9 and C.2.e, which Funds must report
quarterly about their portfolios and each of their portfolio
holdings as of the last business day, or calendar day, of the third
month of the quarter. A registered investment company that has filed
a registration statement with the Commission registering its
securities for the first time under the Securities Act of 1933 is
relieved of this reporting obligation with respect to any reporting
period or portion thereof prior to the date on which that
registration statement becomes effective or is withdrawn.
Reports on Form N-PORT must disclose portfolio information as
calculated by the fund for the reporting period's ending net asset
value (commonly, and as permitted by rule 2a-4, the first business
day following the trade date). A Fund must maintain in its records
the information that is required to be included on Form N-PORT no
later than 30 days after the end of each month, other than the
information reported in Items B.9 and C.2.e which is required to be
maintained no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter. Such
information shall be treated as a record under section 31(a)(1) of
the Act and rule 31a-1(b) thereunder subject to the requirements of
rule 31a-2(a)(2). Reports on Form N-PORT for each month in each
fiscal quarter of a fund must be filed with the Commission no later
than 60 days after the end of such fiscal quarter. If the due date
falls on a weekend or holiday, the filing deadline will be the next
business day.
A Fund may file an amendment to a previously filed report at any
time, including an amendment to correct a mistake or error in a
previously filed report. A Fund that files an amendment to a
previously filed report must provide information in response to all
items of Form N-PORT, regardless of why the amendment is filed.
* * * * *

Part B: Information About the Fund

* * * * *
Item B.9 Investment Company Act Names Rule Investment Policy. If
the Fund is required to adopt a policy as described in rule 35d-
1(a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i) [17 CFR 270.35d-1(a)(2)(i) or (3)(i)],
provide the following:
a. The definitions of the terms used in the Fund's name,
including the specific criteria the Fund uses to select the
investments the term describes, if any; and
b. The value of the Fund's 80% basket, as defined in rule 35d-
1(g)(1), as a percentage of the value of the Fund's assets.
Instruction to Item B.9:
Consistent with rule 35d-1(g)(2), if the Fund uses a derivatives
instrument's notional amount (which must be converted to 10-year
bond equivalents for interest rate derivatives and delta adjusted
for options contracts) and/or values a physical short position using
the value of the asset sold short, for purposes of determining the
fund's compliance with an investment policy adopted under rule 35d-
1(a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i)(A), the percentage that the Fund reports in
response to Item B.9.b must reflect the use of notional amounts with
certain adjustments (and/or the value of the asset sold short) as
set forth above. This percentage also must reflect any reduction of
the value of the Fund's assets resulting from, as applicable, the
fund's exclusion of cash and cash equivalents and U.S. Treasury
securities with remaining maturities of one year or less, closed-out
derivatives positions,

[[Page 70513]]

and currency derivatives instruments, each as provided in rule 35d-
1(g)(2).
* * * * *

Part C: Schedule of Portfolio Investments

* * * * *
Item C.2. Amount of each investment.
* * * * *
e. If the Fund is required to adopt a policy as described in
rule 35d-1(a)(2)(i) or (a)(3)(i) [17 CFR 270.35d-1(a)(2)(i) or
(3)(i)], is the investment included in the Fund's 80% basket, as
defined in rule 35d-1(g), as applicable? [Y/N]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-20793 Filed 10-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P