# OCC Interpretive Letter No. 1068: Letter concludes that laws recently enacted in some states that prohibit or restrict branching by out-of-state industrial loan companies into the enacting state undercut those states' laws permitting interstate de novo branching by banks generally. The result is that under the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, federal regulators cannot approve the establishment of de novo branches in such states by any out of state bank > Federal · Agency guidance · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT1068 ## Section - **Citation:** OCC Interpretive Letter No. 1068 - **Heading:** Letter concludes that laws recently enacted in some states that prohibit or restrict branching by out-of-state industrial loan companies into the enacting state undercut those states' laws permitting interstate de novo branching by banks generally. The result is that under the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, federal regulators cannot approve the establishment of de novo branches in such states by any out of state bank - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Agency guidance - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** OCC Interpretive Letters / Letter concludes that laws recently enacted in some states that prohibit or restrict branching by out-of-state industrial loan companies into the enacting state undercut those states' laws permitting interstate de novo branching by banks generally. The result is that under the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, federal regulators cannot approve the establishment of de novo branches in such states by any out of state bank. ## Text FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Interpretive Letter #1068 August 2006 12 USC 36G July 28, 2006 Mr. John "Buz" Gorman General Counsel Conference of State Bank Supervisors 1155 Connecticut Ave NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20036-4306 Re: State Restrictions On the Establishment of Interstate De Novo Branching By Industrial Loan Companies. Dear Mr. Gorman: You have asked our opinion regarding certain state legislation intended to restrict interstate de novo branching by industrial loan companies and industrial banks (collectively, “ILCs”). Specifically, we understand that some states have proposed or enacted legislation that prohibits an out-of-state ILC, but not other types of banks, from establishing a de novo branch in their states. These restrictions have particular significance for those states that generally permit out-of-state banks to establish de novo branches in their states. With respect to such states, the question has been raised whether these state ILC restrictions, if enacted, would affect the ability of other out-of-state banks to establish de novo branches in those states. Riegle-Neal Act The establishment of interstate de novo branches was first authorized under Federal law in 1994 when Congress enacted the Riegle Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (“Riegle Neal”).1 Riegle Neal was generally intended to enhance and expand interstate banking and branching. In accordance with that purpose, it added provisions to both the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the “FDI Act”) and the National Bank Act authorizing both state banks and national banks to establish and operate interstate de novo branches under certain conditions.2 1 Pub. L. No. 103-328, 108 Stat. 2339 (1994). 2 See id. § 103. anching. In accordance with that purpose, it added provisions to both the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the “FDI Act”) and the National Bank Act authorizing both state banks and national banks to establish and operate interstate de novo branches under certain conditions.2 1 Pub. L. No. 103-328, 108 Stat. 2339 (1994). 2 See id. § 103. 2 Specifically, Riegle Neal added section 18(d)(4) of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1828(d)(4) (“Section 1828(d)(4)”) regarding state nonmember banks and 12 U.S.C. § 36(g) (“Section 36(g)”) regarding national banks.3 Section 36(g) applies to state member banks by virtue of section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act.4 These sections generally provide that the appropriate Federal banking agency (i.e., the FDIC, for state nonmember banks; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, for national banks; and the Federal Reserve Board, for state member banks) may approve an application to establish and operate a de novo branch in a state (other than the bank’s home state) in which the bank does not maintain a branch, if the host state has a law in effect that meets certain criteria.5 These criteria include the requirements that the host state have a law in effect that “(I) applies equally to all banks, and (II) expressly permits all out-of-state banks to establish de novo branches in such state.”6 For purposes of this discussion, these criteria are collectively referred to as the “Host State Law Requirements.” If a host state’s law fails either of those requirements, the appropriate Federal banking agency would not be able to approve the establishment of a de novo branch in the host state by any out-of-state bank.7 For purposes of Section 1828(d)(4), the term “bank” includes any national bank and any state bank.8 Under the FDI Act, a “State bank” is defined to include “any bank, banking association, trust company, savings bank, industrial bank (or any similar depository institution which the Board of D ble to approve the establishment of a de novo branch in the host state by any out-of-state bank.7 For purposes of Section 1828(d)(4), the term “bank” includes any national bank and any state bank.8 Under the FDI Act, a “State bank” is defined to include “any bank, banking association, trust company, savings bank, industrial bank (or any similar depository institution which the Board of Directors finds to be operating substantially in the same manner as an industrial bank) or other banking institution which – (A) is engaged in the business of receiving deposits, other than trust funds . . . and (B) is incorporated under the laws of any State or which is operating under the Code of Law for the District of Columbia (except a national bank).”9 Similarly, the term “bank” as used in Section 36(g) includes “trust companies, savings banks, or other such corporations or institutions carrying on the banking business under the authority of state law.”10 Consequently, the term “bank” as used in both Section 36(g) and Section 1828(d)(4) includes ILCs. State Restrictions on De Novo Branching by ILCs As noted above, some states have enacted or proposed legislation that prohibits an out-of- state ILC, but not other types of banks, from establishing a de novo branch in their states. Viewing these state ILC restrictions in light of the Host State Law Requirements, it is 3 Id. § 103(a), (b). 4 See 12 U.S.C. § 321. 5 Both Section 36(g) and Section 1828(d)(4) include definitions of the terms “de novo branch,” “home state,” and “host state.” See 12 U.S.C. §§ 36(g)(3)(A), (B) and (C), 1828(d)(4)(C), (D) and (E). 6 12 U.S.C. §§ 36(g)(1)(A), 1828(d)(4)(A)(i). 7 Approval of such an application is also subject to certain additional conditions and provisions dealing generally with host state filing requirements, community reinvestment, and the adequacy of capital and management. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 36(g)(1)(B), 1828(d)(4)(B). 8 See 12 U.S.C S.C. §§ 36(g)(3)(A), (B) and (C), 1828(d)(4)(C), (D) and (E). 6 12 U.S.C. §§ 36(g)(1)(A), 1828(d)(4)(A)(i). 7 Approval of such an application is also subject to certain additional conditions and provisions dealing generally with host state filing requirements, community reinvestment, and the adequacy of capital and management. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 36(g)(1)(B), 1828(d)(4)(B). 8 See 12 U.S.C. § 1813(a)(1). 9 12 U.S.C. § 1813(a)(2). 10 12 U.S.C. § 36(l). 3 apparent that, if enacted, these restrictions would cause a host state’s law to fail those requirements. If a state enacted these restrictions, the state’s de novo branching law would not apply equally to all banks because the state’s law would exclude one type of bank, i.e., ILCs. Similarly, the state’s de novo branching law would not expressly permit all out of-state banks to establish de novo branches in such state because the state’s law would not permit one category of out-of-state banks (i.e., out-of-state ILCs, generally, or in some state laws, Utah-chartered ILCs) to establish de novo branches in such state. Consequently, in our view, a state that enacted this type of de novo branching restriction on ILCs would cause its interstate de novo branching law to fail the Host State Law Requirements, and the appropriate Federal banking agency would not be permitted to approve the establishment of de novo branches in that state by any out of-state bank. This determination, however, does not affect the validity of any interstate de novo branches approved under either Section 36(g) or Section 1828(d)(4) or section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act prior to the enactment of such restrictions nts, and the appropriate Federal banking agency would not be permitted to approve the establishment of de novo branches in that state by any out of-state bank. This determination, however, does not affect the validity of any interstate de novo branches approved under either Section 36(g) or Section 1828(d)(4) or section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act prior to the enactment of such restrictions. Another type of state law permits all out-of-state banks to establish de novo branches in the host state, but prohibits an out-of-state ILC (but not other types of banks) from establishing a branch on the premises of a commercial affiliate of the ILC.11 This type of state law does not apply equally to all banks and therefore fails the Host State Law Requirements. If, however, the state law expressly permits all out-of-state banks to establish de novo branches in the state, but also provides that neither banks chartered in the state nor out-of-state banks may establish or maintain a branch in the state on the premises of a commercial affiliate,12 the state law would apply equally to all banks and would appear to comply with the Host State Law Requirements. While this latter type of law does impose a “locational limitation” on where any bank (whether an out-of-state bank or an in-state bank) may establish a branch within the state, this limitation does not treat any class of banks differently than any other banks contrary to the requirements of the Riegle Neal Act. We hope this response addresses your concerns. Sincerely, /s/ /s/ /s/ ____________________ ___________________ ___________________ Julie L. Williams Douglas H anch within the state, this limitation does not treat any class of banks differently than any other banks contrary to the requirements of the Riegle Neal Act. We hope this response addresses your concerns. Sincerely, /s/ /s/ /s/ ____________________ ___________________ ___________________ Julie L. Williams Douglas H. Jones Scott Alvarez Chief Counsel/First Senior Acting General Counsel General Counsel Deputy Comptroller FEDERAL DEPOSIT BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF COMPTROLLER OF THE INSURANCE CORPORATION THE FEDERAL RESERVE CURRENCY SYSTEM 11 See, e.g., VA. CODE ANN., § 6.1-232.3 (2006). 12 See, e.g., MD CODE ANN., FIN. INST., § 5-1003(a) and (b) (2006). ## Nearby sections - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 719 Letter concludes that an ESOP is a "company' for purposes of 12 U.S.C. 371c and that an ESOP that controls at least 25% of a bank's voting stock is an "affiliate" under sec. 371c (supersedes existing OCC interpretive letter #261). (10/26/89)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0719.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 720 Group of affiliate national banks may collectively own, through operating subsidiaries, minority interest in a merchant credit card processing subsidiary. (01/26/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0720.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 722 A national bank may invest CIF assets in mutual funds, including mutual funds that pay the bank a servicing fee, without the bank having to reduce its trustee fees, if the bank concludes, based upon a reasoned opinion of trust counsel, that such an arrangement is authorized by applicable state law, is consistent with the trust instrument, is appropriate for the particular trust accounts, and is consistent with OCC regulations, including in particular 12 C.F.R. 9.18(b)(12). (03/12/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0722.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 724 Bank can sell vehicle service contracts to customers who use home equity loan proceeds to purchase a vehicle, and the maturity of the service contract may be different from the maturity of the loan. (04/22/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0724.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 725 National bank to establish an operating subsidiary to engage in permissible derivatives-related activities. (05/10/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0725.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 726 Letter concerns the application of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations to financial institutions' support of microenterprise lending programs. (06/21/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0726.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 730 Letter concludes that loans proposed by the bank to an unaffiliated distributor of mutual funds would not be subject to interaffiliate lending restrictions contained in 12 U.S.C. 371C. (05/29/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0730.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 732 National bank may make a 5.5% investment in software company which is engaged in the design, development, marketing and maintenance of a network for electronic funds transfers and electronic data interchange, including transacting electronic commerce and marketing software products for use on its world-wide electronic commerce network. (05/10/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0732.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 733 National bank receiver is subject to the rights of secured creditors and creditors entitled to setoff. U.S. legal principles regarding enforcement of security interests are applicable to a receivership of a federal branch or agency conducted under National Bank Act. Therefore, receiver of an uninsured federal branch or agency does not have the right to interfere with the rights of secured creditors, including application of collateral held in U.S. to obligations of a non-U.S. office of the bank. (06/19/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0733.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 736 Lending limit exception for participations not limited to banks. Non-banks may act as participants. (07/25/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0736.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 737 Huntington National Bank's acquisition of minority interest in a limited liability company providing stored value systems. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0737.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 738 National bank's participation in a guaranty issued by an agent for a syndication of lenders with respect to their borrower's letter of credit reimbursement obligations to another bank or financial institution is permissible under I.R. 7.1016. (08/14/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0738.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 740 Letter advises the Bank as follows: 1) The question of whether "salary" as used in 12 C.F.R. 2.4 includes an officer's base salary, bonuses, director's fees and/or any other compensation paid by the Bank must be determined by the Bank's management; 2) the question of whether the payment bonuses for credit life sales under 12 C.F.R. 2.4 is based on salary received by the recipient in a calendar year, a fiscal year, or any 12-month period must be determined by the Bank's management; and 3) pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 2.4, if the Bank's CEO is a loan officer and the CEO participates in the bonus plan under which payments based on credit life insurance sales are made, the CEO must be included in averaging the salaries of loan officers that participate in the Bank's bonus or incentive plan. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0740.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 741 National bank may acquire majority interest in company which operates call center facility which operates programs by which potential customers for new or used automobiles may access databases containing information on the used and new car inventories of numerous automobile dealerships in its metropolitan area. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0741.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT1068. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.