Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Upon Written Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The SEC is asking people what they think about changing a form needed to send things online. They want to make it easier for some people who already have an ID number to also get access codes, which means more people will need to fill out the form each year.
Summary AI
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is inviting public comments about a collection of information linked to Form ID, a form used to obtain EDGAR access codes necessary for electronic filings. Proposed amendments to the form would require individuals or organizations that already have a Central Index Key (CIK) but no EDGAR access codes to submit Form ID. This change is expected to increase the annual Form ID filings from 46,842 to 48,493, with the total annual burden rising from 7,026 hours to 7,274 hours. Public comments on these changes can be submitted via the reginfo.gov website or via email within 30 days of the notice's publication.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) invites public feedback regarding changes to Form ID, a critical component for those seeking access to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system (EDGAR). Form ID is necessary for individuals and organizations intending to file electronic disclosures under federal securities laws. The SEC is considering amendments that would require those who already possess a Central Index Key (CIK) but lack EDGAR access codes to submit Form ID.
Summary
The primary goal of the proposed amendments is to streamline and enhance security in the process of gaining EDGAR access. Current estimates suggest an increase in annual Form ID submissions from 46,842 to 48,493, with the total burden of hours rising slightly from 7,026 to 7,274. The SEC is seeking public comments on this proposal to understand its implications better.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise with this document:
Lack of Clarity: The document does not clearly explain the rationale for an increase of approximately 404 filings from filers with CIKs needing access codes. Although a footnote provides basic calculations, there is limited detail to help readers understand this increase.
Technical Jargon: Terms like EDGAR, CIK, and the Paperwork Reduction Act are extensively used without accompanying explanations, potentially alienating readers unfamiliar with such technical language.
Ambiguity in Amendments: While the document mentions potential amendments, it does not specify what these changes will entail, leading to some ambiguity.
Absence of Abstract: A summary at the beginning could have provided readers with a concise overview, enhancing comprehension.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, these changes may seem remote, yet they hold significance for maintaining the security and integrity of financial disclosures. Electronic filing enhances transparency and accountability, thereby indirectly benefiting the public by ensuring more reliable financial information.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The proposed amendments could have both positive and negative impacts on specific groups:
Filers with CIKs: Individuals and companies who already possess CIKs but lack access codes will need to undergo the additional step of completing Form ID. This could be viewed as an administrative burden, albeit one that aims to tighten security.
New Filers: The document estimates an additional 1,247 filings for new entrants, potentially indicating growing participation in electronic filing. This growth implies further workload, both in terms of filings and associated paperwork.
Regulatory Bodies: Streamlining access to EDGAR may bolster regulatory processes by ensuring only verified entities gain access, thereby enhancing system security.
Ultimately, while the amendments aim to make the EDGAR system more secure and uniform, they also introduce new procedural requirements for select stakeholders. The SEC seeks comments to refine these proposals, underscoring the pivotal role that public input plays in regulatory improvements.
Issues
• The document lacks an abstract, which could provide a concise summary for readers.
• There could be clearer explanation on why the Form ID filers with CIKs who require access codes would increase by approximately 404 filings. This is briefly mentioned but lacks detail.
• The estimation method for the additional 1,247 filings for new filers without CIKs is briefly mentioned but not clearly explained, which might be difficult for readers to understand.
• The potential amendments to Form ID are mentioned, but the specific nature of these amendments is not detailed enough, leaving some ambiguity about what changes will actually be made.
• The language used is quite technical, assuming familiarity with terms like EDGAR, CIK, and the Paperwork Reduction Act, which may not be easily understood by laypersons.
• The document could provide more context or examples of how the Form ID changes could impact different types of filers, to improve understanding.
• The document does not explain potential benefits or disadvantages of the proposed amendments to stakeholders, creating a one-sided view that focuses only on process change.