Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Form ADV-E
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants more time to check papers that accountants fill out when they change jobs, and they guess it will only take a tiny bit of time from each person to do this. But, people are worried that they don't know why it's important, and there's not much time to tell the government what they think about it. Plus, people might not want to be honest because their answers won't be kept secret.
Summary AI
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is seeking an extension for collecting information using Form ADV-E under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form ADV-E is required when a public accountant files certificates of accounting due to changes in their engagement status under investment adviser rules. The SEC estimates that around 1,998 filings related to surprise examinations and terminations will be submitted, totaling an estimated annual burden of 99.90 hours. The public can review the information request and comment on it from December 16, 2024, to January 13, 2025.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Document
The document in question is a notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the information collection concerning Form ADV-E. This form is utilized by public accountants filing certain certificates of accounting related to changes in their engagement status under specific investment advisor rules. The SEC has estimated that there will be approximately 1,998 filings in total per year which would require a brief submission time of about 3 minutes each, leading to an aggregated annual burden of just under 100 hours. The public is given a window from December 16, 2024, to January 13, 2025, to review and comment on this extension request.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document presents a number of notable issues. First, it does not specify why the extension for collecting information is necessary, leaving stakeholders potentially unsure about the continuance of this requirement. Second, the estimated burden of only 0.05 hours per respondent seems simplified and may not accurately reflect the actual time required by diverse respondents with various circumstances. Third, while it mentions there are no penalties if the information collection lacks a valid OMB control number, it does not clarify other potential implications for non-compliance. Another concern is the statement that responses will not be kept confidential, which could discourage honest and accurate reporting from respondents. Lastly, the 30-day period allotted for public commentary is relatively short, which may not provide adequate time for thorough review or feedback from the public and other stakeholders.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, the document affects the public by involving them in regulatory processes through the invitation to comment. However, the short duration for feedback could limit meaningful public engagement and inhibit comprehensive scrutiny of the proposed extension.
More specifically, this document has implications for stakeholders like registered investment advisers and public accountants. The potential lack of confidentiality may raise concerns about privacy and deter candid disclosure, thereby impacting the quality and reliability of information received. Additionally, if the time estimates for the filing process are inaccurate, stakeholders could experience unexpected burdens that complicate compliance. Not providing a clear justification for the extension might make it challenging for stakeholders to assess the relevance and necessity of the ongoing submission requirements.
Overall, while the extension of Form ADV-E filings is administrative in nature, ensuring transparency, understanding, and accommodation for stakeholder feedback is crucial to its smooth implementation and acceptance.
Issues
• The document does not specify the exact purpose or justification for extending the collection of information, which could help stakeholders understand its necessity.
• The burden estimate of 0.05 hours (3 minutes) per respondent might be overly simplistic and does not account for potential variations in time required by different respondents.
• The document lacks clarity on the consequences or implications if an agency fails to comply with the requirement, other than mentioning no penalty for information collections missing a valid OMB control number.
• Potential concern regarding the confidentiality of responses as it states responses will not be kept confidential, which might discourage honest reporting from respondents.
• The public comment period is only 30 days, which may be insufficient for thorough public review and feedback.