[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 28 (Monday, February 12, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6676-6687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2254]



[[Page 6675]]

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

Part III





 Securities and Exchange Commission





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



17 CFR Parts 232, 239, 270, and 274



 Extension of Interactive Data Voluntary Reporting Program on the EDGAR 
System To Include Mutual Fund Risk/Return Summary Information; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 28 / Monday, February 12, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 6676]]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 232, 239, 270 and 274

[Release Nos. 33-8781, IC-27697; File Number S7-05-07]
RIN 3235-AJ59


Extension of Interactive Data Voluntary Reporting Program on the 
EDGAR System To Include Mutual Fund Risk/Return Summary Information

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing rule amendments to extend the current 
interactive data voluntary reporting program to enable mutual funds 
voluntarily to submit supplemental tagged information contained in the 
risk/return summary section of their prospectuses. A mutual fund 
choosing to tag its risk/return summary information also would continue 
to file this information in HTML or ASCII format, as currently 
required. This extension of the voluntary program is intended to help 
us evaluate the usefulness to investors, third-party analysts, 
registrants, the Commission, and the marketplace of data tagging and, 
in particular, of tagging mutual fund information.

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before March 14, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml);
     Send an e-mail to [email protected]. Please include 
File Number S7-05-07 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-05-07. This file number 
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us 
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one 
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's 
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments 
are also available for public inspection and copying in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20549. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not 
edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should 
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about the 
proposed rules, please contact Alberto H. Zapata, Senior Counsel, 
Christopher Kaiser, Branch Chief, or Brent J. Fields, Assistant 
Director, Office of Disclosure Regulation, Division of Investment 
Management, at (202) 551-6784, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 
F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-5720. If you have questions about 
the EDGAR system, please contact Richard Heroux, EDGAR Program Manager, 
at (202) 551-8800, in the Office of Information Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') is proposing for comment amendments to rules 401 \1\ 
and 402 \2\ of Regulation S-T \3\, rule 8b-33 \4\ under the Investment 
Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act''), and Form N-1A \5\ 
under the Investment Company Act and the Securities Act of 1933 
(``Securities Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 232.401.
    \2\ 17 CFR 232.402.
    \3\ 17 CFR 232.10 et seq.
    \4\ 17 CFR 270.8b-33.
    \5\ 17 CFR 239.15A and 274.11A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Interactive Data and XBRL
    B. The Voluntary Program
    C. Tagging of Mutual Fund Information
II. Discussion
    A. Expansion of Voluntary Program Content
    B. Required Disclosure
    C. Liability Issues
    D. The Risk/Return Summary Taxonomy and Software Tools
    E. Effective Date
III. General Request For Comments
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
V. Cost/Benefit Analysis
VI. Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation
VII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
VIII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy
IX. Statutory Authority
Text of Proposed Rule and Form Amendments

I. Background

A. Interactive Data and XBRL

    For the past several years, the Commission has been evaluating the 
expanded use of interactive data tagging as a tool to improve the 
timeliness and accessibility of the information contained in filings 
with the Commission under the federal securities laws.\6\ Data tagging 
uses standard definitions (or data tags) to translate text-based 
information into data that is interactive, that is, data that can be 
retrieved, searched, and analyzed through automated means.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SEC to Rebuild Public Disclosure System to Make It 
'Interactive', Securities and Exchange Commission Press Release, 
Sept. 25, 2006, available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006/2006-158.htm (Commission awards contracts totaling $54 million to 
transform public company disclosure system to create a dynamic real-
time search tool with interactive capabilities) (``September 25 
Press Release''); Commission Announces Interactive Data Roundtable 
on New Software to Make Better Information a Reality, Securities and 
Exchange Commission Press Release, Sept. 25, 2006, available at: 
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006/2006-160.htm; Commission 
Announces Roundtable Series Giving Investors and Analysts Better 
Financial Data via Internet, Securities and Exchange Commission 
Press Release, Mar. 9, 2006, available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006-34.htm; SEC Offers Incentives for Companies to File 
Financial Reports with Interactive Data, Securities and Exchange 
Commission Press Release, Jan. 11 2006, available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006-7.htm; SEC Announces Initiative to 
Assess Benefits of Tagged Data in Commission Filings, Securities and 
Exchange Commission Press Release, July 22, 2004, available at: 
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-97.htm.
    \7\ The Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and 
Retrieval System (``EDGAR'') has allowed certain tagged data since 
its inception, for example, by using Standard Generalized Markup 
Language and Extensible Markup Language (``XML'') to tag form-
specific information (such as the form type, central index key, and 
file number) that accompanies electronic documents submitted on 
EDGAR. More recently, EDGAR has employed HyperText Markup Language 
(``HTML'') to format documents and made limited use of XML related 
to financial and business information contained within certain EDGAR 
submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interactive data has enormous potential to enable investors and 
other market participants to analyze and compare data from different 
sources more efficiently and effectively and to exchange information 
across various software platforms automatically. Through interactive 
data, static text-based information can be transformed into dynamic 
databases that can readily be searched and analyzed, facilitating the 
comparison of information across companies, reporting periods, and 
industries. Tagged information can help investors, analysts, and other 
users to mine the wealth of information contained in detailed paper 
disclosure documents, providing users with the ability to access 
precisely the

[[Page 6677]]

information in which they are interested and to analyze that data.
    Interactive data also provides a significant opportunity to 
automate information processing throughout the business and reporting 
cycle, with the potential to increase accuracy and reduce costs. By 
ensuring that information is classified properly at each step of the 
cycle, and minimizing the need for human intervention and, therefore, 
human error, interactive data may improve the quality of information at 
decreased cost. These benefits can begin at the time of an initial 
transaction and carry forward to the point of disclosure in a 
Commission filing and, ultimately, to the use of the disclosed 
information by investors and other market participants. At each step in 
the process, interactive data offers the potential to replace manual 
reentry of information with automated processing of previously tagged 
data.
    Tags are standardized through the development of taxonomies, which 
are essentially data dictionaries that describe individual items of 
information and mathematical and definitional relationships among the 
items. As tagging has continued to gain prominence in recent years, 
there has been substantial progress in developing data tagging 
taxonomies related to a language for the electronic communication of 
business and financial data known as eXtensible Business Reporting 
Language (``XBRL'').\8\ XBRL was developed as an open source 
specification that describes a standard format for tagging financial 
and other information to facilitate the preparation, publication, and 
analysis of that information by software applications.\9\ XBRL was 
developed and continues to be supported by XBRL International, a 
collaborative consortium of approximately 450 organizations 
representing many perspectives in the financial reporting 
community.\10\ Organizations in the consortium include issuers, public 
accounting firms, software companies, filing agents, data aggregators, 
stock exchanges, regulators, financial services companies, and industry 
associations.\11\ XBRL International and its related entities have been 
developing standard taxonomies that are designed to classify and define 
financial information in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted 
Accounting Principles (``GAAP'') and Commission regulations. The 
Commission recently announced that it is contracting with XBRL US, 
Inc., the U.S. based arm of XBRL International, to help complete the 
writing of XBRL taxonomies that would enable companies in all 
industries to file financial reports with the Commission using 
XBRL.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Edward Hand, ``XBRL: The Future of Business Reporting,'' 
NETWORK COMPUTING, Aug. 31, 2006, available at: http://www.networkcomputing.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192202551&pgno=1.
    \9\ ``Open Source'' means that the software can be used by 
anyone without charge and is being developed in an open and 
collaborative setting. For a more detailed discussion about XBRL, 
see ``How XBRL Works'' on the XBRL International Web site available 
at: http://www.xbrl.org/HowXBRLWorks/.
    \10\ See ``About the Organisation'' page and subpages on the 
XBRL International Web site, available at: http://www.xbrl.org/AboutTheOrganisation/.
    \11\ See ``Member Organisations'' page and subpages on the XBRL 
International Web site, available at: http://xbrl.org/viewmembers.aspx.
    \12\ September 25 Press Release, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Voluntary Program

    As part of our evaluation of the potential of interactive data 
tagging technology, the Commission adopted rules in 2005 instituting a 
program that permits filers, on a voluntary basis, to submit specified, 
supplemental disclosure tagged in XBRL format as an exhibit to certain 
filings on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and 
Retrieval System (``EDGAR'').\13\ The Commission adopted the voluntary 
program to help evaluate the usefulness of data tagging and XBRL to 
registrants, investors, the Commission, and the marketplace.\14\ In 
2006, the Commission initiated an interactive data test program, in 
which companies, including investment companies, voluntarily agree to 
furnish financial data in XBRL format for at least one year and provide 
feedback on their experiences, including the costs and benefits.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Securities Act Release No. 8529 (Feb. 3, 2005) [70 FR 6556 
(Feb. 8, 2005)] (``XBRL Adopting Release''). See also Securities Act 
Release No. 8496 (Sept. 27, 2004) [69 FR 59094 (Oct. 1, 2004)] 
(``XBRL Proposing Release''); Securities Act Release No. 8497 (Sept. 
27, 2004) [69 FR 59111 (Oct. 1, 2004)] (concept release soliciting 
comment on data tagging).
    \14\ XBRL Adopting Release, supra note 13, 70 FR at 6556.
    \15\ More Companies Join SEC's Program to Use Interactive Data 
for Financial Statements, Securities and Exchange Commission Press 
Release, June 20, 2006, available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006/2006-99.htm; 17 Companies Join SEC Pilot Program to Use 
``Interactive Data'' in Financial Reports, Securities and Exchange 
Commission Press Release, Mar. 29, 2006, available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006-43.htm; SEC Offers Incentives for 
Companies to File Financial Reports with Interactive Data, 
Securities and Exchange Commission Press Release, Jan. 11, 2006, 
available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006-7.htm. For more 
information about the Commission's interactive data initiatives, see 
the Commission Web page ``Spotlight On: Interactive Data and XBRL 
Initiatives'' available at: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the voluntary program, filers may submit financial 
information using XBRL as an exhibit to the filing to which it relates, 
an amendment to such filing, or, if the filer is eligible, to a filing 
on Form 8-K \16\ or Form 6-K.\17\ The XBRL exhibits submitted in the 
voluntary program are supplemental submissions that do not replace the 
required American Standard Code for Information Interchange (``ASCII'') 
or Hypertext Markup Language (``HTML'') versions of the financial 
information they contain.\18\ The data currently permitted in XBRL 
exhibits is limited to financial information.
    The voluntary program permits any registrant to participate merely 
by submitting an XBRL exhibit in the required manner. XBRL exhibits are 
publicly available but are considered furnished rather than filed.\19\ 
Although XBRL exhibits are required to accurately reflect the 
information that appears in the corresponding part of the official 
filing, the purpose of submitting XBRL data is to test the related 
format and technology and, as a result, investors and others should 
continue to rely only on the official version of a filing and not on 
the XBRL exhibit in making investment decisions. We have included 
cautionary language to this effect on the Commission Web site.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 249.308.
    \17\ 17 CFR 249.306.
    \18\ See EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II, Section 5.1 (Version 3, 
Feb. 2006).
    \19\ See infra note 57 and accompanying text.
    \20\ See ``XBRL Data Submitted in the XBRL Voluntary Program on 
EDGAR'' page on the Commission Web site, available at: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/xbrl.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Tagging of Mutual Fund Information

    The current voluntary program extends to investment companies, 
including open-end management investment companies (``mutual 
funds'').\21\ Investment companies may presently submit XBRL exhibits 
only to Form N-CSR,\22\ the semi-annual filing to submit certified 
shareholder reports, or to Form N-Q,\23\ the quarterly report of 
portfolio holdings.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See SEC XBRL Voluntary Program Extends to Investment 
Companies, Securities and Exchange Commission Press Release, Aug. 8, 
2005, available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2005-112.htm.
    \22\ 17 CFR 249.331 and 274.128.
    \23\ 17 CFR 249.332 and 274.130.
    \24\ Voluntary participants must use the standard U.S. GAAP 
investment management taxonomy (Version 2.1) approved by XBRL 
International. See EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II, Section 5.2.4.1 
(Version 3, Feb. 2006); ``Frequently Asked Questions about the XBRL 
Voluntary Filing Program'' page on the Commission Web site, 
available at: http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/xbrlfaq032105.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of our evaluation of data tagging, the Commission held a

[[Page 6678]]

roundtable in June 2006 that focused, in part, on the role of data 
tagging and interactive data in improving the quality of mutual fund 
disclosures. Representatives from investor groups, the mutual fund 
industry, analysts, and others discussed how the Commission could 
leverage the power of interactive data and other technology to provide 
mutual fund investors with better information.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Transcript of June 12 Interactive Data Roundtable, June 
12, 2006, available at: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl/xbrlofficialtranscript0606.pdf (``June 12 Roundtable Transcript''); 
Webcast Archive of June 12 Interactive Data Roundtable, June 12, 
2006, available at: http://www.connectlive.com/events/secxbrl/. See 
also Agenda of October 3 Interactive Roundtable, Oct. 3, 2006 
available at: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl/xbrlroundagenda-100306.htm; Webcast Archive of October 3 Interactive Data 
Roundtable, Oct. 3, 2006, available at: http://www.connectlive.com/events/secinteractivedata100306/ (``October 3 Roundtable Webcast'') 
(second Commission interactive data roundtable, focusing on new 
software using interactive data to provide investor-friendly 
research tools).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significant discussion at the June roundtable concerned the 
importance of providing mutual fund investors with better, more user-
friendly access to key information, such as information about 
investment objectives and strategies, risks, and costs.\26\ This key 
information is included in the mutual fund prospectus,\27\ but it can 
be difficult for investors to extract this key information from lengthy 
prospectuses, which often cover multiple funds and contain a wealth of 
other information. Much of this information is required to be included 
in the risk/return summary section of the prospectus,\28\ and tagging 
this information could provide powerful tools for investors.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Barbara Roper, Director of Investor Protection, 
Consumer Federation of America, June 12 Roundtable Transcript, supra 
note 25, at 20 & 22. See also Paul G. Haaga, Jr., Executive Vice 
President, Capital Research and Management Company, id. at 90; 
William D. Lutz, Ph.D., Professor of English, Rutgers University, 
id. at 88; Elisse B. Walter, Senior Executive Vice President, NASD, 
id. at 40-41.
    \27\ Items 2 and 3 of Form N-1A [17 CFR 239.15A and 274.11A] 
(risk/return summary section of the prospectus).
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ See Chairman Christopher Cox, June 12 Roundtable 
Transcript, supra note 25, at 8 (``Interactive data, the tagging of 
these key facts [in the prospectus] so that they can easily be 
identified and extracted[,] offers the possibility of dramatic 
improvement over traditional disclosure delivery for mutual fund 
investors.''); Paul Schott Stevens, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, Investment Company Institute, id. at 72 (``XBRL tagging can 
help turn the Risk/Return Summary into an even more powerful tool 
than the Commission envisioned when it first adopted it in 1998 as a 
way to help investors compare one fund with another through the 
standardization of the information and the format in which it's 
presented.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that exploring the tagging of the information in the 
risk/return summary section is an important step in our interactive 
data program. With almost half of all U.S. households owning mutual 
funds,\30\ typically to fund their education, retirement, and other 
basic needs, improving the quality of mutual fund disclosure is 
important to millions of Americans. Tagging of key mutual fund 
information could help to streamline the delivery of mutual fund 
information and provide investors, analysts, and others with improved 
tools to compare funds based upon, among other things, costs, 
investment objectives, strategies, and risks. In addition, the risk/
return summary information is largely narrative in format, and 
exploring the viability of tagging this information will provide us 
with valuable insights as we assess the potential for tagging other 
primarily narrative information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 2006 Investment Company Fact Book, at 47, Investment 
Company Institute (2006), available at: http://www.icifactbook.org/pdf/2006_factbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, XBRL International has approved an investment 
management XBRL U.S. GAAP financial reporting taxonomy.\31\ That 
taxonomy generally does not extend to the information in the risk/
return summary section. In March 2006, the Investment Company Institute 
(the ``ICI'') \32\ announced an initiative to create a taxonomy to 
cover the risk/return summary information in the prospectus.\33\ The 
ICI recently released its draft risk/return summary taxonomy and 
announced that it would provide a 45-day period for public review and 
comment.\34\ We are proposing amendments to the voluntary program that 
would, if adopted, permit mutual funds to tag the information in the 
risk/return summary section of their prospectuses using the taxonomy 
developed by the ICI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Supra note 24.
    \32\ The ICI is a national association of the American 
investment company industry.
    \33\ Stevens Calls for Greater Use of Internet; Announces 
Initiative to Develop XBRL Data Tagging Technology, ICI Press 
Release, Mar. 20, 2006, available at: http://ici.org/statements/nr/06_news_mfimc.html#TopOfPage; Remarks of Paul Schott Stevens, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Investment Company Institute, 
at the Mutual Funds and Investment Management Conference, Mar. 20, 
2006, available at: http://ici.org/statements/remarks/06_mfimc_stevens_spch.html#TopOfPage; Statement of the Investment Company 
Institute at the June 12, 2006 Interactive Data Roundtable, 
available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/4-515/ici050906.pdf.
    \34\ ICI Unveils Draft XBRL Taxonomy For Public Review, 
Investment Company Institute Press Release, Jan. 4, 2007, available 
at: http://www.ici.org/home/07_news_xbrl_txnmy.html#TopOfPage. 
The taxonomy, as well as instructions for commenting on the 
taxonomy, are available at http://members.ici.org/xbrl. See also 
Statements of SEC Chairman Christopher Cox and Division of 
Investment Management Director Andrew Donohue Regarding the 
Investment Company Institute's Mutual Fund Interactive Data 
Taxonomy, Securities and Exchange Commission Press Release, Jan. 4, 
2007, available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-2.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    As part of our ongoing effort to evaluate the usefulness of data 
tagging, we are proposing amendments to extend the voluntary program to 
enable mutual funds to submit exhibits containing tagged risk/return 
summary information attached to EDGAR filings.\35\ We expect to permit 
any mutual fund to participate, without pre-approval, merely by 
submitting the risk/return summary information in the required manner. 
As we continue to gain experience with interactive data, we will 
evaluate the benefits of data tagging to investors, analysts, and 
others. If, in the future, we consider requiring filers to tag the 
risk/return summary information, that would be the subject of a 
separate rulemaking proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The proposed amendments, if adopted, would not alter the 
voluntary program as it applies to the furnishing of XBRL 
information by non-investment companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Expansion of Voluntary Program Content

    Currently, the XBRL data furnished under the voluntary program must 
consist of at least one item from a list of enumerated mandatory 
content (``Mandatory Content''), including financial statements, 
earnings information, and, for registered management investment 
companies, financial highlights or condensed financial information.\36\ 
This may be accompanied by one or more related items from a list of 
optional content, including (1) audit opinions; (2) interim review 
reports; (3) reports of management on the financial statements; (4) 
certifications; (5) management's discussion and analysis of financial 
condition and results of operations; (6) management's discussion and 
analysis or plan of operation; (7) operating and financial review and 
prospects; and (8) management's discussion of fund performance.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Rule 401(b)(1) of Regulation S-T [17 CFR 232.401(b)(1)].
    \37\ Rule 401(b)(2) of Regulation S-T [17 CFR 232.401(b)(2)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to add the risk/return summary information set forth in 
Items 2 and 3 of Form N-1A as a new item of Mandatory Content.\38\ As 
with all tagged exhibits under the voluntary program, submissions of 
tagged exhibits containing risk/return summary

[[Page 6679]]

information would be supplemental and would not replace the required 
HTML or ASCII version of the information called for in Form N-1A. 
Volunteers would be required to file their complete official 
registration statements to ensure that all investors have access to 
information upon which to base their investment decisions.\39\ While 
tagged exhibits would be required to reflect the same information 
contained in the risk/return summary section of the related official 
Form N-1A filing, we emphasize that investors and others should 
continue to rely on the official filing rather than the tagged exhibit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Proposed rule 401(b)(1)(iv).
    \39\ Consistent with the current voluntary program, once 
received by the Commission, the official filing and the tagged risk/
return summary information submitted as exhibits to the official 
filing would undergo technical validations. The official filing 
would continue to follow the normal process for receipt and 
acceptance. That is, it would be suspended if it fails its 
validation criteria. If the official filing meets its validation 
criteria, but any tagged risk/return summary document submitted as 
an exhibit to the official filing fails its own validation criteria, 
all tagged documents would be removed and the official filing would 
be accepted and disseminated without the tagged documents. The 
volunteer would be notified of the submission problem with the 
tagged documents. If the official filing failed to meet the required 
receipt and acceptance process and was suspended for any reason, any 
tagged risk/return summary information submitted with the official 
filing would also be suspended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any mutual fund submitting tagged risk/return summary information 
would be required to include this information as an exhibit to an 
amendment to a previous filing on Form N-1A.\40\ Form N-1A filings, 
which contain mutual fund registration statements (or amendments 
thereto), differ from the other filings used in the voluntary program 
in that they are often subject to revision prior to effectiveness. For 
this reason, the proposed rules would not permit the submission of a 
tagged exhibit that is related to a registration statement or an 
amendment that is not yet effective. More specifically, the proposed 
rules would provide that a tagged exhibit to a Form N-1A filing, 
whether the filing is an initial registration statement or an amendment 
thereto, could be submitted only as an amendment to the filing to which 
the tagged exhibit relates and only after the effective date of such 
filing.\41\ An exhibit containing tagged risk/return summary 
information could be submitted under rule 485(b) of the Securities Act, 
which provides for immediate effectiveness of amendments filed to make 
non-material changes and for certain other purposes, and would only 
need to contain the new exhibit, a facing page, a signature page, a 
cover letter explaining the nature of the filing, and a revised exhibit 
index. Filers submitting tagged risk/return summary information should 
not include the ICI taxonomy in their submissions as this taxonomy will 
be stored as a part of the EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See proposed rule 401(a) of Regulation S-T; proposed rule 
8b-33. A mutual fund submitting tagged risk/return summary 
information as an exhibit to Form N-1A would be required to name 
each document ``EX-100'' as specified in the EDGAR Filer Manual. 
Proposed rule 8b-33. We also propose a technical amendment to 
General Instruction B.4.(b) of Form N-1A to add rule 8b-33 to the 
list of general provisions that apply to the filing of registration 
statements on Form N-1A.
    \41\ Proposed rule 401(a); see also proposed rule 8b-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the current voluntary program, volunteers would be free 
to submit tagged risk/return summary information regularly or from time 
to time, and volunteers could stop and start as they choose. 
Participating in the voluntary program would not create a continuing 
obligation for a volunteer to submit tagged risk/return summary 
information as an exhibit to a subsequent post-effective amendment. A 
volunteer would, however, be required to amend any tagged risk/return 
summary exhibits that do not comply with the content and format 
requirements of rule 401, e.g., because they do not reflect the same 
information as the corresponding official filing.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ XBRL Adopting Release, supra note 13, 70 FR at 6559 n. 48. 
See rule 401(c)(1) (requires tagged exhibits to reflect the same 
information as corresponding official filing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also propose amendments that will require investment companies 
to tag information in a manner that will permit the information for 
each class \43\ to be separately identified.\44\ Currently, rule 8b-33 
under the Investment Company Act requires that investment companies 
participating in the voluntary program submit tagged documents in a 
manner that will permit the information for each series of an 
investment company registrant \45\ and each contract of an insurance 
company separate account \46\ to be separately identified.\47\ We 
propose to amend this rule to require that investment companies submit 
tagged documents in a manner that will permit the information for each 
class to be separately identified because expense and performance 
information in the risk/return summary is class-specific.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ A mutual fund may issue more than one class of shares that 
represent interests in the same portfolio of securities with each 
class, among other things, having a different arrangement for 
shareholder services or the distribution of securities, or both. 
Rule 18f-3 under the Investment Company Act [17 CFR 270.18f-3].
    \44\ Proposed rule 8b-33.
    \45\ A mutual fund may issue multiple ``series'' of shares, each 
of which is preferred over all other series in respect of assets 
specifically allocated to that series. Rule 18f-2 under the 
Investment Company Act [17 CFR 270.18f-2]. Each series is, in 
effect, a separate investment portfolio.
    \46\ Variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance 
contracts are issued through insurance company separate accounts.
    \47\ Rule 8b-33 under the Investment Company Act [17 CFR 270.8b-
33].
    \48\ We have previously indicated that rule 8b-33 would require 
investment companies to submit tagged XBRL documents separately for 
each series of an investment company registrant. See XBRL Proposing 
Release, supra note 13, 69 FR at 59097 n. 49. Under proposed amended 
rule 8b-33, a mutual fund would not be required to submit tagged 
risk/return summary information in separate documents for each 
series or class, provided that the information is tagged in such a 
manner that the information may be separately identified by series 
and class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments we are proposing also would provide mutual funds 
with an additional option to submit tagged financial highlights or 
condensed financial information. Currently, mutual funds may submit 
this information as an exhibit to Form N-CSR.\49\ The proposals, if 
adopted, also would permit mutual funds to submit their financial 
highlights or condensed financial information as a tagged exhibit to an 
amendment to the Form N-1A filing to which the information relates.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Rule 401(a) and (b)(1)(iii) of Regulation S-T [17 CFR 
401(a) and (b)(1)(iii)] (permitting financial highlights or 
condensed financial information set forth in Item 8(a) of Form N-1A 
to be submitted as Mandatory Content); rule 8b-33. Mutual funds must 
include their financial highlights or condensed financial 
information in every annual and semi-annual report transmitted to 
shareholders. Items 22(b)(2) and (c)(2) of Form N-1A (requiring 
annual or semi-annual reports to include the information required by 
Item 8(a) of Form N-1A). Mutual funds must include a copy of their 
annual or semi-annual report transmitted to shareholders with their 
Form N- CSR filed with the Commission. Item 1 of Form N-CSR.
    \50\ Proposed rule 8b-33 (permitting tagged exhibits under the 
voluntary program to be submitted on Form N-1A); Item 8(a) of Form 
N-1A (requiring mutual funds to provide financial highlights 
information); rule 401(a) and (b)(1)(iii) of regulation S-T 
(permitting information set forth in Item 8(a) of Form N-1A as 
Mandatory Content under the voluntary program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the proposed expansion of the voluntary 
program to include risk/return summary information.
     Is it beneficial to tag mutual fund risk/return summary 
information? Is this portion of the mutual fund prospectus an 
appropriate place to begin evaluating the tagging of non-financial 
information? Is there other mutual fund information that should be 
included in the voluntary program?
     What effect would tagged data have on investors', 
analysts', and other users' ability to analyze mutual funds' risk/
return summary disclosure? Would tagged risk/return summary information 
have an effect on the usefulness of disclosure in Commission filings?
     We are not proposing to amend that portion of rule 
401(b)(1) that currently

[[Page 6680]]

requires that Mandatory Content ``consist of a complete set of 
information for all periods presented in the corresponding official 
EDGAR filing.'' Should mutual funds that submit tagged risk/return 
summary information be required to tag all of the information in the 
risk/return summary section of the corresponding official filing or 
should they be permitted to tag some, but not all, of the information? 
For example, if a fund's official filing contains information for more 
than one series or class, should the fund be permitted to submit tagged 
risk/return summary information for fewer than all of the series and 
classes? As another example, should a mutual fund be permitted to tag 
discrete portions of the risk/return summary information, such as cost 
and performance information, while not tagging others, such as 
narrative information?
     Should mutual funds be permitted to submit tagged risk/
return information related to registration statements or post-effective 
amendments that are not yet effective? Would this raise any liability 
issues? If mutual funds are permitted to submit tagged risk/return 
summary information prior to effectiveness, what safeguards would be 
appropriate? For example, should funds be required to submit revised 
tagged documents if there are any changes (or any material changes) to 
the risk/return summary disclosure in the effective registration 
statement or amendment and/or should there be additional required 
disclosure to specifically caution investors and others that the 
information may differ from that in the effective filing?
     The proposed amendments would not create a continuing 
obligation for a volunteer to submit tagged risk/return summary 
information as an exhibit to a subsequent post-effective amendment. 
When a mutual fund that has submitted tagged risk/return summary 
information amends its registration statement, should we require the 
fund to submit updated tagged risk/return summary information? Should 
it depend on the materiality of the amendments? How would a requirement 
to update tagged exhibits affect participation in the voluntary 
program? If we do not impose a continuing obligation to update tagged 
exhibits, should we require additional disclosure or other safeguards?
     Will the proposed amendment to rule 8b-33, providing that 
investment companies must tag information in a manner that will permit 
the information for each class to be separately identified, raise any 
issues with respect to any investment company information that may be 
tagged under the voluntary program? Should we specify that only risk/
return summary information must be tagged in a manner that will permit 
the information for each class to be separately identified? Will the 
risk/return summary taxonomy in its current state of development permit 
the information for each series and class to be separately identified? 
If not, how should it be modified to permit this?
     Should mutual funds be required to submit separate tagged 
risk/return summary exhibits for each series or class? Instead, should 
they be permitted to submit exhibits that combine multiple series or 
classes of the same registrant, provided that the information is tagged 
in such a manner that the information may be separately identified by 
series and class?
     We plan to permit all filers on Form N-1A to submit 
documents containing tagged risk/return summary information as exhibits 
to their official Form N-1A filings so long as they comply with the 
requirements of the voluntary program. Should we limit participation, 
such as by size or type of mutual fund? If so, what should be the 
criteria for participating? If so, why?
     What steps can we take to encourage mutual funds to 
participate in the expanded voluntary program?

B. Required Disclosure

    Under the current voluntary program, any official filing with which 
tagged exhibits are submitted must disclose that the purpose of 
submitting the tagged exhibits is to test the related format and 
technology and, as a result, investors should not rely on the exhibits 
in making investment decisions.\51\ We are proposing that this 
disclosure be required in the exhibit index of any Form N-1A filing 
that includes a tagged exhibit.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Rule 401(d)(1)(ii) of Regulation S-T [17 CFR 
232.401(d)(1)(ii)].
    \52\ Proposed rule 401(d)(2)(i). Rule 483(a) of Regulation C [17 
CFR 230.483(a)] requires, among other things, that a registration 
statement of a registered investment company ``contain an exhibit 
index, which should immediately precede the exhibits filed with such 
registration statement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current voluntary program also requires any official filing 
with which tagged exhibits are submitted to disclose that the 
information contained in the exhibits is ``unaudited'' or 
``unreviewed.'' \53\ We are proposing to require this disclosure in a 
Form N-1A filing with which tagged financial highlights or condensed 
financial information is submitted. We are not proposing to require 
this disclosure in a Form N-1A filing when the tagged exhibits to the 
filing contain only risk/return summary information because this 
information is not ordinarily audited or reviewed by an independent 
auditor.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Rule 401(d)(1)(i) of Regulation S-T [17 CFR 
232.401(d)(1)(i)].
    \54\ Proposed rule 401(d)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the proposed cautionary disclosures that 
would be required to accompany the submission of tagged information 
that accompanies a Form N-1A filing.
     Should we require the disclosure concerning whether the 
information is ``unaudited'' or ``unreviewed'' to accompany exhibits 
containing tagged risk/return summary information?
     Is additional or different language necessary for the 
cautionary disclosures?
     Is the exhibit index to a Form N-1A filing the appropriate 
place for the cautionary disclosures?

C. Liability Issues

    We propose to extend to tagged risk/return summary information 
limited protection from liability that is similar to the protection 
provided under the current voluntary program. As is the case with the 
current program, we would provide this protection because liability 
remains for the official filing, and the program is experimental, 
contains certain safeguards, and should not unnecessarily deter 
volunteers from participating.
    Currently, tagged exhibits are not deemed filed for purposes of 
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') 
\55\ or Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act,\56\ or otherwise 
subject to the liability of these sections.\57\ In addition, the 
current rules also provide more general relief from liability under the 
securities laws, including the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the 
Trust Indenture Act of 1939, and the Investment Company Act, for 
information in a tagged exhibit that complies with the content and 
format requirements of the voluntary program to the extent that the 
information in the corresponding portion of the official EDGAR filing 
was not materially false or misleading.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78r.
    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-33(b).
    \57\ Rule 402(a)(1) under Regulation S-T [17 CFR 232.402(a)(1)]. 
Further, because the tagged documents are not filed under the 
Exchange Act, they are not incorporated by reference into 
registration statements filed under the Securities Act or 
prospectuses they contain. These protections apply regardless of 
whether the documents are exhibits to a document otherwise 
incorporated by reference into a filing.
    \58\ Rule 402(b) of Regulation S-T [17 CFR 232.402(b)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike the filings currently included in the voluntary program, 
Form N-1A is

[[Page 6681]]

a registration form under both the Securities Act and the Investment 
Company Act; and volunteers submitting tagged exhibits to that form 
also could face potential registration statement liability under the 
Securities Act. As a result, we propose to extend the liability 
protection under the voluntary program to include Section 11 of the 
Securities Act.\59\ Specifically, we propose to amend rule 402(a) to 
provide that tagged exhibits are not deemed filed for purposes of 
Section 11 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section. In 
addition, we propose to amend rule 402(a) to state explicitly that 
tagged exhibits are not part of any registration statement to which 
they relate.\60\ We will continue to caution users on the Commission's 
Web site that documents submitted under the voluntary program should 
not be relied upon for making investment decisions, and users should 
continue to rely on the company's official filing.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ In addition, the current provisions of rule 402(a) would 
apply to tagged risk/return summary information. In particular, a 
tagged exhibit on Form N-1A would not be deemed incorporated by 
reference into another filing, regardless of whether the tagged 
exhibit is an exhibit to a document otherwise incorporated by 
reference into another filing. Rule 402(a)(2) under Regulation S-T 
[17 CFR 232.402(a)(2)]. All other liability and antifraud provisions 
of the Securities Act, Exchange Act, and Investment Company Act 
would apply. Rule 402(a)(3) under Regulation S-T [17 CFR 
232.402(a)(3)]. For example, material misstatements or omissions in 
a tagged submission would continue to be subject to liability under 
Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. 78j(b)] and rule 10b-5 [17 CFR 240.10b-5] 
under the Exchange Act.
    \60\ Section 11 of the Securities Act applies to ``any part of 
the registration statement, when such part became effective.'' The 
Commission takes a similar approach with unofficial PDF copies 
contained in electronic submissions. See Rule 104(d) of Regulation 
S-T [17 CFR 232.104(d)]. Similar to the other protections in the 
current voluntary program, Section 11 liability relief, under the 
proposed rules, would not extend to the information the official 
filing contains.
    \61\ See supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not propose to modify the provision that affords volunteers 
general relief from liability under the federal securities laws to the 
extent that the information in the corresponding portion of the 
official EDGAR filing was not materially false or misleading.\62\ That 
provision includes liability protections under the Securities Act, and 
it would apply to tagged documents submitted as exhibits on Form N-1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Rule 402(b). We are, however, proposing technical 
amendments to rule 402(b) to replace each reference to ``Item 401'' 
with ``Rule 401.'' Proposed rule 402(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the proposed liability protections for tagged 
risk/return summary information.
     Is it necessary or appropriate to extend liability 
protection to Section 11 of the Securities Act? Should we modify the 
proposed liability provisions in any way?
     Should the tagged risk/return summary information be 
considered filed or furnished for purposes of the voluntary program? 
Should the tagged risk/return summary documents be deemed not to be 
part of any registration statement to which they relate?
     With regard to risk/return summary submissions, are the 
proposed liability provisions sufficient to protect volunteers and to 
encourage participation in the voluntary program? To encourage 
participation in the voluntary program, should liability protections be 
increased beyond those proposed? Would investors have sufficient 
protection under the proposed amendments? For the protection of 
investors, should liability protections be decreased from those 
proposed?

D. The Risk/Return Summary Taxonomy and Software Tools

    As discussed above, the taxonomy to tag the risk/return summary 
information is being developed by the Investment Company Institute. The 
ICI has released the draft risk/return summary taxonomy for public 
review and comment, and we expect that the ICI will submit the taxonomy 
to XBRL US, Inc., for evaluation and approval in accordance with their 
procedures.\63\ In light of the purpose of the voluntary program, which 
is to test and evaluate tagging technology, we anticipate permitting 
mutual funds to submit documents containing risk/return summary 
information that is tagged using the ICI's taxonomy prior to final 
approval of the taxonomy by XBRL US, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ XBRL US, Inc., represents the United States to XBRL 
International. XBRL US, Inc., is responsible for organizing and 
sponsoring taxonomies from the United States, including the main 
accounting standards for United States business reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commercial off-the-shelf products that provide means to view tagged 
information in a rendered, or human readable, format and to compare or 
analyze tagged information are available. We will assess whether to 
provide such software tools on our Web site for use with risk/return 
summary information. For example, the Commission Web site currently 
provides access to a prototype XBRL Web application that converts 
tagged data received in the current voluntary program into rendered 
format.\64\ If we do provide rendering or analysis tools, we intend to 
include appropriate cautionary language to the effect that investors 
should rely only on the information in the official version of a filing 
and not on the tagged documents submitted as part of the voluntary 
program in making investment decisions. While we may decide to proceed 
with the expansion of the voluntary program without providing rendering 
or analysis tools, we will continue to evaluate the use of such tools 
to aid the investing public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See ``Interactive Financial Report Viewer--Preview 
Release'' Web page on the Commission Web site, available at: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl/xbrlwebapp.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the proposed use of the ICI's risk/return 
summary taxonomy and the need for the development of rendering and 
other tools.
     Is the taxonomy for risk/return summary information 
created by the ICI sufficiently developed that we should permit its use 
in the voluntary program? If not, explain what changes or procedural 
steps are needed prior to use. What specific criteria should be applied 
to determine whether the risk/return summary taxonomy is sufficiently 
developed?
     Is there anything related to the process for developing 
and approving the risk/return summary taxonomy that should affect its 
use or otherwise raise concerns?
     The process for approving a taxonomy as XBRL includes 
testing and technical modification. Should the Commission permit use of 
a risk/return summary taxonomy in the voluntary program that has not 
been acknowledged or approved as XBRL?
     A tagged submission that a volunteer creates can adhere to 
either a standard taxonomy or a standard taxonomy with extensions. 
Extensions to a standard taxonomy are additional tags defined by a 
particular user that further refine the tags contained in the standard 
taxonomy. We expect that mutual funds will be permitted to submit 
extensions to the standard risk/return summary taxonomy. Given the 
narrative format of much risk/return summary information, does tagging 
of this information raise particular problems with regard to extensions 
or other facets of data tagging? For what purposes would mutual funds 
want or need to make use of extensions? Are there sufficient software 
tools available to develop extensions to the risk/return summary 
taxonomy, if necessary? To what extent would the use of extensions 
reduce the comparability among risk/return summary information that is 
tagged? Are there any reasons why the use of extensions would be 
inappropriate with regard to risk/return summary information?
     What are the advantages and disadvantages of the 
Commission providing on its Web site tools to render

[[Page 6682]]

the tagged risk/return summary information in human readable form or to 
permit users to analyze and compare tagged risk/return summary 
information submitted by different mutual funds? If we were to provide 
a rendering tool, what, if any, liability or other concerns would be 
raised by the fact that the presentation would be different from the 
risk/return summary information as presented in a registrant's official 
prospectus? What, if any, liability or other concerns would analytical 
or comparison tools raise? What, if any, disclaimers would be necessary 
to address any liability concerns related to rendering, analytical, or 
comparison tools? If we were to provide a rendering tool, would it 
hinder the ability of a volunteer to present its tagged risk/return 
summary information in as much detail as, and in a manner substantially 
similar to, its official filing? If we do not provide rendering, 
analytical, or comparison tools, would it hinder participation in the 
voluntary program or limit our ability to explore the usefulness of 
tagged risk/return summary information?

E. Effective Date

    If we adopt the proposed amendments, we expect the effective date 
to be thirty days after publication of the adopting release in the 
Federal Register. The Commission requests comment on this proposed 
effective date.

III. General Request for Comments

    We request comment not only on the specific issues we discuss in 
this release, but on any other approaches or issues that we should 
consider in connection with the proposed amendments. We seek comment 
from any interested persons, including those required to file 
information with us on the EDGAR system, as well as investors, 
disseminators of EDGAR data, industry analysts, EDGAR filing agents, 
and any other members of the public.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule and form amendments contain ``collection of 
information'' requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'').\65\ We are submitting the proposed 
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') for review in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 
1320.11. Provision of information under the proposed amendments would 
be voluntary and would not be kept confidential. An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an 
information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control 
number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The title for the collection of information is ``Voluntary XBRL-
Related Documents'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0611). The proposed 
amendments would extend the current interactive data voluntary 
reporting program to enable mutual funds voluntarily to submit tagged 
information contained in the risk/return summary section of their 
prospectuses on EDGAR as exhibits to Form N-1A filings.

A. Reporting and Cost Burden Estimate

1. The Voluntary Program
    We are proposing to increase the burden associated with the 
existing collection of information for Voluntary XBRL-Related Documents 
to reflect the proposed amendments, which would extend the current 
interactive data voluntary reporting program to enable mutual funds 
voluntarily to submit tagged information contained in the risk/return 
summary section of their prospectuses on EDGAR as exhibits to Form N-1A 
filings. The proposed expansion of the voluntary program would be open 
to any mutual fund choosing to participate. We estimate that 10% of the 
545 fund complexes that have mutual funds, or 55 fund complexes, would 
each submit documents containing tagged risk/return summary information 
for one mutual fund.\66\ This estimate is higher than the number of 
mutual funds participating in the current voluntary program. However, 
we believe that additional mutual funds will participate in the 
proposed expanded voluntary program.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ In the case of a mutual fund with multiple series, our 
estimate treats each series as a separate mutual fund.
    \67\ The ICI has stated that it will launch an educational 
effort to encourage mutual funds to use the risk/return summary 
taxonomy to tag the information in their EDGAR filings. ICI Details 
Project to Extend XBRL to Key Investor Information, Investment 
Company Institute Press Release, June 12, 2006, available at: http://www.ici.org/statements/nr/06_news_xbrl.html#TopOfPage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submission of tagged risk/return summary information would not 
directly affect the burden of preparing the mutual funds' registration 
statements or the registrants' official EDGAR filings. In order to 
provide tagged risk/return summary information, a participating mutual 
fund would have to tag the risk/return summary section of its 
prospectus using the risk/return summary taxonomy and potentially 
develop taxonomy extensions and would submit an exhibit to its filing. 
Based on our previous estimates and our experience with registrants who 
have submitted tagged financial information in the current voluntary 
program, we estimate that the initial creation of tagged documents 
containing risk/return summary information would require, on average, 
approximately 110 burden hours per mutual fund,\68\ and the creation of 
such tagged documents in subsequent years would require an average 10 
burden hours per mutual fund.\69\ Because the PRA estimates represent 
the average burden over a three-year period, we estimate the average 
hour burden for the submission of tagged documents containing risk/
return summary information for one mutual fund to be approximately 43 
hours.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ In the current voluntary program, we estimated that an 
initial set of submissions would require an average of 130 burden 
hours, 75% of which (or 97.5 hours) represents the internal burden 
hour estimate. See XBRL Adopting Release, supra note 13, at 70 FR 
6563; XBRL Proposing Release, supra note 13, 69 FR at 59101. Based 
upon our experience with filers who have submitted tagged financial 
information in the current voluntary program, we believe that this 
burden estimate for submitting an initial set of submissions may 
have been too high. See, e.g., Indra K. Nooyi, Chief Executive 
Officer, PepsiCo, Inc., October 3 Roundtable Webcast, supra note 25 
(initial submission in voluntary program required approximately 60 
to 80 total labor hours); John Stantial, Director of Financial 
Reporting, United Technologies Corporation, June 12 Roundtable 
Transcript, supra note 25, at 160 (initial submission in voluntary 
program required about 80 hours of effort). We, therefore, estimate 
that the initial creation of tagged documents containing risk/return 
summary information would require, on average, approximately 110 
burden hours per mutual fund, 75% of which (or 82.5 hours) 
represents the internal burden hour estimate. These estimates more 
closely approximate the experience of filers in the current 
voluntary program.
    \69\ In the current voluntary program, we estimated that each 
set of submissions, after the initial set, would take 10 burden 
hours. See XBRL Adopting Release, supra note 13, at 70 FR 6563; XBRL 
Proposing Release, Supra note 13, 69 FR at 59101. We continue to 
believe that this estimate is appropriate.
    \70\ (110 hours in the first year + 10 hours in the second year 
+ 10 hours in the third year) / 3 years = 43 hours. While the PRA 
requires an estimate based on a hypothetical three years of 
participation, a registrant, as noted earlier, could participate in 
the expanded voluntary program by submitting tagged risk/return 
summary information over a shorter period or even just once as the 
registrant chooses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the estimates of 55 participants submitting tagged 
documents containing risk/return summary information for one mutual 
fund per year and incurring 43 hours per submission we estimate that, 
in the aggregate, the industry would incur an additional 2,365 burden 
hours associated with the proposed amendments.\71\ We further estimate 
that 75% of this burden increase, or

[[Page 6683]]

approximately 1,774 hours, would be borne internally by the mutual fund 
complex. We estimate that this internal burden increase converted to 
dollars would amount to approximately $384,958.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 55 documents per year x 43 hours per submission = 2,365 
hours.
    \72\ This cost increase is estimated by multiplying the increase 
in annual internal hour burden (1,774) by the estimated hourly wage 
rate of $217.00. The estimated wage figure is based on published 
rates for compliance attorneys and programmer analysts outside New 
York City, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-year and 
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee 
benefits, and overhead, yielding effective hourly rates of $271 and 
$199, respectively. See Securities Industry Association, Report on 
Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2005 
(Sept. 2005) (``SIA Report''). The estimated wage rate was further 
based on the estimate that compliance attorneys would account for 
one quarter of the hours worked and senior system analysts would 
account for the remaining three quarters, resulting in a weighted 
wage rate of $217.00 (($271 x .25) + ($199 x .75)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also estimate that 25% of the burden, or approximately 591 
hours, would be outsourced to external professionals and consultants 
retained by the mutual fund complex at an average cost of $266.25 per 
hour for a total annual increase of approximately $157,354.\73\ In 
addition, it is our understanding that many participants would also 
have annual software licensing costs. We estimate that the cost of 
licensing software would be $333 per participant per year, for a total 
annual increase of $18,315.\74\ Altogether the total annual increase in 
external costs related to the proposed amendment would be $175,669.\75 
\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 591 hours x $266.25 per hour = $157,354. The estimated wage 
figure is based on published rates for attorneys and senior 
programmers outside New York City, modified to account for an 1800-
hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm 
size, employee benefits, and overhead, yielding effective hourly 
rates of $312 and $251, respectively. See SIA Report, supra note 72. 
The estimated wage rate was further based on the estimate that 
attorneys would account for one quarter of the hours worked and 
senior programmers would account for the remaining three quarters, 
resulting in a weighted wage rate of $266.25 (($312 x .25) + ($251 x 
.75)).
    \74\ $333 per participant x 55 participants = $18,315. The 
estimated annual cost of the software comes from our previous 
voluntary program estimate PRA. See XBRL Adopting Release, supra 
note 13, at 70 FR 6563 and n. 113 That estimate was based on our 
discussions with software providers and others familiar with XBRL. 
We estimated that the cost of licensing software would range from 
$200 to $3,000 each year, with the majority of companies licensing 
less complex software in the $200 to $500 range. We set our software 
cost estimate at $500, which is the highest cost for the simpler 
XBRL software license, and we assumed that the first year license 
fee would be waived (based upon our understanding that software 
providers indicated that they would provide these products for free 
in the initial stages of the voluntary program). Because the PRA 
estimates represent the average burden over a three-year period, we 
estimated the average burden for software license costs to be $333 
per year. Id.
    \75\ This annual total consists of $157,354 in outside 
professional costs plus $18,315 in software costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our cost estimates are intended to reflect both initial and ongoing 
costs over a three-year period. In calculating these costs, we have 
tried to take into account, among other things, the current state of 
reporting process automation, automation that likely would be 
introduced in connection with the initial cost incurred, and the 
efficiencies that likely would be realized over the course of three 
years.
2. Regulation S-T
    Regulation S-T (OMB Control No. 3235-0424) specifies the 
requirements that govern the electronic submission of documents. The 
proposed amendments would revise rules under Regulation S-T, but the 
associated increase in burden is reflected in the ``Voluntary XBRL-
Related Documents'' collection of information as described above.

B. Request for Comments

    We request comment to evaluate the accuracy of our estimates 
pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B) and solicit comments with regard 
to:
     Whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
     Whether our estimate of the burden of the proposed 
collection of information is accurate;
     Whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information to be collected; and
     Whether there are ways to minimize the burden of 
collection of information on those who are to respond, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    Any member of the public may direct to the Commission any comments 
concerning the accuracy of these cost and burden estimates and any 
suggestions for reducing them. Persons who desire to submit comments on 
the collection of information requirements should direct their comments 
to the OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, 
DC 20503, and send a copy of the comments to Nancy M. Morris, 
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20549, with reference to File No. S7-05-07. Requests for 
materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to this 
collection of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-
05-07, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
Records Management, Office of Filings and Information Services, 100 F 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Because OMB is required to make a 
decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 
days after publication, your comments are best assured of having their 
full effect if OMB receives them within 30 days of publication.

V. Cost/Benefit Analysis

    The Commission is sensitive to the costs and benefits imposed by 
its rules. The goal of the voluntary program is to increase EDGAR's 
efficiency and utility and to enhance the usefulness to investors of 
the information collected through EDGAR. In order to evaluate data 
tagging further, we have proposed amendments to extend the current 
interactive data voluntary reporting program to enable mutual funds 
voluntarily to submit tagged information contained in the risk/return 
summary section of their prospectuses on EDGAR as exhibits to Form N-1A 
filings.

A. Benefits

    We believe that tagged information may allow more efficient and 
effective retrieval, research, and analysis of company information 
through automated means. The proposed expansion of the voluntary 
program would assist us in assessing whether using interactive data 
tags enhances users' ability to analyze and compare mutual fund risk/
return summary information included in mutual funds' filings with the 
Commission. The proposed expansion of the voluntary program to include 
narrative, non-financial information, such as that contained in the 
risk/return summary, also would facilitate our ability to assess 
further the technical requirements of processing tagged documents using 
EDGAR.
    Currently, a number of companies use computers and data entry staff 
to mine risk/return summary information provided by mutual funds on 
EDGAR in order to populate databases that are used to package 
information for sale to analysts, funds, investors, and others. 
Permitting funds to tag risk/return summary information in Commission 
filings would aid this data-mining process in that it would identify 
points of data at the source, which could reduce the cost to populate 
databases and improve the accuracy of that data. Additionally, the 
expanded voluntary program may benefit funds and the

[[Page 6684]]

public by permitting experimentation with data tagged using the risk/
return summary taxonomy.
    In the future, the availability of potentially more accurate tagged 
information about mutual funds could also reduce the cost of research 
and analysis and create new opportunities for companies that compile, 
provide, and analyze data to produce more value added services. 
Enhanced access to tagged information also has the potential to allow 
retail investors (or financial advisers assisting such investors) to 
perform more personalized and sophisticated analyses and comparisons of 
mutual funds, which could result in investors making better informed 
investment decisions, and therefore in a more efficient distribution of 
assets by investors among different funds. This may, in turn, also 
contribute to increased competition among mutual funds and result in a 
more efficient allocation of resources among competing investment 
products. Although it is not possible to quantify precisely the 
beneficial effects of more efficient allocation of investors' assets 
and increased competition, they may be significant, given the size of 
the mutual fund industry.

B. Costs

    The proposed expansion of the voluntary program would lead to some 
additional costs for funds choosing to submit tagged documents 
containing risk/return summary information as exhibits to their Form N-
1A filings. For purposes of the PRA, we estimated that the increase in 
annual internal burden hours to the industry would be 1,774 hours, 
which would amount to approximately $384,958 and that the increase in 
annual external costs would amount to approximately $175,669 for a 
total estimated increase of $560,627 on an annual basis.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See supra Section IV.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We based these cost estimates upon, among other things, experience 
with filers who have submitted tagged financial information in the 
current voluntary program.\77\ Due to the ongoing nature of the project 
to develop the risk/return summary taxonomy, however, we have limited 
data to quantify the cost of implementing the use of interactive data 
tags applied to risk/return summary information, and we seek comments 
and supporting data on our estimates with regard to the proposed 
amendments. In the future, there may be additional costs to current 
users of EDGAR data. For example, companies that currently provide 
tagging and dissemination of EDGAR data may experience decreased demand 
for their services. These entities have developed certain products and 
services based on data in EDGAR; many entities disseminate, repackage, 
analyze, and sell the information. Allowing mutual funds to submit 
tagged risk/return summary information, even voluntarily, may have an 
impact on entities providing EDGAR-based services and products. Because 
the Commission does not regulate all these entities, it is currently 
not feasible to accurately estimate the number or size of these 
potentially affected entities. The limited, voluntary nature of the 
program will help the Commission assess the effect, if any, on these 
entities. Additionally, the availability of mutual fund tagged data on 
EDGAR may provide these companies with alternative business 
opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See supra note 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Request for Comments

    We request comment on all aspects of this cost-benefit analysis, 
including identification of any additional costs or benefits of, or 
suggested alternatives to, the proposed rule and form amendments. 
Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual 
support for their views to the extent possible.

VI. Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation

    Section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act \78\ and section 2(b) of 
the Securities Act \79\ require the Commission, when engaging in 
rulemaking that requires it to consider or determine whether an action 
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in 
addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will 
promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(c).
    \79\ 15 U.S.C. 77(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments would extend the current interactive data 
voluntary reporting program to enable mutual funds voluntarily to 
submit tagged information contained in the risk/return summary section 
of their prospectuses on EDGAR as exhibits to Form N-1A filings. The 
expansion of the voluntary program is intended to help us evaluate the 
usefulness to investors, third-party analysts, mutual funds, the 
Commission, and the marketplace of data tagging and, in particular, of 
tagging mutual fund information. Because compliance with the proposed 
amendments would be voluntary, the Commission estimates that the impact 
of the proposal would be limited. However, because the tagging of risk/
return summary information has the potential to facilitate analysis of 
that information, we believe that the proposed amendments could promote 
efficiency by allowing us and others to gain experience with tagged 
mutual fund information in Commission filings.
    Further, tagging of the risk/return summary information has the 
potential to help streamline the delivery of mutual fund information, 
and provide investors and others with improved tools to compare funds 
based upon, among other things, costs, investment objectives, 
strategies, and risks. We believe that the potential to streamline the 
delivery of mutual fund information and to provide investors and others 
with improved mutual fund comparison tools could promote efficiency and 
competition through more efficient allocation of investments by 
investors and more efficient allocation of assets among competing 
funds. In the future, companies that currently provide tagging and 
dissemination of EDGAR data may experience decreased demand for their 
services. The availability of mutual fund tagged data on EDGAR, 
however, may provide these companies with alternative business 
opportunities. We do not anticipate that the proposed amendments would 
have a significant impact on capital formation. Finally, because the 
proposals are designed to permit mutual funds to provide information in 
a format that we believe would be more useful to investors, we believe 
that the proposed amendments are appropriate in the public interest and 
for the protection of investors.
    We request comment on whether the proposed amendments, if adopted, 
would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 
Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual 
support for their views if possible.

VII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    We prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') 
in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.\80\ The proposed 
amendments would extend the current interactive data voluntary 
reporting program to enable mutual funds voluntarily to submit tagged 
information contained in the risk/return summary section of their 
prospectuses on EDGAR as exhibits to Form N-1A filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Reasons for, and Objectives of, the Proposals

    The purpose of the proposed amendments is to help us evaluate the

[[Page 6685]]

usefulness to investors, third-party analysts, mutual funds, the 
Commission, and the marketplace of data tagging and, in particular, of 
tagging mutual fund information. We believe the proposed expanded 
voluntary program would enable us to further study the extent to which 
interactive data tags enhance the comparability of that data, the 
usefulness of data tags for dissemination, and our staff's ability to 
review and assess the accuracy and adequacy of that data. The proposed 
expanded voluntary program would also help us assess the effect of 
interactive data tags on the quality and transparency of risk/return 
summary information, as well as the compatibility of data tagging with 
the Commission's disclosure requirements.
    More specifically, we believe that the proposed expanded voluntary 
program would better enable us to study the extent to which interactive 
data enhances the:
     Search capability of the EDGAR database to allow more 
efficient and effective extraction and analysis of specific data,
     Capability to perform comparisons among mutual funds, and
     Ability to perform analyses of mutual fund data and 
whether it would reduce the resources needed for data analysis.

In addition, we believe the proposed expanded voluntary program would 
enhance our ability to evaluate the:
     Impact on the staff's ability to review filings on a more 
timely and efficient basis,
     Use of tagged data for risk assessment and surveillance 
procedures, and
     Compatibility of interactive data with reporting quality, 
transparency, and other Commission reporting requirements.

B. Legal Basis

    We are proposing rule and form amendments under the authority set 
forth in Sections 5, 6, 7, 10, 19(a), and 28 of the Securities Act and 
Sections 6(c), 8, 24(a), 30, and 38 of the Investment Company Act.

C. Small Entities Subject to the Proposed Rules

    The proposed expansion of the voluntary program may have an effect 
on mutual fund participants in the voluntary program. Under Rule 0-10 
under the Investment Company Act, an investment company is a small 
entity if it, together with other investment companies in the same 
group of related investment companies, has net assets of $50 million or 
less as of the end of its most recent fiscal year.\81\ We estimate that 
there are approximately 131 mutual funds that meet this definition. A 
smaller subset of those issuers may voluntarily submit tagged risk/
return summary information under the voluntary program, but, because 
submitting risk/return summary information would be voluntary, we 
anticipate that only complexes with sufficient resources would elect to 
participate. To date, no small entity mutual funds have elected to 
participate in the current voluntary program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 17 CFR 270.0-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    The voluntary program is designed to assist us in assessing the 
feasibility of using interactive data on a broader basis. Experience 
with the current voluntary program indicates that the cost of 
participating in the expanded program, the associated burden on the 
EDGAR system, and the possible effect of the expanded voluntary program 
on those entities that use the EDGAR data would be minimal. 
Nevertheless, the impact of the proposed amendments remains somewhat 
speculative at this point.
    No registrant would be required to submit tagged documents under 
the proposed extension to the voluntary program. The submission of 
tagged risk/return summary information would require a participating 
mutual fund to tag the risk/return summary section of its prospectus 
using the risk/return summary taxonomy and potentially develop 
extensions and to submit exhibits to its filing. Volunteers may also 
need to purchase software or retain a consultant to assist in tagging 
data. For purposes of the PRA, we estimated that each volunteer, 
including small entities, would incur approximately 43 burden hours and 
$333 in software costs annually.

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    We believe that there are no rules that duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with the proposals.

F. Agency Action to Minimize the Effect on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs us to consider significant 
alternatives that would accomplish the stated objective, while 
minimizing any significant adverse impact on small entities. The 
purpose of the proposed amendments is to help us evaluate the 
usefulness to investors, third-party analysts, mutual funds, the 
Commission, and the marketplace of data tagging and, in particular, of 
tagging mutual fund information. Submitting documents containing tagged 
risk/return summary information would be entirely voluntary. We have 
considered different or simpler procedures for small entities, 
including:
     The establishment of different compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables;
     The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of the 
proposed requirements;
     The use of performance rather than design standards; and
     Exemption from coverage.
    For tagged data to provide benefits such as ready comparability, 
however, the data tagging system cannot have alternative procedures. 
Similarly, in order to achieve the benefits of interactive data 
tagging, use of a single data tagging technology is necessary. If we 
determine to require data tagging in the future, we will look to the 
results of the voluntary program, including those of the proposed 
expansion of the program to risk/return summary information, to find 
alternatives to minimize any burden on small entities. We solicit 
comment on how the proposals could be modified to minimize the effect 
on small entities.

G. Request for Comments

    We encourage the submission of comments with respect to any aspect 
of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. In particular, we 
request comment on the number of small entities that would be affected 
by the proposals; the existence or nature of the potential effect of 
the proposals on small entities as discussed in the analysis; how to 
quantify the effect of the proposal; and how different procedures, if 
necessary, could be provided for small entities while remaining 
consistent with our goal to assess tagged data. We ask commenters to 
describe the nature of any effect and provide empirical data and other 
factual support for their views, if possible. These comments will be 
considered in preparing the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, if 
the proposals are adopted, and will be placed in the same public file 
as comments on the proposal.

VIII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of

[[Page 6686]]

1996,\82\ a rule is ``major'' if it results or is likely to result in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Pub. L. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
     A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or 
individual industries; or
     Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or 
innovation.
    The Commission requests comment on the potential impact of the 
proposed amendments on the U.S. economy on an annual basis. Commenters 
are requested to provide empirical data to support their views.

IX. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing the rule amendments outlined above 
under Sections 5, 6, 7, 10, 19(a), and 28 of the Securities Act [15 
U.S.C. 77e, 77f, 77g, 77j, 77s(a), and 77z-3] and Sections 6(c), 8, 
24(a), 30, and 38 of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-6(c), 
80a-8, 80a-24(a), 80a-29, and 80a-37].

List of Subjects

17 CFR Parts 232 and 239

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Parts 270 and 274

    Investment Companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Securities.

Text of Proposed Rule and Form Amendments

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission proposes to amend 
title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

    1. The general authority citation for Part 232 is revised to read 
as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 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, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350.
* * * * *
    2. Amend Sec.  232.401 by:
    a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a);
    b. Removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (b)(1)(ii);
    c. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and 
adding in its place ``; or'';
    d. Adding new paragraph (b)(1)(iv);
    e. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(i); and
    f. Removing the term ``or 20-F'' and in its place adding ``, 20-F 
or N-1A (Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter)'' in paragraph 
(d)(2)(i).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  232.401  XBRL-Related Document Submissions.

    (a) An electronic filer that participates in the voluntary XBRL 
(eXtensible Business Reporting Language) program may submit XBRL-
Related Documents (Sec.  232.11) in electronic format as an exhibit to: 
The filing (other than a Form N-1A filing) to which the XBRL-Related 
Documents relate; an amendment to such filing, but, in the case of a 
Form N-1A filing, an amendment made only after the effective date of 
the Form N-1A filing to which the XBRL-Related Documents relate; or if 
the electronic filer is eligible to file a Form 8-K (Sec.  249.308 of 
this chapter) or a Form 6-K (Sec.  249.306 of this chapter), a Form 8-K 
or a Form 6-K, as applicable, that references the filing to which the 
XBRL-Related Documents relate if such Form 8-K or Form 6-K is submitted 
no earlier than the date of that filing. * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) The risk/return summary information set forth in Items 2 and 3 
of Form N-1A (Sec.  239.15A and Sec.  274.11A of this chapter).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) That the financial information contained in the XBRL-Related 
Documents is ``unaudited'' or ``unreviewed,'' as applicable (but only 
if the mandatory content contained in the XBRL-Related Documents 
contains information other than risk/return summary information 
submitted under paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section);
* * * * *
    3. Revise Sec.  232.402(a)(1) to read as set forth below, and amend 
paragraph (b) by removing each reference to ``Item 401'' and adding in 
its place ``Rule 401''.


Sec.  232.402  Liability for XBRL-Related Documents.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Are not deemed filed for purposes of section 11 of the 
Securities Act (15 U.S.C 77k), section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 
U.S.C. 78r), or section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 
80a-33(b)), or otherwise subject to the liabilities of these sections, 
and are not part of any registration statement to which they relate;
* * * * *

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

    4. The general authority citation for Part 239 is revised to read 
as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 
77sss, 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78u-5, 78w(a), 78ll, 78mm, 80a-
2(a), 80a-3, 80a-8, 80a-9, 80a-10, 80a-13, 80a-24, 80a-26, 80a-29, 
80a-30, and 80a-37, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

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

    5. The authority citation for Part 270 continues to read in part as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq., 80a-34(d), 80a-37, and 80a-
39, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
    6. Revise Sec.  270.8b-33 to read as follows:


Sec.  270.8b-33  XBRL-Related Documents.

    A registrant that participates in the voluntary XBRL (eXtensible 
Business Reporting Language) program may submit, in electronic format 
as an exhibit to a filing on Form N-1A (Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A 
of this chapter), Form N-CSR (Sec. Sec.  249.331 and 274.128 of this 
chapter), or Form N-Q (Sec. Sec.  249.332 and 274.130 of this chapter) 
to which they relate, XBRL-Related Documents (Sec.  232.11 of this 
chapter). A registrant that submits XBRL-Related Documents as an 
exhibit to a form must name each XBRL-Related Document ``EX 100'' as 
specified in the EDGAR Filer Manual and submit the XBRL-Related 
Documents in such a manner that will permit the information for each 
series and class of an investment company registrant and each contract 
of an insurance company separate account to be separately identified. A 
registrant may submit such exhibit with, or in an amendment to, the 
Form N-CSR or Form N-Q filing to which it relates, or in an amendment 
to the Form N-1A filing to which it relates, in accordance with rule 
401 of Regulation S-T (Sec.  232.401).

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

    7. The authority citation for Part 274 continues to read in part 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, and 80a-29, unless otherwise 
noted.
* * * * *
    8. Amend General Instruction B.4.(b) of Form N-1A (referenced in 
Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A) by revising ``8b-32 [17

[[Page 6687]]

CFR 270.8b-1-270.8b-32]'' to read ``8b-33 [17 CFR 270.8b-1-270.8b-
33]''.

    Note: The text of Form N-1A will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.


    Dated: February 6, 2007.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-2254 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P