Is allowing the tagging of fund data contained in Schedule
I separately from other investment company financial information an
appropriate next step in the voluntary program for investment
companies? Is there other investment company information that should be
included in the voluntary program?
     What effect would tagged data have on investors',
analysts', and other users' ability to analyze investment company
portfolio holdings? Are there any potential problems related to
providing investment company portfolio holdings in interactive data
format? For example, could this facilitate the front-running of
investment company portfolio transactions or other behavior that could
harm investors?
     Is the tagging of fund data contained in Schedule I useful
on a stand-alone basis? Should we instead require a fund that submits
tagged data for Schedule I to also provide tagged data for Schedules II
through V,\123\ as Schedules I through V are often presented together
in fund financial statements? Should we allow funds to tag any or all
of Schedules I through V in the voluntary program without tagging other
financial information? Are there particular Schedules, or particular
combinations of Schedules, that should be permitted to be tagged in the
voluntary program without tagging other financial information?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Schedule II--Investments--other than securities, Rule 12-
13 of Regulation S-X [17 CFR 210.12-13]; Schedule III--Investments
in and advances to affiliates, Rule 12-14 of Regulation S-X [17 CFR
210.12-14]; Schedule IV--Investments--securities sold short, Rule
12-12A of Regulation S-X [17 CFR 210.12-12A]; and Schedule V--Open
option contracts written, Rule 12-12B of Regulation S-X [17 CFR
210.12-12B].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     How would allowing volunteers to submit an interactive
data exhibit consisting of Schedule I information on a stand-alone
basis affect participation in the voluntary program? Does the tagging
of Schedule I information separately from other investment company
financial information present any technical concerns that would affect
participation in the voluntary program?
     Should we require cautionary disclosure in the tagged
schedule of portfolio holdings as a tagged data element?
     Is additional or different language necessary for
cautionary disclosure?
     Has development of a list of tags for portfolio holdings
advanced sufficiently to permit tagging of Schedule I on a stand-alone
basis? If not, what further steps are needed?

III. General Request for Comments

    We request comment on the specific issues we discuss in this
release, and 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 amendments contain ``collection of information''
requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
or PRA.\124\ The purpose of the proposed amendments is to make risk/
return summary information easier for investors to analyze and to
assist in automating regulatory filings and business information
processing. We are submitting the proposed amendments to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review in accordance with the PRA.\125\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    \125\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The title for the new collection of information for submitting
risk/return summary information in interactive data format that the
proposed amendments would establish is ``Mutual Fund Interactive Data''
(OMB Control No. 3235-XXXX). This collection of information relates to
already existing regulations and forms adopted under the Securities
Act, the Exchange Act, and the Investment Company Act that set forth
disclosure requirements for mutual funds and other issuers. The
proposed amendments, if adopted, would require mutual funds to submit
their risk/return summary information in interactive data format and
post it on their Web sites, if any, in interactive data form. The
specified risk/return summary information already is and would continue
to be required to be submitted to the Commission in traditional format
under existing disclosure requirements. Compliance with the proposed
amendments would be mandatory beginning with initial registration
statements, and post-effective amendments that are annual updates to
effective registration statements, that become effective after December
31, 2009.\126\ The information required to be submitted would not be
kept confidential by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See Part II.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The title for the collection of information for submitting
portfolio holdings in interactive data format is ``Voluntary XBRL-
Related Documents'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0611). The proposed
amendments would permit investment companies that are registered under
the Investment Company Act, business development companies, and other
entities that report under the Exchange Act and prepare their financial
statements in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X to submit
exhibits containing a tagged schedule of portfolio holdings without
having to submit other financial information in interactive data
format. Compliance with the proposed amendments would be voluntary. The
information required to be submitted would not be kept confidential by
the Commission.

A. Reporting and Burden Estimate

1. Submission of Risk/Return Summary Information Using Interactive Data
    Form N-1A (OMB Control No. 3235-0307) under the Securities Act and
the Investment Company Act \127\ is used by mutual funds to register
under the Investment Company Act and to offer their securities under
the Securities Act. The information required by the new collection of
information we propose, would correspond to the risk/return summary
information now required by Form N-1A and would be required to appear
in exhibits to Form N-1A and on mutual funds' Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ 17 CFR 239.15A; 17 CFR 274.11A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on estimates from voluntary program participant responses to
a questionnaire and our experiences with the voluntary program, we
estimate that interactive data filers would require an average of
approximately 13 burden hours to tag risk/return summary information in
the first year, and the same task in subsequent years would require an
average of approximately 11 hours.\128\ The average annual burden over
a three-year period is estimated at approximately 12 hours.\129\ Based
on estimates of 8,810 mutual funds submitting interactive data
documents,\130\ each incurring 12 hours per year on average, we
estimate that, in the aggregate, interactive data adoption would result
in an additional 105,720 burden hours, on average, for all mutual funds
for each of the first three years.\131\ Converted into dollars, this
amounts to approximately $22,500,000.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ The average burden hours for the first and subsequent
submissions were calculated using data collected from 6 responses to
a voluntary program participant questionnaire from mutual funds that
participated in the voluntary program. See Part V, infra.
    \129\ (13.33 hours for the first submission + 11.275 hours for
the second submission + 11.275 hours for the third submission) / 3
years = approximately 12 hours.
    \130\ This estimate is based on analysis by the Division of
Investment Management staff of publicly available data.
    \131\ 8,810 mutual funds x 12 incremental burden hours per
mutual fund = 105,720 burden hours.
    \132\ This cost increase is estimated using an estimated hourly
wage rate of $213.00 ((105,720 burden hours) x $213.00 hourly wage
rate = $22,518,360 total incremental internal cost). The estimated
wage figure is based on published rates for compliance attorneys and
programmer analysts, 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 $270 and
$194, respectively. See Securities Industry Association, Report on
Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2007
(Sept. 2007) (``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 $213.00 (($270 x .25) + ($194 x.75)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We further estimate that mutual funds would require an average of
approximately 1 burden hour to post interactive data to their Web
sites. Based on estimates of 8,810 mutual funds posting interactive
data, each incurring 1 burden hour per year on average, we estimate
that, in the aggregate, adoption of Web site posting requirements would
result in an additional 8,810 burden hours for all mutual funds.\133\
Converted into dollars, this amounts to approximately $2,200,000.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ 8,810 mutual funds x 1 burden hour per mutual fund = 8,810
burden hours.
    \134\ ($250 x 1 hour x 8,810 mutual funds). This cost estimate
is based on informal discussions with a limited number of persons
believed to be generally knowledgeable about preparing, submitting,
and posting interactive data. See Part V, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also estimate that software and consulting services would be
used by mutual funds for an increase of approximately $803 per mutual
fund.\135\ Based on the estimate of 8,810 mutual funds using software
and consulting services at an annual cost of $803 we estimate that, in
the aggregate, the total external costs to the industry would be
approximately $7,100,000.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ For purposes of this estimate, we assumed that the largest
50 fund complexes would develop software in-house incurring costs of
$125,000 in the first year. Assuming that the largest 50 fund
complexes would develop software for use in all of their funds, and
that their funds encompass 80% of the number of funds (7,048), then
the average first year cost for those funds would be ($125,000 x
50)/7,048 = $887. Therefore, for those funds using software
developed internally, the average 3 year cost would be approximately
$829 ($887 in the first year + $800 in the second year + $800 in the
third year) / 3 years = approximately $829. The average 3 year cost
for those funds that use commercial software would be $700 ($500 in
the first year + $800 in the second year + $800 in the third year) /
3 years = $700. Assuming 80% of funds incurred costs of $829 and 20%
of funds incurred costs of $700, the average software and consulting
cost per mutual fund would be approximately $803. These estimates
were derived from responses to a voluntary program questionnaire.
See Part V, infra.
    \136\ 8,810 mutual funds x $803 = approximately $7,100,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulation C and Regulation S-T
    Regulation C (OMB Control No. 3235-0074) describes the procedures
to be followed in preparing and filing registration statements with the
Commission. Regulation S-T (OMB Control No. 3235-0424) specifies the

requirements that govern the electronic submission of documents. The
proposed changes to these items would add and revise rules under
Regulations C and S-T. The filing requirements themselves, however, are
included in Form N-1A and we have reflected the burden for these new
requirements in the burden estimate for Mutual Fund Interactive Data.
The rules in Regulations C and S-T do not impose any separate burden.
2. Changes To the Voluntary Program
    We are proposing to decrease the burden associated with the
existing collection of information for Voluntary XBRL-Related Documents
to reflect the proposed amendments. If we adopt rules requiring mutual
funds to submit risk/return information in interactive data format, we
intend that mutual funds would no longer be able to submit risk/return
summary information in interactive data format through the voluntary
program after the compliance date for the mandatory rules.
    When we adopted the amendments to expand the voluntary program to
enable mutual funds voluntarily to submit risk/return summary
information in interactive data format, we estimated an increase to the
existing collection of information for Voluntary XBRL-Related
Documents.\137\ We estimated that 10% of the approximately 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.\138\ We further estimated that the initial creation of
tagged documents containing risk/return summary information would
require, on average, approximately 110 burden hours per mutual fund,
and the creation of such tagged documents in subsequent years would
require an average 10 burden hours per mutual fund. Because the PRA
estimates represent the average burden over a three-year period, we
estimated the average hour burden for the submission of tagged
documents containing risk/return summary information for one mutual
fund to be approximately 43 hours.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See Voluntary Program Adopting Release, supra note 16.
    \138\ In the case of a mutual fund with multiple series, our
estimate treated each series as a separate mutual fund.
    \139\ (110 hours in the first year + 10 hours in the second year
+ 10 hours in the third year) / 3 years = 43 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the estimates of 55 participants submitting tagged
documents containing risk/return summary information for one mutual
fund once per year and incurring 43 hours per submission, we estimated
that, in the aggregate, the industry would incur an additional 2,365
burden hours associated with the amendments.\140\ We further estimated
that 75% of this burden increase, or approximately 1,774 hours, would
be borne internally by the mutual fund complexes. We estimated that
this internal burden increase converted to dollars would amount to a
total annual increase of internal costs of approximately $393,828.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ 55 documents per year x 43 hours per submission = 2,365
hours.
    \141\ See note 82 of the Voluntary Program Adopting Release,
supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also estimated 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 $256.00 per
hour for a total annual increase of approximately $151,296.\142\ In
addition, we estimated that the cost of licensing software would be
$333 per participant per year, for a total annual increase of
$18,315.\143\ Altogether, we estimated the total annual increase in
external costs related to the amendments would be $169,611.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ See note 83 of the Voluntary Program Adopting Release,
supra note 16.
    \143\ $333 per participant x 55 participants = $18,315.
    \144\ This annual total consisted of $151,296 in outside
professional costs plus $18,315 in software costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that mutual funds would no longer be able to submit risk/
return summary information in interactive data format through the
voluntary program if the proposed amendments are adopted, we would
reduce the internal hour burden associated with the voluntary program
by 1,774 hours and the internal cost burden by $393,828. We would also
reduce the external cost burden by $169,611.
    We also are proposing amendments to the voluntary program to enable
investment companies that are registered under the Investment Company
Act, business development companies, and other entities that report
under the Exchange Act and prepare their financial statements in
accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X to submit exhibits
containing a tagged schedule of portfolio holdings without having to
submit other financial information in interactive data format. As with
the current voluntary program, volunteers could participate, without
pre-approval, merely by submitting Schedule I in interactive data
format.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Rule 12-12 of Regulation S-X [17 CFR 210.12-12].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Investors, financial intermediaries, and third party information
providers, among others, use the portfolio holdings data contained in
Schedule I to make decisions concerning the purchase and continued
holding of funds and for other purposes. Portfolio holdings data
promises to be even more useful to these various stakeholders if this
data is interactive. In addition, allowing volunteers to submit tagged
portfolio holdings information without having to submit other financial
information in interactive data format would increase the range of
options for participation in the voluntary program and encourage
increased participation.
    We estimate that 20 registrants would choose to submit a schedule
of portfolio holdings in interactive data format. We believe that
investment companies that are registered under the Investment Company
Act, business development companies, and other entities that report
under the Exchange Act and prepare their financial statements in
accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X would participate, given
the flexibility provided by a new option to submit exhibits containing
just portfolio holdings information in interactive data format.
    Submission of portfolio holdings information in interactive data
format would not affect the burden of preparing the registrants'
traditional format filings. In order to provide portfolio holdings
information in interactive data format, a participating registrant
would have to tag Schedule I and submit the resulting interactive data
file as an exhibit to its filing on Form N-CSR or Form N-Q.\146\ The
Commission anticipates entering into a contract to develop a list of
tags that could be used to tag portfolio holdings. Based on our
experience with mutual funds that have submitted risk/return summary
information in the current voluntary program, we estimate that the
initial creation of portfolio holdings information in interactive data
format would require, on average, approximately 12 burden hours per
registrant,\147\ and the creation of such information in interactive
data format in subsequent years would require an average 10 burden
hours per

registrant.\148\ Because the PRA estimates represent the average burden
over a three-year period, we estimate the average hour burden for the
submission of portfolio holdings information in interactive data format
for one registrant to be approximately 11 hours.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ Form N-CSR [17 CFR 249.331; 17 CFR 274.128]; Form N-Q [17
CFR 249.332; 17 CFR 274.130].
    \147\ Mutual funds submitting risk/return summary information in
our voluntary program indicated that an initial submission in the
voluntary program took approximately 13 hours of labor. Given that
the submission of portfolio holdings in interactive data format is
less complex than the submission of risk/return summary information
in interactive data format but potentially requires the tagging of
many more individual items, we estimate that the initial creation of
interactive data files containing portfolio holdings information
would require, on average, approximately 12 burden hours per
volunteer.
    \148\ Mutual funds submitting risk/return summary information in
the current voluntary program indicated that each set of
submissions, after the initial set, would take approximately 11
burden hours, or 2 hours less than the initial submission. We
estimate that the reduction in burden hours for subsequent
submissions of portfolio holdings information in interactive data
format would be a similar 2 hour reduction, or approximately 10
burden hours per volunteer.
    \149\ (12 hours in the first year + 10 hours in the second year
+ 10 hours in the third year) / 3 years = approximately 11 hours.
While the PRA requires an estimate based on a hypothetical three
years of participation, a registrant, as noted earlier, could
participate in the voluntary program by submitting portfolio
holdings information in interactive data format over a shorter
period or even just once as the registrant chooses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the estimate of 20 registrants submitting interactive data
files containing portfolio holdings information once each year and
incurring 11 hours per submission we estimate that, in the aggregate,
the industry would incur an additional 220 burden hours associated with
the proposed amendments.\150\ We estimate that this internal burden
increase converted to dollars would amount to approximately
$47,000.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ 20 documents per year x 11 hours per submission = 220
hours. We note that mutual funds submit portfolio holdings
information to the Commission four times per year. However, for
purposes of our analysis, we estimate that mutual funds choosing to
participate in the voluntary program would submit portfolio holdings
information in interactive data format once each year.
    \151\ This cost increase is estimated by multiplying the
increase in annual internal hour burden (220) by the estimated
hourly wage rate of $213.00. See supra note 132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also estimate that external professionals and consultants would
be retained by the registrant for an increase of approximately
$600.00.\152\ It is our understanding that annual software licensing
costs generally would be included in the cost of hiring external
professionals and consultants.\153\ Based on the estimate of 20
registrants retaining external professionals and consultants at an
annual cost of $600.00 we estimate that, in the aggregate, the total
external cost to the industry would be $12,000.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ ($100.00 in the first year + $800.00 in the second year +
$800.00 in the third year) / 3 years = approximately $600.00. Mutual
funds participating in our voluntary program for the submission of
risk/return summary information in interactive data format indicated
an initial external cost of $100.00 for the hiring of external
professionals and consultants and projected an annual cost of
$800.00 for external service providers going forward. The increase
going forward was due to the fact that a couple of participants
indicated that their external service provider had waived its fee
for the initial submission.
    \153\ We note that one respondent spent over $100,000 internally
to develop software to submit risk/return summary information in
interactive data format. We did not include this number in our
calculations as this software was developed solely for purposes of
submitting risk/return summary information and not for submitting
financial information in interactive data format. See infra note
170.
    \154\ 20 registrants submitting interactive data files under the
voluntary program x $600.00 = $12,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the changes to the voluntary program, we therefore
estimate a total decrease in internal burden hours of approximately
1,600 \155\ and a total decrease in internal costs of approximately
$347,000.\156\ We further estimate a total decrease in external costs
of approximately $158,000.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ (1,774 hours for the removal of risk/return summary
information from the voluntary program - 220 hours for the
submission of schedule of portfolio holdings in interactive data
format = approximately 1,600 hours.)
    \156\ ($393,828 for the removal of risk/return summary
information from the voluntary program - $47,000 for the submission
of schedule of portfolio holdings in interactive data format =
approximately $347,000.)
    \157\ ($169,611 for the removal of risk/return summary
information from the voluntary program - $12,000 for the submission
of schedule of portfolio holdings in interactive data format =
approximately $158,000.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Request for Comments

    We solicit comment on the expected Paperwork Reduction Act effects
of the proposed amendments, including the following:
     The accuracy of our estimates of the additional burden
hours that would result from adoption of the proposed amendments;
     Whether the proposed new collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
     Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
     Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who respond, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology; and
     Any effects of the proposed amendments on any other
collections of information not previously identified.
    Any member of the public may direct to us any comments concerning
these burden estimates and suggestions for reducing the burdens.
Persons submitting 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 Office of the Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303, with
reference to File No. S7-12-08. Requests for materials submitted to OMB
by the Commission with regard to these collections of information
should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-12-08, and be submitted to
the Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection
of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this
release. Consequently, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

V. Cost/Benefit Analysis

A. Submission of Risk/Return Summary Information Using Interactive Data

    The proposed rules would require submission of interactive data-
formatted risk/return summary information and the posting of such
information on a mutual fund's Web site, if any. We believe that the
proposed rules likely would result in the benefits and costs described
below. We base our belief on an economic analysis of data obtained from
several sources, including voluntary program participant responses to a
staff-prepared questionnaire and our experiences with the voluntary
program.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ The proposed required program, similar to the voluntary
program, would require use of interactive data in XBRL format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interactive data are intended to remove a barrier in the flow of
information between mutual funds and users of information that is
conveyed through mutual fund disclosures. This should enable less
costly dissemination of information and thereby improve the allocation
of capital. The cost of implementation will depend primarily on the
costs of transition by mutual funds to the new mode of reporting. The
magnitudes of these benefits and costs from any individual mutual
fund's adoption of interactive data reporting will depend on the number
of other mutual funds that also adopt and on the availability of
supporting software and other infrastructures that enable analysis of
the information. To the extent that submitted information allows
investors to make investment decisions based on market-wide comparison
and analysis, the value to the investors of the reported information

tends to increase with the total number of mutual funds adopting the
regime. Likewise, mutual funds' incentives to report their information
using interactive data depends on the interest level of the investors
in this mode of reporting. By mandating implementation, the rule will
expand the network of adopters and thereby create positive network
externalities of reported information for the investors.
1. Benefits of Interactive Data Submissions and Web Site Posting
    The proposed rules have the potential to benefit investors both
directly and by facilitating the exchange of information between mutual
funds and the third party information providers and other
intermediaries who receive and process mutual fund disclosures.
Information Access
    Benefits of the proposed rulemaking accrue from the acceleration of
market-wide adoption of interactive data format reporting. The
magnitudes of the benefits thus depend on the value to investors of the
new reporting regime relative to the old reporting regime and on the
extent to which the mandated adoption speeds up the market-wide
implementation.
    Requiring mutual funds to file their risk/return summary
information using the interactive data format would enable investors,
third party information providers, and the Commission staff to capture
and analyze that information more quickly and at a lower cost than is
possible using the same information provided in a static format.\159\
Even though the new regime does not require any new information to be
disclosed or reported, certain benefits accrue when mutual funds use an
interactive data format to report their risk/return summary
information. These include the following. Through interactive data,
what is currently static, text-based information could be dynamically
searched and analyzed, facilitating the comparison of mutual fund cost,
performance, and other information across multiple classes of the same
fund and across the more than 8,000 funds currently available. Any
investor with a computer would have the ability to acquire and download
data that have generally been available only to intermediaries and
third-party analysts. For example, users of risk/return summary
information could download it directly into spreadsheets, analyze it
using commercial off-the-shelf software, or use it within investment
models in other software formats. Also, to the extent investors
currently are required to pay for access to mutual fund risk/return
summary information that has been extracted and reformatted into an
interactive data format by third-party sources, the availability of
interactive data in Commission filings could allow investors to avoid
additional costs associated with third-party sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See Part I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The magnitude of this informational benefit varies, however, with
the availability of sophisticated tools that will allow investors to
analyze the information. The growing development of software products
for users of interactive data is helping to make interactive data
increasingly useful to both institutional and retail investors.\160\
For example, currently there are many software providers and financial
printers that are developing interactive data viewers. We anticipate
that these will become widely available and increasingly accessible to
investors. We expect that the open standard feature of the interactive
data format will facilitate the development of applications, and
software, and that some of these applications may be made available to
the public for free or at a relatively low cost. The continued
improvement in this software would allow increasingly useful ways to
view and analyze mutual fund risk/return summary information to help
investors make more well-informed investment decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ See SEC's Office of Interactive Disclosure Urges Public
Comment as Interactive Data Moves Closer to Reality for Investors,
Securities and Exchange Commission Press Release, Dec. 5, 2007,
available at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-253.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interactive data also could provide a significant opportunity for
mutual funds to automate their regulatory filings and business
information processing, with the potential to increase the speed,
accuracy, and usability of mutual fund disclosure. This reporting
regime may in turn reduce filing and processing costs.
    By enabling mutual funds to further automate their disclosure
processes, interactive data may eventually help funds improve the speed
at which they generate information. For example, with standardized
interactive data tags, registration statements may require less time
for information gathering and review.
    A mutual fund that uses a standardized interactive data format at
earlier stages of its reporting cycle may also increase the accuracy of
its disclosure by reducing the need for repetitive data entry that
could introduce errors and enhancing the ability of a mutual fund's in-
house professionals to identify and correct errors in the fund's
registration statements filed in traditional electronic format. There
has been a growing development of software products to assist mutual
funds to tag their risk/return summary information using interactive
data helping make interactive data increasingly useful.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mutual funds that automate their regulatory filings and business
information processing in a manner that facilitates their generation
and analysis of disclosures could, as a result, realize a reduction in
costs.
Market Efficiency
    The proposed requirements could benefit investors by making
financial markets more efficient in regard to the following: \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ We believe the benefits will stem primarily from the
requirement to submit interactive data to the Commission and the
Commission's disseminating that data. We also believe, however, that
the requirement that mutual funds with Web sites post the
interactive data required to be submitted would encourage its
widespread dissemination thereby contributing to lower access costs
for users and the related benefits described. We solicit comment in
Part II.E regarding what advantages dual Commission and Web site
availability would have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Capital formation as a result of mutual funds' being in a
better position to attract shareholders because of greater (less
costly) awareness on the part of investors of mutual fund risk/return
summary information; and
     Capital allocation as a result of investors' being better
able to allocate capital among those mutual funds seeking it because of
interactive data reporting's facilitating innovations in efficient
communication of mutual fund risk/return summary information.
More Efficient Capital Formation
    An increase in the efficiency of capital formation is a benefit
that may accrue to the extent that interactive data reduces some of the
information barriers that make it costly for mutual funds to find
appropriate sources of new investors. In particular, smaller mutual
fund complexes are expected to benefit from enhanced exposure to
investors. If interactive data risk/return summary reporting increases
the availability, or reduces the cost of collecting and analyzing,
mutual fund risk/return summary data, then there could be improved
coverage of mutual funds in smaller fund complexes by third party
information providers and commercial data vendors.
    At present, some mutual funds in smaller fund complexes do not
provide their data to third party information providers.\163\ This may
reduce the

likelihood that their data is readily available to investors who use
commercially available products to assess mutual fund performance.
Hence, if interactive data reporting increases coverage of mutual funds
in smaller fund complexes by third party information providers, and
this increases their exposure to investors, then lower search costs for
shareholders could result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Analysis by Division of Investment Management staff based
on publicly available data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

More Efficient Capital Allocation
    An increase in the efficiency of capital allocation may accrue to
the extent that interactive data increase the quality of information by
reducing the cost to access, collect, and analyze mutual fund risk/
return summary information or improve the content of mutual fund-
reported information.\164\ An increase in quality and improvement in
content could enable investors to better allocate their capital among
mutual funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ In the context of the discussion below, quality refers to
the ease with which end-users of risk/return summary information can
access, collect, and analyze the data. This issue is separate from
the content of mutual fund-reported information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information quality in mutual fund markets would likely be higher
if interactive data reporting were required than if not, leading to
more efficient capital allocation. As a result of the improved utility
of information, investors may be able to evaluate various mutual funds,
thereby facilitating capital flow into their favored investment
prospects.
    We believe that requiring mutual funds to provide interactive data
would improve the quality of risk/return summary information available
to end users, and help spur interactive data-related innovation in the
supply of mutual fund comparative products, resulting from a potential
increased competition among suppliers of such products due to lower
entry barriers as a result of lower data collection costs.
    However, we have considered competing views of the informational
consequences of interactive data. For example, a requirement to submit
interactive data information could decrease the marginal benefit of
collecting information and thus reduce the information quality to the
extent it reduces third-party incentives to facilitate access to,
collect, or analyze information. Assuming that markets efficiently
price the value of information, the amount of information accessed,
collected (or enhanced), and analyzed will be determined by the
marginal benefit of doing so.\165\ Lowering information collection
costs (through a requirement to submit interactive data information)
should increase this benefit. If this is so, then there should be no
degradation in the level of information quality as a result of changes
in third-party provider behavior under an interactive data reporting
regime. However, if one competitor in the industry can subsidize its
operations through an alternative revenue stream, both quality and
competition may suffer.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ Also, we expect that because the proposed rules would
require the use of the XBRL interactive data standard, XBRL's being
an open standard would facilitate the development of related
software, some of which may, as a result, be made available to the
public for free or at a relatively low cost and provide the public
alternative ways to view and analyze interactive data information
provided under our proposed rules.
    \166\ For illustration purposes only, assume that an Internet
service company develops an interactive data-based tool that easily
provides mutual fund risk/return summary information for free to all
subscribers, and it uses this product as a loss leader to increase
viewership and advertising revenue. If the data provided is of the
same quality as data provided through subscription to other
available commercial products, then there should be no informational
efficiency loss. However, if a data aggregator's providing
information that improves investor interpretation and goes beyond
risk/return summary information is possible, but no longer
profitable to produce for competitors without the subsidy, then
valuable information production may be lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another potential information consequence of the proposed
requirements may be changes to the precision and comparability of the
information disseminated by data service providers since the
interactive data requirements would shift the source of data formatting
that allows aggregation and facilitates comparison and analysis from
end-users to mutual funds submitting interactive data. At present, data
service providers manually key risk/return summary information into a
format that allows aggregation. As a result, the data service provider
makes interpretive decisions on how to aggregate reported items so that
they can be compared across all mutual funds. Consequently, when a
subscriber of the commercial product offered by a data service provider
uses this aggregated data, it can expect consistent interpretation of
the reported items. In contrast, a requirement for mutual funds to
submit interactive data information would require the mutual funds to
independently decide within the confines of applicable requirements
which ``tag'' best describes each item within the risk/return summary--
perhaps with the help from a filing agent or consultant--lessening the
amount of interpretation required by data aggregators or end-users of
the data. Once a tag is chosen, comparison to other funds is
straightforward. However, since mutual funds have some discretion in
how to select tags, and can choose extensions (new tags) when they can
not find an appropriate existing tag, unique interpretations by each
fund could result in reporting differences from what current data
service providers and other end-users would have chosen. This view
suggests that the information disseminated by data aggregators may be,
on the one hand, less comparable because they have not normalized it
across mutual funds but, on the other hand, more accurate because the
risk of human error in the manual keying and interpretation of filed
information would be eliminated and more precise because it will
reflect decisions by the mutual funds themselves. Replication of prior
methods of interpretation still would be possible, however, because
mutual funds would continue to be required to file risk/return summary
information in traditional format. As a result, nothing would prohibit
data aggregators from continuing to provide normalized data.
Nonetheless, interactive data benefits could diminish if other
reporting formats are required for clarification in data aggregation.
    The content of mutual fund-reported information may improve
because, as previously discussed, a mutual fund that uses a
standardized interactive data format at earlier stages of its
disclosure cycle may increase the accuracy of its disclosure. In
contrast, the content of mutual fund-reported information may improve
or decline to the extent that the interactive data process influences
what mutual funds disclose. While the proposed requirements to submit
and post interactive data information are intended to be disclosure
neutral, it is possible they would affect what is disclosed.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ We solicit comment on whether the proposed requirements
would affect mutual fund disclosure in Part II.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Costs of Interactive Data Submissions and Web Site Posting
    The primary cost of the rulemaking is the cost of mutual funds'
implementation of the rule, which includes the costs of submitting and
posting interactive data. We discuss this cost element extensively
below. In addition, because the proposed rules would allow an increase
in the flow of risk/return summary information being reported directly
to third party information providers and investors, there will be a
cost of learning on the part of the investors in using and analyzing
risk/return summary information at the interactive data level.

    As for the cost of implementation of the rule, based on currently
available data, we estimate the average direct costs of submitting and
posting interactive data-formatted risk/return summary information for
all mutual funds under the proposed rules would, based on certain
assumptions, be as follows:

 Table.--Estimated Direct Costs of Submitting Interactive Data-Formatted
                     Risk/Return Summary Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Subsequent
                                     First submission     submissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparation \168\.................             $2,600             $2,300
Software and consulting services         \170\ 20,600                800
 \169\............................
Web site posting \171\............                250                250
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total cost....................             23,450              3,350
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above estimates are generated from a limited number of
voluntary program participant questionnaire responses. In particular,
these responses provided detail on the actual and projected costs of
preparing risk/return summary information in interactive data format
and for purchasing software or related filing agent services. A
detailed analysis of the costs associated with voluntary program
participation suggests that the estimated direct cost of submitting
risk/return summary information in interactive data format falls within
the range of $735.50 to $127,500 per fund for the first
submission.\172\ This cost reflects expenditures on interactive data-
related software, consulting or filing agent services used, and the
market rate for all internal labor hours spent (including training) to
prepare, review, and submit the first interactive data format risk/
return summary information. The future experiences of individual mutual
funds regarding risk/return summary information filed in an interactive
data format still may vary according to the mutual funds' size,
complexity, and other factors not apparent from the voluntary program
participant responses. The discussion below summarizes the direct cost
estimates of compliance regarding risk/return summary submissions based
on voluntary program participant questionnaire responses and the
specified assumptions.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Estimates based on risk/return summary voluntary program
questionnaire responses. The voluntary program questionnaire
responses indicated that different filers use different personnel to
prepare interactive data submissions. We calculated costs for each
participant based upon the personnel each individual respondent to
the voluntary program questionnaire indicated it used and the length
of time it indicated the personnel spent on the preparation. The
numbers in the table represent the average of all of these
calculations. The following wage rates were assumed for preparation
cost estimates: operations specialist--$129; paralegal--$168; senior
compliance examiner--$180; intermediate business analyst--$183;
senior accountant--$185; programmer analyst--$194; financial
reporting manager--$268; and attorney--$295. These estimated wage
figures are based on published rates for the personnel above,
modified to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead, yielding the effectively hourly rates above. See SIA
Report, supra note 132.
    \169\ Software licensing and the use of a consultant can be
substitutionary--mutual funds can choose to do one or the other, or
do both--and are thus aggregated.
    \170\ We note that one volunteer expended over $100,000 in
information technology to develop internal software that applies
interactive data tags to risk/return summary information. This one
expenditure by one fund resulted in a higher average software and
consulting services cost per fund of $20,600 for the first
submission. Excluding this data, the average software and consulting
services costs per fund would have been approximately $500.
    While our averages imply that the costs of internally developing
software are allocated to one fund in the sample, in reality the
complex that developed the software will likely use that software
for all of its funds. Thus the development cost could be allocated
across all funds within that complex rather than to one fund.
    \171\ Voluntary program participants were not required to post
on their Web sites, if any, the interactive data information they
submitted. Consequently, the costs of the requirement to post
interactive data information are not derived from the voluntary
program participant questionnaire responses or discussed in our
analysis of those responses. Those costs are, instead, derived from
informal discussions with a limited number of persons believed to be
generally knowledgeable about preparing, submitting, and posting
interactive data.
    \172\ See supra note 170 with respect to the high end of the
range.
    \173\ The details of this analysis regarding risk/return summary
information, including the underlying assumptions and other
considerations related to both the costs and benefits of requiring
submission of interactive data, are provided following the summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Average cost of first submission, excluding the costs of
Web site posting, from voluntary program questionnaire data is $23,200.
     Projected average cost of subsequent submissions,
excluding the costs of Web site posting, from voluntary program
questionnaire data is $3,100.
    This analysis attempts to quantify some of the direct costs that
mutual funds will incur if we require submission and posting of
interactive data. Whether mutual funds choose to purchase and learn how
to use software packages designed for interactive data submissions or
outsource this task to a third party, internal (labor) resources would
be required to complete the task. The cost estimates provided here
using voluntary program participant questionnaire responses shed light
on the potential dollar magnitude of the costs of requiring interactive
data submissions.
    At present, there are 22 mutual funds that have participated in the
voluntary program. Of these, 9 were provided questionnaires on the
details of their cost experience, and 6 responses were collected by the
time of this analysis representing the cost data for 10 funds.\174\ The
table below summarizes the aggregate costs per mutual fund, including
software and filing agent service costs and an estimated cost for the
internal labor hours required to prepare and submit the interactive
data format information. The low and high estimates of the cost for
internal labor hours were calculated using a variety of billing rates
corresponding to the job descriptions of internal personnel involved in
preparing the tagged risk/return summaries.\175\ The reported costs are
calculated using responses from the six voluntary program participants
that provided responses. Although there are only 6 voluntary program
respondents to the questionnaire, those 6 respondents represent mutual
fund complexes whose assets comprise approximately 26.35% of all the
assets of the mutual funds that ultimately

would be required to submit interactive data.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ The questionnaires requested data for one fund; however,
several questionnaire respondents voluntarily submitted cost
information for more than one fund.
    \175\ See supra note 168. These estimates are from the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2007, modified to
account for an 1800-hour work year and multiplied by 5.35 to account
for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead.
Questionnaire respondents apportioned time spent tagging risk/return
summaries among various job types.
    \176\ Based on total mutual fund assets of $11.8 trillion.
Lipper-Directors' Analytical Data, Reuters 2008.

Table.--Summary of Illustrative Survey Data on the Direct Cost Estimates
                   for Voluntary Program Participants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     All voluntary program participants
                                                 respondents
                                   -------------------------------------
                                           Low                High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First submission: Estimated costs.            $735.50     \177\ $127,500
Subsequent submissions: Estimated             $555.00             $5,640
 costs............................
Average reduction in cost from                 24.54%       \178\ 95.58%
 first to second submission.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scalability of Interactive Data-Related Support Services and Technology
    The final cost consideration in this section is the scalability of
interactive data-related support services and technology. In
particular, it is unclear how the market for interactive data support
services and technology may change if the Commission required over
8,000 mutual funds to submit and post interactive data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ We note that these costs are higher due to one
questionnaire respondent who spent significantly more than all other
respondents to create its own interactive data software in-house.
See supra note 170.
    \178\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The roles of each potential kind of service provider within the
interactive data market are likely to develop further and are not yet
clear, and there are many potential participants to consider, including
the software vendors, print/filing agents, and consultants, as well as
the Commission.\179\ Until the market of mutual funds that submit
interactive data information grows substantially larger (either by
requirement or by expansion of the number of volunteers), it is
difficult to predict how standard solutions will evolve. For example,
we do not know whether mutual funds will adopt solutions that create
interactive data submissions using third party software, a so-called
``bolt-on'' approach, or will seek integrated solutions that enable
funds to prepare interactive data submissions from their existing
software. Moreover, filing agents may maintain their role as an
intermediary by offering interactive data technology or other service
providers may cause that role to change. Others with technical
expertise may participate in the technology with unpredictable results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ In addition, mutual fund complexes with a large number of
funds may consider developing software in-house since that cost
could be allocated across all of their funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Combining the uncertainty over the source of future interactive
data services with increased demand for these services could result in
a new equilibrium market price that is different from what is currently
reported by voluntary program participants. This price could be higher
if the demand for interactive data services increases (from 15 mutual
fund complexes currently participating in the voluntary program to 683
mutual fund complexes \180\ participating) at a faster rate than the
supply for these same services. More broadly, if an interactive data
requirement resulted in clients subscribing for interactive data
services faster than the rate at which these services can be supplied,
then a price increase is the natural discriminator in how to allocate
limited resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ Investment Company Institute, 2008 Investment Company Fact
Book, at 14 (2008), available at: http://www.icifactbook.org/pdf/
2008_factbook.pdf (683 fund sponsors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submission costs discussed in this section suggest that if
interactive data is implemented too quickly it could result in higher
than necessary submission costs if the supply of interactive data-
related resources is constrained, but the effect would likely diminish
as a market place for interactive data services develops. Hence, this
concern is mitigated by delaying the requirement that mutual funds
submit interactive data until December 31, 2009. This delay would allow
interactive data service suppliers to keep pace with demand.

B. Changes to Voluntary Program

    In order to facilitate further evaluation of data tagging, the
proposed amendments would enable investment companies that are
registered under the Investment Company Act, business development
companies, and other entities that report under the Exchange Act and
prepare their financial statements in accordance with Article 6 of
Regulation S-X to submit exhibits containing a tagged schedule of
portfolio holdings without having to submit other financial information
in interactive data format.
1. Benefits
    We believe that portfolio holdings information in interactive data
format may allow more efficient and effective retrieval, research, and
analysis of registrants' portfolio holdings through automated means.
The proposed amendments to the voluntary program will assist us in
assessing whether using interactive data tags enhances users' ability
to analyze and compare portfolio holdings information included in
filings with the Commission.
    Currently, a number of companies use computers and data entry staff
to mine portfolio holdings information provided by mutual funds and
others in order to populate databases that are used to package
information for sale to analysts, funds, investors, and others.
Permitting funds and other entities to tag portfolio holdings
information in Commission filings will aid this data-mining process in
that it will identify points of data at the source, which could reduce
the cost to populate databases and improve the accuracy of that data.
Additionally, the changes to the voluntary program may benefit funds
and the public by permitting experimentation with data tagging using
the new portfolio holdings list of tags when it is created.
    In the future, the availability of potentially more accurate
information about mutual funds and other entities 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 information submitted in interactive
data format 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
and

other investment options, 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
other entities 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.
    Other potential benefits resulting from the inclusion of portfolio
holdings information as a stand-alone item in the voluntary program
could include an increase in the accuracy of information and the
potential for increased timeliness of data that investors use to make
informed investment decisions. Another potential benefit is that
portfolio holdings information submitted in interactive data format
would allow automated, instantaneous extraction of every investment
disclosed in the schedule of portfolio holdings. Finally, the
investment analysis process could become more efficient and effective
through the increased use of automation and reduced human intervention
that would result from the use of interactive data.
2. Costs
    The proposed amendments to the voluntary program would lead to some
costs for filers choosing to submit portfolio holdings information in
interactive data format.\181\ For purposes of the PRA, we estimated
that the increase in annual internal burden hours to the industry would
be approximately 220 hours, which would amount to an increase in costs
of approximately $47,000 and that the increase in annual external costs
per filer would amount to approximately $600 per year for a total
estimated increase to the industry of approximately $12,000 on an
annual basis.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ For purposes of the PRA, we also estimated a reduction in
burden hours for the voluntary program collection of information,
due to removal of risk/return summary information from the voluntary
program. See supra Part IV.A.2.
    \182\ See supra Part IV.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We based these cost estimates upon, among other things, experience
with mutual funds who have submitted risk/return summary information in
interactive data format in the current voluntary program.\183\ Due to
the ongoing nature of the project to develop the list of tags for
portfolio holdings, however, we have limited data to quantify the cost
of implementing the use of interactive data tags applied to portfolio
holdings information, and we seek comment 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 filers to submit tagged portfolio holdings
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 interactive data on EDGAR may provide these companies
with alternative business opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ See supra note 168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Comment Solicited

    We solicit comment on all aspects of this cost-benefit analysis,
including the identification of any additional costs or benefits of, or
suggested alternatives to, the proposed rules. Commenters are requested
to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to
the extent possible.
    We request comment regarding the costs and benefits to investors,
mutual funds, third-party information providers, software providers,
filing agents, and others who may be affected by the proposed rules. We
are particularly interested in information on the costs and benefits to
smaller mutual fund complexes.
    In particular, we request comment regarding:
     The differences between start-up costs and the costs of
providing interactive data on a continuing basis after the initial
preparation; and
     The cost of Web site posting.

VI. Consideration of Burden on Competition and Promotion of Efficiency,
Competition, and Capital Formation

    Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act \184\ requires us, when
adopting rules under the Exchange Act, to consider the impact that any
new rule would have on competition. In addition, section 23(a)(2)
prohibits us from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Exchange Act. Furthermore, section 2(b) \185\ of the Securities
Act, section 3(f) \186\ of the Exchange Act, and section 2(c) \187\ of
the Investment Company Act require us, when engaging in rulemaking
where we are required 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
    \185\ 15 U.S.C. 77b(b).
    \186\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \187\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Submission of Risk/Return Summary Information Using Interactive Data

    The proposals to require mutual funds to submit interactive data to
the Commission and post it on their Web sites are intended to make
risk/return summary information easier for investors to analyze while
assisting in automating regulatory filings and business information
processing. In particular, we believe that the proposed rules would
enable investors and others to search and analyze the risk/return
summary information dynamically; facilitate comparison of mutual fund
cost, performance, and other information; and, possibly, provide a
significant opportunity to automate regulatory filings and business
information processing with the potential to increase the speed,
accuracy, and usability of risk/return summary disclosure. Further, as
discussed in detail above, we believe that the proposals may lead to
more efficient capital formation and allocation.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ See Part V.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We understand that private sector businesses such as those that
access mutual fund information and aggregate, analyze, compare, or
convert it into interactive format have business models and, as a
result, competitive strategies that the proposed interactive data
requirements might affect. Since interactive data technology is
designed to remove an informational barrier, business models within the
mutual fund services industry that are currently adapted to traditional
format document reporting may change, with possible consequences for
the revenue stream of current product offerings due to the competitive
effects of such a change.

The competitive effects may relate to changes in the accessibility of
risk/return summary information to investors, the nature of the
information that investors receive, and the potential from new entry or
innovation in the markets through which mutual fund disclosures are
transmitted from mutual funds to investors. For example, lower entry
barriers that result from lower data collection costs may increase
competition among third-party information providers and help spur
interactive data-related innovation. It is also possible, however, that
a requirement to submit interactive data information could decrease the
marginal benefit of collecting information and thus cause third-party
information providers to produce information that is less robust to the
extent the decreased marginal benefit reduces third party incentives to
facilitate access to, collect, or analyze information. If markets
efficiently price the value of information, the amount of information
accessed, collected (or enhanced), and analyzed will be determined by
the marginal benefit of doing so.\189\ Lowering information collection
costs (through a requirement to submit interactive data information)
should increase this benefit. If this is so, then there should be no
degradation in the level of information quality as a result of changes
in third-party provider behavior under an interactive data reporting
regime. However, if one competitor in the industry can subsidize its
operations through an alternative revenue stream, both quality and
competition may suffer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ Also, we expect that because the proposed rules would
require the use of the XBRL interactive data standard, XBRL's being
an open standard would facilitate the development of related
software, some of which may, as a result, be made available to the
public for free or at a relatively low cost and provide the public
alternative ways to view and analyze interactive data information
provided under our proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described more fully above, we believe the
liability protections for interactive data would be necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors. Moreover, the protections would also be consistent with
the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Investment Company Act.

B. Changes to the Voluntary Program

    The proposed amendments would no longer allow mutual funds to
submit risk/return summary information in interactive data format
through the voluntary program after the compliance date for the
mandatory rules and would enable investment companies that are
registered under the Investment Company Act, business development
companies, and other entities that report under the Exchange Act and
prepare their financial statements in accordance with Article 6 of
Regulation S-X to submit exhibits containing a tagged schedule of
portfolio holdings without having to submit other financial information
in interactive data format. The changes to the voluntary program are
intended to help further evaluate the usefulness to investors, third-
party information providers, investment companies, the Commission, and
the marketplace of interactive data and, in particular, of submitting
portfolio holdings information in interactive data format. Because
compliance with the proposed amendments will be voluntary, the
Commission estimates that the impact of the proposal will be limited.
However, because the submission of portfolio holdings information in
interactive data format 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 portfolio
holdings information in interactive data format.
    Further, submitting portfolio holdings information in interactive
data format has the potential to help streamline the delivery of
portfolio holdings information, and provide investors and others with
improved tools to compare funds and other entities. As with the filing
of risk/return summary information in interactive data format, we
believe that the potential to streamline the delivery of portfolio
holdings information and to provide investors and others with improved
comparison tools could promote efficiency and competition through more
efficient allocation of investments by investors and more efficient
allocation of assets among competing funds and other investment
products.
    In the future, companies that currently provide tagging and
dissemination of EDGAR data may experience decreased demand for their
services. The availability of interactive data on the Commission's
electronic filing system 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 and other entities 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.

C. Request for Comment

    We request comment on whether the proposals, if adopted, would
promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation or have an
impact or burden on competition. Commenters are requested to provide
empirical data and other factual support for their views, if possible.

VII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603. It relates to proposed amendments that
would require mutual funds to provide risk/return summary information
to the Commission and on their Web sites in interactive data format and
that would enable investment companies and other entities to submit
exhibits through the voluntary program containing a tagged schedule of
portfolio holdings without having to submit other financial information
in interactive data format.

A. Reasons for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Action

Submission of Risk/Return Summary Information Using Interactive Data
    The main purpose of the proposed amendments is to make risk/return
summary information easier for investors to analyze while assisting in
automating regulatory filings and business information processing.
Currently, mutual funds are required to file their registration
statements in a traditional format that provides static text-based
information. We believe that providing the risk/return summary
information these filings contain in interactive data format would:
     Enable investors and others to search and analyze the
information dynamically;
     Facilitate comparison of mutual fund performance; and
     Possibly provide a significant opportunity to automate
regulatory filings and business information processing with the
potential to increase the speed, accuracy, and usability of risk/return
summary disclosure.
Changes to the Voluntary Program
    The main purpose of the proposed amendments to the voluntary
program is to help us evaluate the usefulness to investors, third party
information providers, funds, the Commission, and the marketplace of
interactive data and, in particular, of submitting portfolio holdings
information in interactive data format. We believe the proposed

changes to the voluntary program would enable us to further study the
extent to which interactive data enhance the comparability of portfolio
holdings information, the usefulness of interactive data for
dissemination, and our staff's ability to review and assess the
accuracy and adequacy of that data. The proposed changes to the
voluntary program also would help us assess the effect of interactive
data on the quality and transparency of portfolio holdings information,
as well as the compatibility of interactive data with the Commission's
disclosure requirements.
    More specifically, we believe that the proposed changes to the
voluntary program would better enable us to study the extent to which
interactive data would:
     Enable investors and others to search and analyze the
information dynamically;
     Facilitate comparison of portfolio holdings among funds
and other entities; and
     Possibly provide a significant opportunity to reduce the
resources needed for data analysis.
    In addition, we believe the proposed changes to the 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 interactive 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 the amendments under sections 5, 6, 7, 10, 19(a),
and 28 of the Securities Act,\190\ sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15(d),
23(a), 35A, and 36 of the Exchange Act,\191\ sections 314 and 319 of
the Trust Indenture Act \192\ and sections 6(c), 8, 24, 30, and 38 of
the Investment Company Act.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ 15 U.S.C. 77e, 77f, 77g, 77s(a), and 77z-3.
    \191\ 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, and
78mm.
    \192\ 15 U.S.C. 77nnn and 77sss.
    \193\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-6(c), 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-29, and 80a-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Small Entities Subject to the Proposed Rules

    The proposed amendments would affect mutual funds that are small
entities. For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility 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.\194\ Approximately 127 mutual funds registered on Form N-1A meet
this definition.\195\ All of these mutual funds would become subject to
the proposed rules to require submission of risk/return summary
information using interactive data. Regarding the proposed changes to
the voluntary program, a smaller subset of small entity mutual funds
may voluntarily submit tagged portfolio holdings information, but,
because submitting portfolio holdings information would be voluntary,
we anticipate that only mutual fund complexes with sufficient resources
would elect to participate. To date, no small entity mutual funds have
elected to participate in the current voluntary program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ 17 CFR 270.0-10.
    \195\ This estimate is based on analysis by the Division of
Investment Management staff of publicly available data as of
December 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

Submission of Risk/Return Summary Information Using Interactive Data
    All mutual funds subject to the proposed rules would be required to
submit risk/return summary information to the Commission in interactive
data format and, if they have a Web site, post the interactive data on
their Web site. We believe that, in order to submit risk/return summary
information in interactive data format, mutual funds in general and
small entities in particular likely would need to prepare and then
submit the interactive data by expending internal labor hours in
connection with either or both of
     Purchasing, learning, and using software packages designed
to prepare risk/return summary information in interactive format; and
     Hiring and working with a consultant or filing agent.

We believe that mutual funds would incur relatively little cost in
connection with the requirement to post the interactive data on their
Web site because the requirement applies only to mutual funds that
already have a Web site.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ The internal labor and external costs required to comply
with the proposed rules are discussed more fully in Parts IV and V
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes to the Voluntary Program
    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
submitting portfolio holdings information in interactive data format,
the associated burden on the Commission's electronic filing system, and
the possible effect of the proposed changes to the voluntary program on
those entities that use the data from the Commission's electronic
filing system would be minimal.
    No registrant would be required to submit documents in interactive
data format under the proposed changes to the voluntary program. The
submission of portfolio holdings information in interactive data format
would require a participant to tag the portfolio holdings information
already provided in required disclosures and to submit exhibits to its
filing. Volunteers may also need to purchase software or retain a
consultant to assist in creating interactive data exhibits.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    We believe that the proposed amendments would not duplicate, or
overlap, or conflict with, other federal rules.

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. In
connection with the proposed amendments, we considered several
alternatives, including the following:
     Establishing different compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities;
     Further clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying the
proposed requirements;
     Using performance rather than design standards; and
     Providing an exemption from the proposed requirements, or
any part of them, for small entities.
Submission of Risk/Return Summary Information Using Interactive Data
    We believe that, as to small entities, differing compliance,
reporting or timetable requirements, a partial or complete exemption
from the proposed requirements, or the use of performance rather than
design standards would be inappropriate because these approaches would
detract from the long-term completeness and uniformity of the
interactive data format risk/return summary information database. Less
long-term completeness and uniformity would reduce the extent to which
the proposed requirements would enable

investors and others to search and analyze the information dynamically;
facilitate comparison of mutual fund performance; and, possibly,
provide a significant opportunity to automate regulatory filings and
business information processing with the potential to increase the
speed, accuracy, and usability of risk/return summary information
disclosure. We note, however, that all mutual funds, including small
entities, would not be subject to the proposed requirements until after
December 31, 2009.\198\ We solicit comment, however, on whether
differing compliance, reporting, or timetable requirements, a partial
or complete exemption, or the use of performance rather than design
standards would be consistent with our described main goal of making
risk/return summary information easier for investors to analyze while
assisting in automating regulatory filings and business information
processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ In this regard, in Part II.B. of this release we note that
the additional time is intended to permit mutual funds to plan for
and implement the interactive data reporting process after having
the opportunity to experiment with the voluntary program. We also
there solicit comment on the appropriate timetable for smaller
mutual fund complexes (which would include small entities) and note
that the additional time also is intended to enable us to monitor
the voluntary program and, if necessary, make appropriate
adjustments to the timetable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are considering whether further clarifying, consolidating, or
simplifying the proposed interactive data submission and posting
requirements would be appropriate. Based in part on our experience with
the voluntary program, we believe that the proposed requirements are
sufficiently clear and straightforward (although, we seek comment on
this).
Changes to the Voluntary Program
    The purpose of the proposed amendments is to help us evaluate the
usefulness to investors, third party information providers, mutual
funds and other entities, the Commission, and the marketplace of
interactive data and, in particular, of submitting portfolio holdings
information in interactive data format. Submitting documents containing
portfolio holdings information in interactive data format would be
entirely voluntary.
    We have considered different or simpler procedures for small
entities, but for interactive data to provide benefits such as ready
comparability there cannot be alternative procedures in place for
different entities. Similarly, in order to achieve the benefits of
interactive data, use of a single technology is necessary. If we
determine to require the filing of portfolio holdings information in
interactive data format in the future, we will look to the results of
the voluntary program, including those of the proposed changes to the
voluntary program, 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. Solicitation of Comment

    We encourage comments with respect to any aspect of this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. In particular, we request comments
regarding:
     The number of small entities that may be affected by the
proposed amendments;
     The existence or nature of the potential impact of the
proposed amendments on small entities as discussed in this analysis;
and
     How to quantify the impact of the proposed amendments.
    We ask those submitting comments to describe the nature of any
impact and provide empirical data supporting the extent of the impact.
These comments will be considered in the preparation of the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, if the proposed amendments are
adopted, and will be placed in the same public file as comments on the
proposed amendments themselves.

VIII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, a rule is ``major'' if it has resulted, or is likely to
result in:
     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.
    We request comment on whether our proposals would be a ``major
rule'' for purposes of SBREFA. We solicit comment and empirical data
on:
     The potential effect on the U.S. economy on an annual
basis;
     Any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; and
     Any potential effect on competition, investment, or
innovation.

IX. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing the 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]; sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15(d),
23(a), 35A, and 36 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n,
78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, and 78mm]; sections 314 and 319 of the Trust
Indenture Act [15 U.S.C. 77nnn and 77sss]; and sections 6(c), 8, 24,
30, and 38 of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-6(c), 80a-8,
80a-24, 80a-29, and 80a-37].

List of Subjects

17 CFR Parts 232 and 239

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Parts 230, 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 230--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

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

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77b, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r,
77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78t, 78w,
78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-28, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37,
unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
    2. Amend Sec.  230.485 by adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) A registrant's ability to file a post-effective amendment,
other than an amendment filed solely for purposes of submitting an
Interactive Data File, under paragraph (b) of this section is
automatically suspended if a registrant fails to submit and post on its
Web site any Interactive Data File exhibit as required by General
Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A. A suspension under this paragraph
(c)(3) shall become effective at such time as the registrant fails to
submit or post an Interactive Data File as required by General
Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A. Any such suspension, so long as it is
in effect, shall apply to any post-effective amendment that is filed
after the suspension becomes effective, but shall not apply to any
post-effective amendment that was filed before the suspension became
effective. Any suspension shall apply only to the ability to file a
post-effective amendment pursuant to paragraph (b) of

this section and shall not otherwise affect any post-effective
amendment. Any suspension under this paragraph (c)(3) shall terminate
as soon as a registrant has submitted and posted to its Web site the
Interactive Data File as required by General Instruction C.3.(g) of
Form N-1A.
* * * * *

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

    3. The authority citation for Part 232 continues to read in part 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.
* * * * *
    4. Further amend Sec.  232.11 as published at 73 FR 32827, June 10,
2008 by revising the definitions of ``Interactive Data in Viewable
Form'' and ``Related Official Filing'' to read as follows:

Sec.  232.11  Definition of terms used in part 232.

* * * * *
    Interactive Data in Viewable Form. The term Interactive Data in
Viewable Form means the financial statements, financial statement
schedules, financial statement footnotes, and, in the case of an open-
end management investment company registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, risk/return summary information that
    (1) Are displayed when an Interactive Data File is converted from
machine-readable computer code into human-readable text through
software the Commission provides; and
    (2) Are displayed through such conversion identically in all
material respects to the corresponding financial statements, financial
statement schedules, financial statement footnotes, and, in the case of
an open-end management investment company registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940, risk/return summary information in the
Related Official Filing.
* * * * *
    Related Official Filing. The term Related Official Filing means the
ASCII or HTML format part of the official filing with which an
Interactive Data File appears as an exhibit or, in the case of a filing
on Form N-1A, the ASCII or HTML format part of an official filing that
contains the information to which an Interactive Data File corresponds.
* * * * *
    5. Further amend Sec.  232.202 as published at 73 FR 32828, June
10, 2008, by revising Note 4 to read as follows:

Sec.  232.202   Continuing hardship exemption.

* * * * *

    Note 4 to Sec.  232.202: Failure to submit or post, as
applicable, the Interactive Data File as required by Rule 405 by the
end of the continuing hardship exemption if granted for a limited
period of time, will result in ineligibility to use Forms S-3, S-8,
and F-3 (Sec. Sec.  239.13, 239.16b and 239.33 of this chapter),
constitute a failure to have filed all required reports for purposes
of the current public information requirements of Rule 144(c)(1)
(Sec.  230.144(c)(1) of this chapter), and, pursuant to Rule
485(c)(3), suspend the ability to file post-effective amendments
under Rule 485(b) (Sec.  230.485 of this chapter).

    6. Further amend Sec.  232.401 as published at 73 FR 32828, June
10, 2008, by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  232.401  XBRL-Related Document submissions.

    (a) Only an electronic filer that is an investment company
registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et
seq.), a ``business development company'' as defined in section
2(a)(48) of that Act, or an entity that reports under the Exchange Act
and prepares its financial statements in accordance with Article 6 of
Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 et seq.) is permitted to participate in
the voluntary XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) program. An
electronic filer that participates in the voluntary XBRL program may
submit XBRL-Related Documents (Sec.  232.11) in electronic format as an
exhibit to: the filing to which the XBRL-Related Documents relate; an
amendment to such filing, 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. The XBRL-Related Documents must comply with the content and
format requirements of this section, be submitted as an exhibit to a
form that contains the disclosure required by this section and be
submitted in accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual and, as applicable,
one of Item 601(b)(100) of Regulation S-K (Sec.  229.601(b)(100) of
this chapter), Item 601(b)(100) of Regulation S-B (Sec.
228.601(b)(100) of this chapter), Form 20-F (Sec.  249.220f of this
chapter), Form 6-K or Sec.  270.8b-33 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    7. Amend Sec.  232.401 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv),
(d)(1)(i), (d)(2) introductory text, and (d)(2)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  232.401   XBRL-Related Document submissions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) If the electronic filer is an investment company registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.), a
``business development company'' as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of that
Act, or an entity that reports under the Exchange Act and prepares its
financial statements in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17
CFR 210.6-01 et seq.), Schedule I--Investments in Securities of
Unaffiliated Issuers (Sec.  210.12-12 of this chapter).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) That the financial information contained in the XBRL-Related
Documents is ``unaudited'' or ``unreviewed,'' as applicable;
* * * * *
    (2) The disclosures required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section
must appear within the XBRL-Related Documents as a tagged data element
and, as applicable, in:
    (i) The exhibit index of a Form 10-K (Sec.  249.310 of this
chapter), 10-Q (Sec.  249.308a of this chapter), 10 (Sec.  249.210 of
this chapter), 10-SB (Sec.  249.210b of this chapter), 10-KSB (Sec.
249.310b of this chapter), 10-QSB (Sec.  249.308b of this chapter) or
20-F;
* * * * *
    8. Further amend Sec.  232.405 as published beginning at 73 FR
32828, June 10, 2008 by:
    a. Revising Preliminary Note 1;
    b. Revising paragraph (a);
    c. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (b)(1) and adding the
phrase ``If the electronic filer is not an open-end management
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of
1940,'' to the beginning of the paragraph;
    d. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) as paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii);
    e. Redesignating Note to paragraph (b) as Note to paragraph (b)(1);
    f. Adding paragraph (b)(2); and
    g. Adding a sentence at the end of the Note to Sec.  232.405.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  232.405   Interactive Data File submissions and postings.

Preliminary Notes
    1. Sections 405 and 406 of Regulation S-T (Sec. Sec.  232.405 and
232.406) apply to electronic filers that submit or post Interactive
Data Files. Item 601(b)(101) of Regulation S-K (Sec.  229.601(b)(101)
of this chapter), Item 101 of the Instructions as to Exhibits of Form
20-F (Sec.  249.220f of this chapter), and General Instruction C.3.(g)
of Form N-1A (Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter) specify
when electronic filers are required or permitted to submit or post an
Interactive Data File (Sec.  232.11), as further described below in the
Note to Section 405.
* * * * *
    (a) Content, Format, Submission and Posting Requirements--General.
An Interactive Data File (Sec.  232.11) must:
    (1) Comply with the content, format, submission and Web site
posting requirements of this section;
    (2) Be submitted only by an electronic filer either required or
permitted to submit an Interactive Data File as specified by Item
601(b)(101) of Regulation S-K (Sec.  229.601(b)(101) of this chapter),
Item 101 of the Instructions as to Exhibits of Form 20-F (Sec.
249.220f of this chapter), or General Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A
(Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter), as applicable, as an
exhibit to a form that contains the disclosure required by this
section;
    (3) Be submitted in accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual and, as
applicable, Item 601(b)(101) of Regulation S-K, Item 101 of the
Instructions as to Exhibits of Form 20-F, or General Instruction
C.3.(g) of Form N-1A; and
    (4) Be posted on the electronic filer's corporate Web site, if any,
in accordance with, as applicable, Item 601(b)(101) of Regulation S-K,
Item 101 of the Instructions as to Exhibits of Form 20-F, or General
Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A.
    (b)(1) Content--Categories of Information Presented. If the
electronic filer is not an open-end management investment company
registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, * * *
    (i) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (2) If the electronic filer is an open-end management investment
company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, an
Interactive Data File must consist of only a complete set of
information for all periods required to be presented in the
corresponding data in the Related Official Filing, no more and no less,
from the risk/return summary information set forth in Items 2 and 3 of
Form N-1A.
* * * * *

    Note to Sec.  232.405: * * * For an issuer that is an open-end
management investment company registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, General Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A
specifies the circumstances under which an Interactive Data File
must be submitted as an exhibit and be posted to the company's Web
site, if any.

* * * * *

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

    9. The authority citation for Part 239 continues to read in part 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--RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

    10. 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.
* * * * *
    11. 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-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, for any information that does not relate to all of the
classes in a filing, each 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 filing to which it relates.

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

    12. 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.
* * * * *
    13. Amend Form N-1A (referenced in Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A)
by adding a paragraph (g) to General Instruction C.3.
    The addition is to read as follows:

    Note: The text of Form N-1A does not, and these amendments will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

FORM N-1A

* * * * *

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

* * * * *

C. Preparation of the Registration Statement

* * * * *
    3. Additional Matters:
* * * * *
    (g) Interactive Data File. An Interactive Data File (Sec.  232.11
of this chapter) is required to be submitted to the Commission and
posted on the Fund's Web site, if any, in the manner provided by Rule
405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.  232.405 of this chapter) for any
registration statement or post-effective amendment thereto on Form N-1A
that includes or amends information provided in response to Items 2
and/or 3. The Interactive Data File must be submitted as an exhibit to
Form N-1A and must be named ``EX-101'' as specified in the EDGAR Filer
Manual and be submitted in such a manner that will permit the
information for each series and, for any information that does not
relate to all of the classes in a filing, each class of the Fund to be
separately identified. The Interactive Data File must be submitted as
an amendment to the registration statement to which the Interactive
Data File relates. The amendment must be submitted after the
registration statement or post-effective amendment that contains the
related information becomes effective but not later than 15 business
days after the effective date of that registration statement or post-
effective amendment.

    Dated: June 10, 2008.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-13356 Filed 6-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P