2016) (relating the reduction in information processing costs
associated with XBRL to a decrease in tax avoidance). But see
Elizabeth Blankespoor, Brian P. Miller, and Hal White (2014) Initial
evidence on the market impact of the XBRL mandate, Review of
Accounting Studies, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 1468-1503. See also
Singh (discussing the benefits of structured disclosure for filers,
investors, and other data users; stating that ``costs (or savings)
and benefits realized are largely dependent on how financial
executives view XBRL mandates: narrowly, as a simple compliance
requirement, or more broadly, as a business reporting supply chain
standardization opportunity to streamline and cost effectively
enhance a broad range of compliance processes . . . SMEs [small and
medium-sized enterprises] should balance the cost of tagging against
the cost of capital. XBRL filings make the financial information of
SMEs more accessible to investors and lead to a reduction in the
cost of capital'') and Arif Perdana, Alastair Robb, and Fiona Rohde
(2015) An integrative review and synthesis of XBRL research in
academic journals, Journal of Information Systems, Volume 29, Issue
1, pp. 115-153 (surveying academic research on XBRL).
    Several commenters also have addressed the benefits of XBRL.
See, e.g., XBRL US Letter 3 (stating that ``[t]he benefits of
standardized financials for companies--regardless of size--are
significant in terms of faster delivery of comparable data to market
and greater usability,'' and ``[d]ata providers can process XBRL-
formatted data much more quickly and inexpensively than traditional
data types''); Data Coalition Letter 2 (stating that ``[f]or
structured data to be most effective for regulators and investors,
it is important to have a complete data set for all reporting
entities''); Letter from Merrill Corporation (Jul. 19, 2016),
available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-16/s70616-153.pdf
(stating that the tagging requirement should be the same for all
registrants); Letter from New York State Society of CPAs (Jul. 19,
2016), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-16/s70616-150.pdf (stating that, if any companies are exempt from using XBRL,
their reports would not be readily comparable to other reports,
thereby leading investors to assign a greater risk profile to these
companies); Letter from Morningstar (Jul. 20, 2016), available at
http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-16/s70616-179.pdf; Letter from CFA
Institute (Mar. 2, 2016), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-20-15/s72015-50.pdf (stating that the expanded use of XBRL is an
opportunity to leverage data, enhance analysis, and facilitate
company comparisons); Letter from AFSCME (Jul. 21, 2016), available
at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-16/s70616-269.pdf (stating that
``data-tagging facilitates more accurate, less costly extraction and
use of information, creating more usable disclosure'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we lack the ability to quantify the incremental contribution
of Inline XBRL to potential increases in the use of XBRL data and the
broader benefits of XBRL, we anticipate that the contribution would
depend on several factors, including the extent of XBRL data quality
improvements following the transition to Inline XBRL, changes in the
extent of reliance by investors, other market participants, and other
data users on XBRL data and technological innovation in XBRL
preparation and analytics solutions.

    Inline XBRL also could enhance how users view XBRL data related to
Commission disclosures. With Inline XBRL, the EDGAR system would enable
users to view information about the reported XBRL data embedded in
Inline XBRL filings on the Commission's Web site, using any recent
standard Internet browser, without the need to access a separate
document. With this feature, when a user views a filing submitted with
Inline XBRL on EDGAR, the user would be able to see tags and the
related meta data while viewing the HTML filing. The software enabling
this feature has been made freely available in an effort to facilitate
the creation of cost effective Inline XBRL viewers and analytical
products.\170\ The aggregate benefit to data users associated with
Inline XBRL would depend on the current level of XBRL data use,\171\
the potential increase in XBRL data use following the transition to
Inline XBRL and the data quality gains associated with Inline XBRL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ See http://www.sec.gov/structureddata/edgarvalandrender.
    \171\ See note 78 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed elimination of the Web site posting requirement is
expected to yield cost savings. For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, we estimate that the elimination of the Web site posting
requirement would result in the average reduction in the annual
internal burden of approximately four hours per filer for operating
companies and approximately one hour per filing for mutual funds.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See Section V.B.1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Costs
    The proposed requirement to adopt Inline XBRL would result in costs
for filers, XBRL preparation software vendors, filing agents and data
users.
a. Filers
    We expect that changes to the XBRL requirements would affect
filers.\173\ The proposed Inline XBRL requirements could result in an
initial increase in compliance costs for filers associated with the
transition to Inline XBRL technology. Filers could switch to Inline
XBRL either by using Inline XBRL enabled preparation software that they
develop or license or by obtaining Inline XBRL preparation services
from a third-party service provider (filing agent). Filers that prepare
XBRL filings in-house would need to replace or update their XBRL
preparation software with versions that include Inline XBRL features
and capabilities. Filers that rely on filing agents for XBRL
preparation may also incur an incremental cost of Inline XBRL upgrades
(to the extent that the cost incurred by filing agents is passed on to
filers).\174\ Filers also may incur an internal cost to train their
personnel to use Inline XBRL and to comply with the Inline XBRL
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See Section II.B.1 above for estimates of the number of
filers.
    \174\ We expect this cost to be lower if there is more
competition among filing agents and software vendors that offer
Inline XBRL capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Filers that use software that is already enabled for Inline XBRL or
that can readily be modified to accommodate the Inline XBRL format and
filers that use filing agents that use such software, are expected to
incur a minimal initial cost.\175\ We expect the cost to be lower for
filers and filing agents that presently rely on integrated XBRL filing
solutions, which can more easily accommodate the use of Inline XBRL.
With such software solutions, filing in Inline XBRL could require only
a very minor adjustment to the filing process, similar to choosing the
format in which the file would be saved out of several available
formats. Due to greater reliance of mutual fund filers on integrated
XBRL filing solutions and a higher level of automation of the XBRL
preparation process, we expect the majority of mutual fund filers to
incur a minimal initial economic cost of adopting Inline XBRL.\176\
Although we recognize the likelihood of somewhat greater initial costs
being incurred by filers that do not use such software or such filing
agents, we believe that, as a general matter, the initial economic cost
due to the transition to Inline XBRL technology would be small. In
particular, we expect this to be the case because the rules we are
proposing today do not modify the substance of the XBRL requirements,
and thus, do not affect the process of selecting tags from the taxonomy
for the required disclosures (the disclosure mapping process that
precedes the creation of the XBRL submission and accounts for the
overwhelming majority of the XBRL preparation time and cost). The
creation of the Inline XBRL document would occur after the mapping of
company disclosures to the taxonomy is completed and would consist
largely of a software function, which could include a broad range of
file formats (e.g., HTML, PDF, XBRL, Inline XBRL, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ See note 95 above.
    \176\ See Section II.B.1 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Filers that currently prepare the Related Official Filing in the
ASCII format may incur additional costs unless they already have
switched to HTML to comply with the amendments adopted in the
Hyperlinks Adopting Release. In particular, those filers would need to
switch to the HTML format because Inline XBRL cannot be used with ASCII
filings. We expect that the majority of filers would not be affected by
this change.\177\ We do not expect the costs of switching to HTML to be
significant given that the cost of software with built-in HTML features
is minimal, although we recognize that any fixed costs would have a
greater effect on smaller entities. Overall, given the minimal costs
involved, we expect that this requirement would not have significant
competitive effects for filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See note 36 above. Smaller filers are more likely to file
in ASCII, based on staff analysis of EDGAR filings by operating
company filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we expect that filers would continue to incur ongoing costs
of compliance with the XBRL requirements,\178\ we do not expect these
ongoing costs to increase due to Inline XBRL. Overall, for most filers,
we anticipate that the transition to Inline XBRL might, over time,
somewhat reduce the ongoing cost of compliance with the XBRL
requirements due to the removal of the requirement to create a separate
instance document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ See 2009 Financial Statement Information Adopting Release,
at 6800-6802, 6804-6806; 2009 Risk/Return Summary Adopting Release,
at 7763-7766, 7768-7770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that some filers may incur an increased burden if their
filings contain a major technical error in the XBRL data. In
particular, currently, when there is a major technical error with XBRL
data submitted in an exhibit, the EDGAR validation system causes the
exhibit to be removed from the submission, but the submission as a
whole is not suspended.\179\ With Inline XBRL, the EDGAR validation
system would suspend an Inline XBRL filing that contains a major
technical error in embedded XBRL data, which would require the filing
to be revised before it could be accepted by EDGAR. Based on staff
observations, very few XBRL exhibits are suspended, in part, because
filers and filing agents routinely use tools the Commission makes
available to submit test filings to help identify and correct technical
errors prior to EDGAR filing. Similar tools to submit test filings
would be available to Inline XBRL filers. Because we expect that Inline
XBRL filers would utilize available tools to submit test filings to
identify and correct any technical errors prior to

EDGAR filing, we believe that such suspensions should be similarly rare
for Inline XBRL filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ During filing and validation, the EDGAR Renderer creates
error and warning messages when issues with the XBRL data are
identified. Certain errors would result in the XBRL exhibits being
``stripped'' from a filing, although the rest of the filing is
accepted in EDGAR. For information about the effect of error and
warning messages displayed during EDGAR filing, see Question A.3 of
OSD FAQs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since Inline XBRL would involve embedding tags into the filing
itself and since most funds already use integrated XBRL preparation
solutions, as discussed above, we propose to eliminate the 15 business
day filing period and require that risk/return summary information in
XBRL be submitted on or before the date the registration statement or
post-effective amendment to it under Rule 485 containing the related
information becomes effective. We also propose to eliminate the 15
business day filing period currently provided to mutual funds to file
the required XBRL exhibit after the filing of the related form of
prospectus under Rule 497(c) or (e). The increased timeliness of the
availability of risk/return summary information from such filings in
the XBRL format is expected to benefit investors, other market
participants, and other data users by reducing the time required to
obtain risk/return summary information in a structured format that can
facilitate analysis and comparisons across funds.
    At the same time, we recognize that more timely availability of
free risk/return summary information in XBRL may reduce demand for some
subscription products and services of mutual fund data aggregators, to
the extent that their value added is reduced by the timely availability
of free XBRL information. We further recognize that eliminating the 15-
day period would eliminate the flexibility with respect to the timing
of the preparation and review of XBRL data that is presently afforded
to mutual fund filers, most of which currently submit XBRL data after
the post-effective amendment or form of prospectus to which it relates,
and potentially increase ongoing XBRL compliance costs for mutual fund
filers and their filing agents (that may pass these costs on to
filers). We lack data to quantify the anticipated cost increase, but
expect that any such increase would be partially mitigated by the
relatively high degree of integration and automation in mutual fund
XBRL preparation, the technological improvements in XBRL preparation
since the effectiveness of the 2009 requirements, and the efficiencies
due to embedding tags into the filing. However, we solicit comment from
filers, filing agents, and data users on the anticipated economic costs
and benefits of this proposed change.
    For post-effective amendments to registration statements under Rule
485(b)(1)(i), (ii), (v), or (vii),\180\ we propose to permit filers to
submit XBRL concurrently with the filing. The proposed change would
eliminate the requirement to make a second filing that solely contains
the required XBRL exhibit for such post-effective amendments. The
proposed change would enable filers to fully realize efficiency gains
in XBRL preparation due to embedding XBRL into the filing and
potentially decrease overall preparation and filing costs associated
with the submission of a second post-effective amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ As discussed above, in our experience, filings under Rule
485(b)(1)(i), (ii), (v), or (vii) and Rule 497(c) or (e) generally
are not subject to revision after filing. The remaining filings
containing risk/return summary information, including registration
statements on Form N-1A and post-effective amendments under Rule
485(a) and other paragraphs of Rule 485(b) may be subject to
revision after filing and prior to effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not anticipate any change in filer costs relative to the
baseline with respect to officer certifications or auditor
assurance.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ Currently, the financial statement information Interactive
Data File is excluded from the officer certification requirements
under Rules 13a-14(f) and 15d-14(f) of the Exchange Act [17 CFR
240.13a-14 and 240.15d-14]. Furthermore, auditors are not required
to apply AS 2710 (Other Information in Documents Containing Audited
Financial Statements), AS 4101 (Responsibilities Regarding Filings
Under Federal Securities Statutes), or AS 4105 (Reviews of Interim
Financial Information) (prior to December 31, 2016, AU Sections 550,
711 and 722, respectively) to the Interactive Data File submitted
with a company's reports or registration statements. In addition,
filers are not required to obtain assurance on their Interactive
Data File or involve third parties, such as auditors or consultants,
in the creation of their Interactive Data File. See 2009 Financial
Statement Information Adopting Release, at 6796-6797. However, the
Commission has previously stated that XBRL is part of an issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures. See 2009 Financial Statement
Information Adopting Release, at 6797. As our proposal to require
the submission of interactive data in the Inline XBRL format relates
only to the manner of submitting the Interactive Data File and not
the data that comprises the file, at this time we do not propose to
change these positions pertaining to the exclusion of the
Interactive Data File from the officer certification and assurance
requirements.
    Risk/return summary information Interactive Data File
requirements do not require mutual funds to involve third parties,
such as auditors or consultants, in the creation of the interactive
data provided as an exhibit to a mutual fund's Form N-1A filing,
including assurance. With respect to registration statements, SAS 37
(currently AS 4101) was issued in April 1981 to address the
auditor's responsibilities in connection with filings under the
federal securities statutes. With respect to existing risk/return
summary information Interactive Data File requirements, an auditor
is not required to apply AS 4101 to the Interactive Data File. See
2009 Risk/Return Summary Adopting Release, at 7760-7761 and footnote
183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The termination of the 2005 XBRL Voluntary Program could
potentially adversely affect participating filers, to the extent that
they presently benefit from the availability of their financial
statement information in XBRL. The effects on participating filers
would likely be mitigated by the cost savings from no longer preparing
and submitting interactive data. Given close to zero participation in
the program, we expect the aggregate economic effects of terminating
the program on filers to be negligible.
b. XBRL Preparation Software Vendors and Filing Agents
    Changes to the XBRL format may affect XBRL preparation software
vendors and filing agents.\182\ XBRL preparation software vendors and
filing agents that adopt Inline XBRL technology may have to expend
resources to upgrade or replace software to accommodate the Inline XBRL
format and may also have to train staff in the Inline XBRL technology
and compliance requirements. These additional costs may be relatively
greater for software vendors and filing agents that do not already use
Inline XBRL enabled software or software that can be readily upgraded
to enable Inline XBRL submissions or processing.\183\ Some of the
initial cost of switching to Inline XBRL could be mitigated by the
availability of the royalty-free Inline XBRL specification and
transformation registry, which defines how the values of facts that
appear in HTML documents are converted to the required data types for
XBRL.\184\ Because Inline XBRL already is used in several other
countries for various regulatory purposes, it is also possible that the
transition costs associated with adopting Inline XBRL for Commission
filings may be lower for some software vendors or filing agents to the
extent that the expertise gained from Inline XBRL filings in other
jurisdictions can be used to facilitate the transition of Commission
filings to Inline XBRL.\185\ We note that some of these costs may be
passed on to filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ See, e.g., FERF Study for a discussion of XBRL preparation
vendors.
    \183\ See note 95 above.
    \184\ See note 89 above.
    \185\ See, e.g., XBRL White Paper at 9 (indicating that, in the
UK context, Inline XBRL is an established and growing means of
reporting in XBRL, with a large number of software vendors providing
applications for preparing or processing Inline XBRL reports and a
range of accounting firms having strong experience in its use). See
also note 94 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requiring the use of Inline XBRL may also have effects on
competition in the market for XBRL preparation and filing services.
Initially, XBRL preparation software vendors and filing agents that do
not currently have or cannot readily implement Inline XBRL capabilities
would be at a competitive disadvantage

relative to XBRL preparation software vendors and filing agents that
currently have these capabilities. The fixed component of the initial
cost of any software upgrades and training could contribute to a
relative competitive disadvantage for smaller software vendors and
filing agents with fewer customers compared to larger software vendors
and filing agents. Additionally, to the extent that software vendors
and filing agents that have experience with Inline XBRL in other
jurisdictions can implement the Inline XBRL capability for Commission
filings at a lower cost, these vendors and filing agents would be at a
relative competitive advantage to software vendors and filing agents
without such experience. We note that the phase-in periods associated
with the rule could give software vendors and filing agents additional
time to develop and update software, which could potentially mitigate
some of these competitive effects. Ultimately, the net effect on
competition is unclear but is expected to evolve over time, depending
on the speed and cost of switching to Inline XBRL by XBRL preparation
software vendors and filing agents and the rate of entry, if any, of
new software vendors and filing agents that can readily implement
Inline XBRL.
    The termination of the 2005 XBRL Voluntary Program could
potentially adversely affect filing agents and software vendors, to the
extent that participating filers use their XBRL preparation services or
products. Given close to zero participation in the program, however, we
expect the aggregate economic effects of terminating the program on
filing agents and software vendors to be negligible.
c. Data Users
    With the transition to Inline XBRL, data users, such as investors,
analysts, other market participants, filers, data aggregators, and
others, may incur costs to modify their software or algorithms to be
able to extract the XBRL data.\186\ We believe, however, that such
costs would be minimal because the proposed amendments do not affect
the taxonomy or the scope of the information required to be tagged.
Additionally, the software enabling users to view information about the
reported XBRL data contained in embedded tags and to extract XBRL data
has been made freely available to the public in an effort to facilitate
the creation of cost effective Inline XBRL viewers and analytical
products.\187\ The availability of this open-source software should
decrease potential costs for data users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ For example, XBRL extraction algorithms may need to be
adjusted to download files from a different URL, to use different
filenames, and to parse XBRL information from a different file
format.
    \187\ See http://www.sec.gov/structureddata/edgarvalandrender
and http://arelle.org/download/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Inline XBRL document may be smaller than the combined
size of the separate XBRL instance and HTML documents, the Inline XBRL
document may be larger than a standalone XBRL instance document or HTML
document, which may slightly increase processing times for some data
users that previously only processed either HTML documents or XBRL
instance documents. Thus, depending on how data users currently access
XBRL data,\188\ some users may be affected by the increase in the size
of files with XBRL data, such as through increased processing times,
after the transition to Inline XBRL. However, in light of the advanced
state of existing computing technology and internet connectivity
speeds, we do not expect this effect to be a significant limitation for
most users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ Currently, EDGAR users may extract machine-readable XBRL
information from the ZIP archive with the XBRL exhibits submitted by
the filer, from a separate XML document with XBRL data, or from the
combined ``complete submission file'' (which contains the contents
of the EDGAR header, all HTML and XBRL data submitted by the filer,
and HTML and other files produced by EDGAR Rendering). See also note
67 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The elimination of the Web site posting requirement could impose
costs on some data users by reducing their access to XBRL data about
individual filers. However, industry commenters have observed very
limited use of financial statement information XBRL data from corporate
Web sites.\189\ Based on our experience, we believe that data users can
efficiently and reliably access XBRL data through EDGAR for purposes of
aggregation and processing. Thus, we do not expect data users to incur
significant costs from the elimination of the requirement to post the
XBRL data on the Web site. We have not received comments or data from
other sources regarding the incidence of use of XBRL data posted on
mutual fund Web sites. We solicit comment below on this issue.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ See note 144 above.
    \190\ See Sections III.B.5 and III.C.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The termination of the 2005 XBRL Voluntary Program could
potentially adversely affect data users, to the extent that they
presently benefit from the availability of participating filers'
financial statement information in XBRL. The aggregate economic effects
on data users, however, would likely be negligible given close to zero
participation in the program.
3. Compliance Dates
    The proposed amendments include a phase-in schedule for the
mandatory use of Inline XBRL for financial statement information and
risk/return summary information. Thus, the costs and benefits of Inline
XBRL would be deferred for some categories of filers.
    To the extent that the initial cost of adopting Inline XBRL has a
fixed component that is independent of filer size, it would have a
relatively greater effect on smaller filers. In light of this, under
the phase-in schedules we are proposing, smaller filers would be given
additional time to adopt Inline XBRL, which would defer the initial
cost for small filers and partly mitigate the associated competitive
effects. We further anticipate that late adopters would incur a lower
switching cost in absolute terms than early adopters.\191\ In
particular, as time elapses after the initial group of filers adopts
Inline XBRL, we expect XBRL filing agents and XBRL preparation software
vendors to accumulate Inline XBRL expertise and refine technological
solutions offered to filers. Furthermore, if the market for Inline XBRL
preparation services and software becomes more competitive over time,
the switching cost incurred by subsequent filers may be reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ See also 2009 Financial Statement Information Adopting
Release, at 6785 (discussing the effects on early versus late
adopters).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposed amendments would permit filers to
use Inline XBRL prior to the compliance date for their respective
category. A high rate of such early transition to Inline XBRL would
accelerate the economic impact of Inline XBRL.
    Until all filers adopt Inline XBRL, data users would have to
maintain the capability to extract data in both the Inline XBRL and the
traditional XBRL formats, which may be incrementally costlier than
using a single format (e.g., if all filers were required to use Inline
XBRL at the same time and if early switching to Inline XBRL were not
allowed). Given the very limited scope of modifications to the XBRL
data extraction algorithm that data users are likely to incur from
switching to Inline XBRL and the public availability of open-source
tools to facilitate Inline XBRL data use, we expect this potential cost
to be minimal.
4. Alternatives
    One alternative would be to require Inline XBRL for all filers as
of the same date. Faster transition to Inline XBRL on

a wide scale could accelerate the realization of efficiency and data
quality gains and shorten the time period during which data users would
need to maintain the capability to process XBRL data in both formats.
However, compared to the proposed amendments, this alternative would
accelerate initial compliance costs for smaller filers.
    As another alternative, we could apply a different phase-in
schedule for operating company or mutual fund filers, based on filer
status, size \192\ or other criteria. The tradeoff between the costs
and benefits of an alternative phase-in schedule would depend on the
number of affected filers, the net effect of Inline XBRL on the cost of
compliance with XBRL requirements and on the quality of XBRL data for
different categories of affected filers, the timing of the phase-in and
the number of early adopters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ For example, the XBRL requirements for financial statement
information adopted in 2009 initially applied to domestic and
foreign large accelerated U.S. GAAP filers with a worldwide public
common equity float above $5 billion as of the end of the second
fiscal quarter of their most recently completed fiscal year,
beginning with their first quarterly report on Form 10-Q, or annual
report on Form 20-F or Form 40-F, that contained financial
statements for fiscal periods ending on or after June 15, 2009. See
2009 Financial Statement Information Adopting Release, at 6781-6782
and Rule 405(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Inline XBRL requirements for financial statement information would
apply to all operating company filers, including SRCs,\193\ EGCs,\194\
and FPIs,\195\ that currently are required to submit financial
statement information in XBRL. Similarly, Inline XBRL requirements for
risk/return summary information would apply to all mutual fund filers
that currently are required to submit risk/return summary information
in XBRL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ Based on staff analysis of EDGAR filings, we estimate that
SRCs filed approximately 3,000 Forms 10-K, excluding amendments and
co-registrants, during calendar year 2015. See note 59 above.
    \194\ Based on staff analysis of EDGAR filings, we estimate that
approximately 1,600 filers have identified themselves as EGCs in
filings with the Commission during calendar year 2015. The estimate
excludes EGCs that did not identify themselves as EGCs in filings
made during that year. See note 59 above.
    \195\ Based on staff analysis of EDGAR filings, we estimate that
there were approximately 800 filers of Forms 20-F and 40-F during
calendar year 2015. The estimate excludes FPIs that filed only
domestic forms. See note 59 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative, we could exempt one or more of these categories
of filers from the Inline XBRL requirement or create a new category of
exempt filers (based on assets, revenues or other criteria). To the
extent that some filers that are currently subject to XBRL requirements
would not be required to adopt Inline XBRL under these alternatives,
the alternatives would likely result in smaller economic costs and
benefits compared to the amendments we are proposing today.
    Compared to the proposed amendments, the alternative of exempting
smaller filers from the Inline XBRL requirements rather than deferring
their compliance date would place those smaller filers that do not have
the Inline XBRL capability at a smaller competitive disadvantage to
larger filers, to the extent that smaller filers are more likely to be
affected by the initial fixed cost of switching to Inline XBRL.
However, compared to the proposed amendments, the alternative of
exempting such filers from submitting their financial information in
Inline XBRL could undermine the data quality benefits expected from
Inline XBRL and diminish the ability of investors, analysts and the
Commission to evaluate the information submitted by the exempted
filers.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ See note 140 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, compared to the proposed amendments, the alternative
of exempting FPIs from the Inline XBRL requirements could place those
filers at a relative competitive advantage to domestic filers,
particularly, smaller domestic filers, to the extent that exempt filers
would not incur the cost of switching to Inline XBRL. It also would
deprive investors and users of structured data of the associated
benefits of Inline XBRL.
    The proposed amendments would eliminate the existing 15 business
day filing period for mutual funds to submit risk/return summary
information in XBRL after the effectiveness of the registration
statement or post-effective amendment or the filing of a form of
prospectus pursuant to Rule 497(c) or (e). The proposed amendments also
would permit mutual fund filers to submit Interactive Data Files
concurrently with post-effective amendments to registration statements
filed pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii), (v), or (vii) of Rule
485. As an alternative, we could preserve the 15 business day filing
period after the effective date of the post-effective amendments but
allow filers to submit XBRL concurrently with the filing of these post-
effective amendments. Under such an alternative, some funds could avail
themselves of the efficiencies in XBRL preparation afforded by the
embedding of XBRL data directly into the filing and eliminate an
additional post-effective amendment containing only the XBRL exhibit,
while other funds that benefit from the flexibility and the additional
time to prepare and review XBRL data would continue to be able to take
advantage of the 15 business day filing period. However, given the high
degree of automation and integration in existing mutual fund XBRL
preparation practices, the cost savings for filers (and filing agents,
which may pass these cost savings onto filers) under this alternative
compared to the proposed amendments would likely be small. Importantly,
under this alternative, data users would not be able to derive the same
benefit of improved timeliness of the availability of XBRL data that
they would under the proposed amendments.
    As another alternative, we could adopt a different filing period
after the effective date of the registration statement or post-
effective amendment to it under Rule 485 or the filing date of the form
of prospectus under Rule 497, such as 1 day, 5 days, 10 days, 20 days,
or 30 days. Similar to the discussion above, such alternatives would
present a tradeoff between the flexibility accorded to filers by way of
a longer filing period and the timeliness of the availability of risk/
return summary information in XBRL to data users.
    As another alternative, we could require filers to submit
Interactive Data Files concurrently with any mutual fund filing
containing a risk/return summary, including initial registration
statements or post-effective amendments under other paragraphs of Rule
485. Under such an alternative, in the event of revisions to the
registration statement or post-effective amendment prior to
effectiveness, filers would need to revise and review the associated
XBRL data multiple times, resulting in potentially higher XBRL
preparation costs. Such an alternative may also result in the
availability of XBRL information for registration statements and post-
effective amendments that have not been declared effective, which may
introduce investor confusion.
    The proposed Inline XBRL amendments would be mandatory. An
alternative would be to allow but not require the use of Inline XBRL.
Compared to the proposed amendments, a fully voluntary Inline XBRL
program would lower costs for those filers and filing agents that do
not find Inline XBRL to be cost efficient. However, a voluntary program
would also reduce potential data quality benefits compared to mandatory
Inline XBRL to the extent that Inline XBRL use would be more widespread
under a mandatory rule than a voluntary one. It also would potentially
impose an incremental cost on data users associated with maintaining
indefinitely the capability

to process data in the XBRL and Inline XBRL formats.
5. Request for Comment
    We request comment on all aspects of our economic analysis,
including the potential costs and benefits of the proposed amendments
and whether the rules, if adopted, would promote efficiency,
competition and capital formation or have an impact on investor
protection. In particular, we invite filers, software vendors, filing
agents, data users, government agencies and other commenters that have
experience with Inline XBRL to provide information on the costs and
benefits of adopting and implementing Inline XBRL for different
categories of XBRL filers and data users. Commenters are requested to
provide empirical data, estimation methodologies and other factual
support for their views, in particular, on the estimates of costs and
benefits. Our specific questions follow below.
    23. Would Inline XBRL requirements affect data quality and the use
of XBRL data by investors, other market participants, and other data
users? Please explain.
    24. What are the likely effects of changes to XBRL data quality due
to Inline XBRL on the availability of information about filers and
informational efficiency? What are the likely effects of Inline XBRL,
if any, on capital formation?
    25. How would Inline XBRL affect the efficiency of the XBRL filing
process for different categories of filers, relative to the current
XBRL requirements?
    26. What are the likely effects of the proposed Inline XBRL
requirements on the cost of compliance with XBRL requirements for
different categories of filers, relative to the current XBRL
requirements? What would be the initial cost to filers, if any, to
switch to using Inline XBRL? Would this cost be likely to affect
competition among filers? What would be the ongoing cost, if any, of
using Inline XBRL as compared to the ongoing cost of the current XBRL
requirements?
    27. What cost, if any, would ASCII filers incur from switching to
HTML?
    28. What are the likely cost savings for filers from the
elimination of the Web site posting requirement?
    29. For filing agents and software vendors that do not currently
have the Inline XBRL capability, what would be the cost to switch to
Inline XBRL and how would it affect the price of XBRL preparation
services or software? How would the proposed Inline XBRL requirements
affect competition in the market for XBRL preparation services and XBRL
preparation and analysis software?
    30. Does XBRL preparation for mutual funds differ from the XBRL
preparation practices of operating companies? Are most funds using
integrated XBRL preparation solutions? Does the use of risk/return
summary XBRL data differ from the use of financial statement
information XBRL data?
    31. How would the economic effects of the proposed Inline XBRL
requirements for mutual fund risk/return summary information differ
from the economic effects of the Inline XBRL requirements for financial
statement information?
    32. What would the impact of the proposed elimination of the 15
business day period for the submission of risk/return summary
information in XBRL be on filers, filing agents, and data users?
    33. What other economic effects are likely to be associated with
the proposed Inline XBRL requirements?

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. Background

    The proposed amendments contain ``collection of information''
requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(``PRA'').\197\ They would amend the collections of information
``Interactive Data'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0645) and ``Mutual Fund
Interactive Data'' (OMB Control No. 3235-0642). These collections of
information require filers to submit specified information to the
Commission as an exhibit to their current and periodic reports and
registration statements and post it on their Web sites, if any, in
interactive data format. The information required is referred to as an
``Interactive Data File.'' The proposed amendments would require
filers, on a phased in basis, to embed part of the Interactive Data
File within an HTML document using Inline XBRL and include the rest in
an exhibit to that document. The amendments also would eliminate the
Web site posting requirement. Compliance with the amendments would be
mandatory according to the phase-in schedule but filers that have not
yet been phased in could comply voluntarily. Responses to the
collections of information would not be kept confidential by the
Commission and there is no mandatory retention period for the
collections of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Reporting and Cost Burden Estimates

1. Registration Statement and Periodic Reporting
    Form S-1 (OMB Control No. 3235-0065), Form S-3 (OMB Control No.
3235-0073), Form S-4 (OMB Control No. 3235-0324) and Form S-11 (OMB
Control No. 3235-0067) prescribe information that a filer must disclose
to register certain offers and sales of securities under the Securities
Act. Form F-1 (OMB Control No. 3235-0258), Form F-3 (OMB Control No.
3235-0256), Form F-4 (OMB Control No. 3235-0325) and Form F-10 (OMB
Control No. 3235-0380) prescribe information that a foreign private
issuer must disclose to register certain offers and sales of securities
under the Securities Act. Form 10-K (OMB Control No. 3235-0063)
prescribes information that a filer must disclose annually to the
market about its business. Form 10-Q (OMB Control No. 3235-0070)
prescribes information that a filer must disclose quarterly to the
market about its business. Form 10 (OMB No. 3235-0064) prescribes
information that a filer must disclose when registering a class of
securities pursuant to the Exchange Act. Form 8-K (OMB No. 3235-0060)
prescribes information an issuer must disclose to the market upon the
occurrence of certain specified events and enables an issuer to
disclose other information voluntarily. Form 20-F (OMB Control No.
3235-0288) and Form 40-F (OMB No. 3235-0381) are used by a foreign
private issuer both to register a class of securities under the
Exchange Act as well as to provide its annual report required under the
Exchange Act. Form 6-K (OMB No. 3235-0116) prescribes information that
a foreign private issuer must disclose regarding certain specified
changes to its business and securities pursuant to the Exchange Act and
enables an issuer to disclose other information voluntarily. The
information required by the Interactive Data collection of information
corresponds to specified financial information required by these forms.
    Form N-1A (OMB Control No. 3235-0307) 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 Mutual Fund
Interactive Data collection of information corresponds to specified
risk/return summary information now required by Form N-1A and is
required to appear in exhibits to registration statements on

Form N-1A and Rule 497 submissions and on fund Web sites. Although the
Mutual Fund Interactive Data filing requirements are included in Form
N-1A, the Commission has separately reflected the burden for these
requirements in the burden estimate for Mutual Fund Interactive Data
and not in the burden for Form N-1A.
    We estimate that the proposed Inline XBRL requirement for financial
statement information would result in an initial increase in the
existing internal burden of XBRL requirements (56 hours per response)
by eight hours to switch to Inline XBRL. This increase in burden would
be borne only for the initial response that uses Inline XBRL. We
further estimate that reductions in review time would result in a
decrease of two hours per response in the existing internal burden,
beginning with the initial response and continuing on an ongoing
basis.\198\ We also estimate that the average filer would incur a small
increase in external cost of $5 per response (from $6,170 to $6,175) on
an ongoing basis, beginning in the first year of compliance for its
phase-in category. Based on the number of filers that we expect to be
phased in during each of the first three years under the
requirements,\199\ the number of filings that we expect those filers to
make that would require interactive data \200\ and the internal burden
hour and external cost estimates per response discussed above, we
estimate that, over the first three years of the Inline XBRL
requirements, switching to the Inline XBRL format would decrease the
aggregate average yearly burden of financial statement information XBRL
requirements by 20,900 hours of in-house personnel time \201\ and
increase the aggregate average yearly cost of services of outside
professionals by $109,663.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ Thus, for the initial response using Inline XBRL, we
estimate that filers would experience a net increase in hour burden
of 6 hours (8 hours - 2 hours = 6 hours).
    \199\ Based on staff analysis of Form 10-K filings during
calendar year 2015, approximately 26% were filed by large
accelerated filers and approximately 18% by accelerated filers. For
purposes of this estimate, we assume that these percentages are
representative of the percentages of filers in different phase-in
categories.
    \200\ We estimate that in order to comply with the Interactive
Data collection requirements, approximately 8,601 respondents per
year would each submit an average of approximately 4.5 responses per
year for an estimated total of 38,705 responses.
    \201\ The first response is estimated to incur a net additional
burden of six hours per response and the remaining responses are
estimated to incur a net decrease in burden of two hours per
response. The calculation below considers the aggregate average
yearly change in internal burden incurred by each of the three
categories of filers during the first three years of the proposed
Inline XBRL requirements. Filers that are phased in during year two
are assumed to incur no change in burden during year one. Filers
that are phased in during year three are assumed to incur no change
in burden during years one and two.
     Filers phased in during year one: 8,601 x 26%. Average yearly
change in internal burden per filer: [6 + (3.5 + 4.5 + 4.5) x (-2)]/
3 = -6.33 hours. Aggregate average yearly change in internal burden
for filers phased in during year one: 8,601 x 26% x (-6.33 hours) =
-14,156 hours.
     Filers phased in during year two: 8,601 x 18%. Average yearly
change in internal burden per filer: [0 + 6 + (3.5 + 4.5) x (-2)]/3
= -3.33 hours. Aggregate average yearly change in internal burden
for filers phased in during year two: 8,601 x 18% x (-3.33 hours) =
-5,155 hours.
     Filers phased in during year three: 8,601 x 56%. Average yearly
change in internal burden per filer: [0 + 0 + 6 + 3.5 x (-2)]/3 = -
0.33 hours. Aggregate average yearly change in internal burden for
filers phased in during year three: 8,601 x 56% x (-0.33 hours) = -
1,589 hours.
    Aggregate average yearly change in internal burden: -14,156 -
5,155 - 1,589 = -20,900 hours.
    \202\ Filers are estimated to incur an additional $5 per
response beginning with the first year of compliance for their
phase-in category. The calculation below considers the aggregate
average yearly change in external cost incurred by each of the three
categories of filers during the first three years after the
effectiveness of the proposed Inline XBRL requirements. Filers that
are phased in during year two are assumed to incur no change in
external cost during year one. Filers that are phased in during year
three are assumed to incur no change in external cost during years
one and two.
     Filers phased in during year one: 8,601 x 26%. Average yearly
change in external cost per filer: [$5 x 3 x 4.5]/3 = $22.5.
Aggregate average yearly change in external cost for filers phased
in during year one: 8,601 x 26% x $22.5 = $50,316.
     Filers phased in during year two: 8,601 x 18%. Average yearly
change in external cost per filer: [$0 + $5 x 2 x 4.5]/3 = $15.
Aggregate average yearly change in external cost for filers phased
in during year two: 8,601 x 18% x $15 = $23,223.
     Filers phased in during year three: 8,601 x 56%. Average yearly
change in external cost per filer: [$0 + $0 + $5 x 4.5]/3 = $7.5
Aggregate average yearly change in external cost for filers phased
in during year three: 8,601 x 56% x $7.5 = $36,124.
    Aggregate average yearly change in external cost: $50,316 +
$23,223 + $36,124 = $109,663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The elimination of the Web site posting requirement also is
expected to reduce the paperwork burden. We previously estimated that
operating companies would incur an average of approximately four burden
hours per filer per year to post interactive data to their Web sites.
Based on our estimate of 8,601 filers, we estimate that the elimination
of the Web site posting requirement would decrease the aggregate
average yearly burden on operating company filers by 34,404 hours.\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ 8,601 x (-4) = -34,404 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We previously estimated the aggregate average yearly burden of the
existing XBRL requirements for operating companies as 2,167,480 hours
of in-house personnel time \204\ and $238,809,850 in the cost of
services of outside professionals.\205\ We estimate that in the first
three years under the proposed amendments, the aggregate average yearly
burden of XBRL requirements for operating companies would be 2,112,176
hours of in-house personnel time \206\ and $238,919,513 in the cost of
services of outside professionals, which represents a decrease of
55,304 hours of in-house personnel time \207\ and an increase of
$109,663 in the cost of services of outside professionals \208\ or a
decrease of 6.43 hours of in-house personnel time per filer \209\ and
an increase of $12.75 in the cost of services of outside professionals
per filer.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ 8,601 x 4.5 = 38,705 responses. 38,705 responses x 56
hours per response = 2,167,480 hours.
    \205\ 8,601 x 4.5 = 38,705 responses. 38,705 responses x $6,170
per response = $238,809,850.
    \206\ 2,167,480 - 55,304 = 2,112,176 hours. See note 204 above
and note 207 below.
    \207\ -20,900 - 34,404 = -55,304 hours. See notes 201 and 203
above.
    \208\ $238,809,850 + $109,663 = $238,919,513. See notes 202 and
205 above.
    \209\ -55,304 hours/8,601 filers = -6.43 hours per filer. See
note 207 above.
    \210\ $109,663/8,601 filers = $12.75 per filer. See note 202
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to mutual fund risk/return summaries, we previously
estimated that each mutual fund would submit one Interactive Data File
as an exhibit to a registration statement or a post-effective amendment
thereto, and that 36% of mutual funds would submit an additional
Interactive Data File as an exhibit to a filing pursuant to Rule 485(b)
or Rule 497. We also previously estimated that tagging and submitting
mutual fund risk/return data in XBRL format requires 11 hours per
response and posting interactive data to the fund Web site requires one
additional hour per response. In addition, we previously estimated an
external cost burden of $890 for the cost of goods and services
purchased to comply with the current Interactive Data requirements,
such as for software and/or the services of consultants and filing
agents. The cost burden does not include the cost of the hour burden
described above.
    We estimate that the proposed Inline XBRL requirement for mutual
fund risk/return summary information would result in an initial
increase in internal burden by two hours to switch to Inline XBRL. This
increase in burden would be borne only for the initial response that
uses Inline XBRL. We further estimate that there would be a reduction
in review time that would result in a decrease in internal burden of
approximately 0.5 hours per response, beginning with the initial
response and

continuing on an ongoing basis.\211\ Considering the phase-in of the
requirement would occur over a two-year period and examining the impact
on the aggregate average yearly burden of different filer
categories,\212\ we estimate that the aggregate average yearly internal
burden of risk/return summary information XBRL requirements would
increase by 1,538 hours of in-house personnel time,\213\ based on the
estimate of 11,106 mutual funds.\214\ We also estimate that the average
mutual fund would incur an increase in software costs of $10 per mutual
fund on an ongoing annual basis, beginning in the first year of
compliance for its phase-in category with the proposed Inline XBRL
requirement. Based on the estimate of 11,106 mutual funds,\215\ we
estimate that the proposed Inline XBRL requirement would result in an
increase of $86,281 in the aggregate average yearly cost of services of
outside professionals.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ Thus, for the initial response using Inline XBRL, we
estimate that mutual funds would experience a net increase in hour
burden of 1.5 hours (2.0 hours - 0.5 hours = 1.5 hours).
    \212\ See note 132 above and accompanying text. Based on staff
analysis of data obtained from Morningstar Direct, as of June 2016,
we estimate that a $1 billion asset threshold for groups of related
investment companies would provide an extended compliance period to
approximately 2/3, or approximately 67%, of all mutual funds
affected by the proposed Inline XBRL requirement (i.e.,
approximately 7,441 of 11,106 affected mutual funds).
    \213\ See id; see also note 60 above and accompanying text. The
calculation below considers the aggregate average yearly change in
burden incurred by each of the two categories of funds during the
first three years of the proposed Inline XBRL requirements. Funds
that are phased in during year two are assumed to incur no change in
burden in year one.
    Funds phased in during year one: 33% x 11,106 funds = 3,665
funds. Aggregate average yearly change in internal burden for funds
phased in during year one: 3,665 funds x {[1.5 + (0.36 + 1.36 +
1.36) x (-0.5)]/3{time}  hours per fund = -49 hours.
    Funds phased in during year two: 67% x 11,106 funds = 7,441
funds. Aggregate average yearly change in internal burden for funds
phased in during year two: 7,441 funds x {[0 + 1.5 + (0.36 + 1.36) x
(-0.5)]/3{time}  hours per fund = 1,587 hours.
    Aggregate average yearly change in burden: -49 + 1,587 = 1,538
hours.
    \214\ See note 60 above and accompanying text.
    \215\ Id.
    \216\ Funds are estimated to incur an additional $10 per year
beginning with the first year of compliance for their phase-in
category. The calculation below considers the aggregate average
yearly change in external cost incurred by each of the two
categories of funds during the first three years of the proposed
Inline XBRL requirements. Funds that are phased in during the second
year are assumed to incur no change in external cost in the first
year after the effectiveness of the proposed Inline XBRL
requirements.
     Funds phased in during year one: 33% x 11,106 funds = 3,665
funds. Average yearly change in external cost per fund: [$10 + $10 +
$10]/3 = $10 per fund. Aggregate average yearly change in external
cost for all funds phased in during year one: 3,665 funds x $10 per
fund = $36,650.
     Funds phased in during year two: 67% x 11,106 funds = 7,441
funds. Average yearly change in external cost per fund: [$0 + $10 +
$10]/3 = $6.67 per fund. Aggregate average yearly change in external
cost for all funds phased in during year two: 7,441 funds x $6.67
per fund = $49,631.
    Aggregate average yearly change in external cost: $36,650 +
$49,631 = $86,281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the elimination of the Web site posting requirement is
expected to reduce the paperwork burden. We previously estimated that
mutual funds incur an average of approximately one burden hour per
response to post interactive data to their Web sites, in addition to
the burden of tagging and submitting interactive data to the
Commission. Based on our estimate of 15,104 responses, we estimate that
the elimination of the web posting requirement would decrease the
aggregate average yearly burden on mutual funds by 15,104 hours of in-
house personnel time.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ 11,106 funds x 1.36 responses = 15,104 responses. 15,104
responses x (-1) hour = -15,104 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We previously estimated that the existing XBRL requirements require
mutual funds to expend 172,320 hours of in-house personnel time and
$9,397,510 in the cost of services of outside professionals, based on
the estimate of 10,559 funds.\218\ Based on the estimate of 11,106
funds, the existing XBRL requirements for mutual funds would require
181,248 hours of in-house personnel time \219\ and $9,884,340 in the
cost of services of outside professionals.\220\ We estimate that in the
first three years of the Inline XBRL requirements, based on the
estimate of 11,106 funds, the use of Inline XBRL and the elimination of
the Web site posting requirement would change the aggregate average
yearly burden of XBRL requirements for mutual funds to 167,682 hours of
in-house personnel time \221\ and $9,970,621 in the cost of services of
outside professionals,\222\ which would represent a decrease of 13,566
hours of in-house personnel time \223\ and an increase of $86,281 in
the cost of services of outside professionals \224\ or a decrease of
1.22 hours of in-house personnel time per fund \225\ and an increase of
$7.77 in the cost of services of outside professionals per fund.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ Currently, approved burden estimates include 11 hours per
response to comply with the tagging and submission of XBRL data, one
hour per response to comply with the Web site posting requirement,
and $890 per fund in the cost of services of outside professionals.
    10,559 funds x 1.36 responses per fund = 14,360 responses.
14,360 responses x (11 + 1) hours per response = 172,320 hours.
    10,559 funds x $890 per fund = $9,397,510.
    \219\ 11,106 funds x 1.36 responses per fund = 15,104 responses.
15,104 responses x (11 + 1) hours per response = 181,248 hours.
    \220\ 11,106 funds x $890 per fund = $9,884,340.
    \221\ 181,248 - 13,566 = 167,682 hours. See notes 219 above and
223 below.
    \222\ $9,884,340 + $86,281 = $9,970,621. See notes 216 and 220
above.
    \223\ 1,538 - 15,104 = -13,566 hours. See notes 213 and 217
above.
    \224\ See note 216 above.
    \225\ -13,566 hours/11,106 funds = -1.22 hours per fund. See
note 223 above.
    \226\ $86,281/11,106 funds = $7.77 per fund. See note 216 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are submitting these revised burden estimates to OMB for review
in accordance with the PRA and its implementing regulations at this
time.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Regulation S-K and Regulation S-T
    Regulation S-K (OMB Control No. 3235-0071) specifies information
that must be provided in filings under both the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act. Regulation S-T (OMB Control No. 3235-0424) specifies the
requirements that govern the electronic submission of documents. The
proposed amendments to these items would revise rules under Regulations
S-K and S-T. Any changes in the paperwork burden arising from these
amendments, however, would be reflected in the Interactive Data
collection of information and the Mutual Fund Interactive Data
collection of information. The rules in Regulations S-K and S-T do not
impose any separate burden. We assign one burden hour each to
Regulations S-K and S-T for administrative convenience to reflect the
fact that these regulations do not impose any direct burden on
filers.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that no funds
participate in the 2005 XBRL Voluntary Program each year. This
information collection, therefore, imposes no hour burden. The
proposed termination of the program would therefore not result in
changes in burden, except the elimination of one hour associated
with this information collection for administrative purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Request for Comment

    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Commission solicits
comments to: (1) Evaluate whether the collections of information are
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2)
evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (3) determine whether there are ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on those who are required

to respond, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Persons submitting comments on the collection of information
requirements should direct the comments to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington,
DC 20503, and send a copy to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference
to File No. S7-03-17. Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the
Commission with regard to these collections of information should be in
writing, refer to File No. S7-03-17, and be submitted to the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-2736. 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 assured
of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \229\ requires the
Commission, in promulgating rules under Section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act,\230\ to consider the impact of those
rules on small entities. The Commission has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') in accordance with Section
603 of the RFA.\231\ This IRFA relates to the proposed amendments to
Item 601 of Regulation S-K, Rules 11, 201, 202, 401 and 405 of
Regulation S-T, Rules 144, 485 and 497 under the Securities Act, Forms
S-3, S-8, F-3 and F-10 under the Securities Act, Forms 10-Q, 10-K, 20-
F, 40-F and 6-K under the Exchange Act and Form N-1A under the
Investment Company Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \230\ 5 U.S.C. 553.
    \231\ 5 U.S.C. 603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Reasons for, and Objectives of, the Action

    The primary reason for, and objective of, the proposed amendments
is to improve the usefulness and quality of, and, over time, to
decrease the cost of preparing for submission, certain information
filers are required to submit to the Commission in interactive data
form.

B. Legal Basis

    We are proposing the amendments under Sections 7, 10, and 19(a) of
the Securities Act,\232\ Sections 3, 12, 13, 15(d), 23(a), and 35A of
the Exchange Act,\233\ and Sections 8, 24, 30, and 38 of the Investment
Company Act.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ 15 U.S.C. 77g, 77j, and 77s(a).
    \233\ 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78o(d), 78w(a), and 78ll.
    \234\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-29, and 80a-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Small Entities Subject to the Proposed Amendments

    For purposes of the RFA, under our rules, an entity, other than an
investment company, is a ``small business'' or ``small organization''
if it had total assets of $5 million or less on the last day of its
most recent fiscal year.\235\ We estimate that there are approximately
841 \236\ filers other than investment companies that may be considered
small entities and are required to file reports with the Commission
under the Exchange Act. All of these filers would become subject to the
proposed rules by the end of the phase-in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ 17 CFR 240.0-10(a).
    \236\ The estimate is based on staff analysis of XBRL data
submitted with EDGAR filings of Forms 10-K, 20-F and 40-F with
fiscal periods ending between January 31, 2015-January 31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, for purposes of the RFA, 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.\237\ We
estimate that approximately 78 mutual funds registered on Form N-1A
meet this definition.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ 17 CFR 270.0-10.
    \238\ This estimate is based on staff analysis of publicly
available data as of December 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    All filers subject to the proposed amendments currently are
required to file an Interactive Data File entirely as an exhibit to
their Commission filings. Under the proposed amendments, these filers
would be required to embed part of the Interactive Data File within an
HTML document using Inline XBRL and include the rest in an exhibit to
that document. The proposed requirement to adopt Inline XBRL might
result in a minimal initial switching cost for filers but, as discussed
in Section III.C.1 above, overall, for most filers, we anticipate that
the use of Inline XBRL might, over time, reduce the ongoing cost of
compliance with the XBRL requirements due to the removal of the
requirement to include the entire Interactive Data File within an
exhibit. We also expect that the proposed elimination of the
requirement to post the Interactive Data File on filers' Web sites
would reduce their compliance costs.
    The proposed Inline XBRL requirement is expected to result in an
initial cost of transition for filers when the requirement is
implemented. Filer costs may include obtaining Inline XBRL preparation
software or service capabilities from their own or third-party sources.
Filers that already use their own or third-party Inline XBRL enabled
filing solutions or filing solutions that can readily be modified to
accommodate the Inline XBRL format are expected to incur a minimal
initial cost.\239\ Although we recognize the likelihood of somewhat
greater initial costs being incurred by filers that do not use such
filing solutions, we believe that the initial cost to transition to
Inline XBRL for those filers would still be small. In particular, we
expect the cost to be minimal because the rules we are proposing today
consist primarily of an electronic format change. The proposed
amendments do not modify the substance of the XBRL requirements, and
thus, do not affect the disclosure mapping process that precedes the
creation of the XBRL submission and accounts for the overwhelming
majority of the XBRL preparation burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ See note 95 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Filers that currently prepare the Related Official Filing in the
ASCII format would incur additional costs unless they already have
switched to HTML to comply with the amendments adopted in the
Hyperlinks Adopting Release. In particular, those filers would need to
switch to the HTML format because Inline XBRL cannot be used with ASCII
filings. Although this may impose a cost on some filers, we expect that
the majority of filers would not be affected by this change.\240\ We
acknowledge that the burden may be disproportionate for smaller
entities. However, even if there is a disproportionate impact, we do
not expect the costs of switching to HTML to be significant because the
software tools to prepare and file documents in HTML are widely used
and available at a minimal cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ See note 36 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Duplicative, Overlapping or Conflicting Federal Rules

    The Commission believes that there are no federal rules that
duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed amendments.

F. Significant Alternatives

    The RFA directs us to consider significant alternatives that would
accomplish the stated objectives of our amendments, while minimizing
any significant adverse impact on small entities. Specifically, we
considered the following alternatives: (1) establishing different
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarifying,
consolidating or simplifying compliance and reporting requirements for
small entities under the rule; (3) using performance rather than design
standards; and (4) exempting small entities from coverage of all or
part of the proposed amendments.
    The proposed amendments include different compliance schedules
based on filer size and use of accounting principles. Small entities
would not be subject to the proposed requirements until year three of
the phase-in (for operating companies) and until year two (for mutual
funds). This different compliance timetable would enable these filers
to defer the burden of any additional cost, learn from filers that
comply earlier and take advantage of any increases in the quality or
decreases in the price of Inline XBRL preparation services or software
that arise from expertise or competition that develops prior to their
phase-in.
    The elimination of the Web site posting requirement would
consolidate and simplify the compliance and reporting requirements for
all companies with respect to their interactive data. We do not believe
that further clarification, consolidation, or simplification for small
entities would be appropriate because we believe a phased in mandatory
conversion to Inline XBRL is necessary to realize the data quality
benefits of Inline XBRL.
    We are not proposing a partial or complete exemption from the
proposed requirements or the use of performance rather than design
standards because we believe that long-term uniformity in interactive
data submissions facilitates automated analysis across filers and that
the use of Inline XBRL may reduce the time and effort required to
prepare XBRL filings, simplify the review process for filers, improve
the quality of structured data and, by improving data quality, increase
the use of XBRL data by investors, other market participants, and other
data users. We also note that the proposed amendments to eliminate the
Web site posting requirement are expected to decrease the burden on all
filers, including small entities.
    We solicit comment, however, on whether additional differing
compliance, reporting or timetable requirements; further clarification,
consolidation, or simplification; a partial or complete exemption; or
the use of performance rather than design standards would be consistent
with our stated objective to improve the usefulness and quality of, and
to decrease the cost of preparing for submission, the information that
filers are required to submit to the Commission in interactive data
form.

G. General Request for 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 discussed in the analysis; and
     How to quantify the impact of the proposed amendments.
    Commenters are asked to describe the nature of any impact and
provide empirical data supporting the extent of the impact. Such
comments will be considered in the preparation of the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, if the proposals are adopted, and will be placed
in the same public file as comments on the proposed amendments
themselves.

VI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (SBREFA) \241\ the Commission must advise the OMB as to
whether a proposed regulation constitutes a ``major'' rule. Under
SBREFA, a rule is considered ``major'' where, if adopted, it results or
is likely to result in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
(either in the form of an increase or a decrease);
     A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; or
     Significant adverse effects on competition, investment or
innovation.
    If a rule is ``major'', its effectiveness will generally be delayed
for 60 days pending Congressional review.
    We request comment on whether our proposed amendments would be a
``major rule'' for purposes of SBREFA. We solicit comment and empirical
data on
     The potential annual effect on the economy;
     Any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; and
     Any potential effect on competition, investment, or
innovation.
    We request those submitting comments to provide empirical data and
other factual support for their views to the extent possible.

VII. Statutory Basis and Text of Proposed Rule and Form Amendments

    The amendments contained in this document are being proposed under
the authority set forth in Sections 7, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities
Act, Sections 3, 12, 13, 15(d), 23(a), and 35A of the Exchange Act and
Sections 8, 24, 30, and 38 of the Investment Company Act.

List of Subjects

17 CFR Part 229

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Part 230

    Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

17 CFR Part 232

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Parts 239 and 249

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Part 274

    Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission is proposing
to amend title 17, chapter II of the Code of the Federal Regulations as
follows:

PART 229--STANDARD INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING FORMS UNDER SECURITIES
ACT OF 1933, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND ENERGY POLICY AND
CONSERVATION ACT OF 1975--REGULATION S-K

0
1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77e, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77k, 77s, 77z-2,
77z-3, 77aa(25), 77aa(26), 77ddd, 77eee, 77ggg, 77hhh, 77iii, 77jjj,
77nnn, 77sss, 78c, 78i, 78j, 78j-3, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78u-
5, 78w, 78ll, 78 mm, 80a-8, 80a-9, 80a-20, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-
31(c), 80a-37, 80a-38(a), 80a-39, 80b-11 and 7201 et seq.; 18 U.S.C.
1350; Sec. 953(b) Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1904; Sec. 102(a)(3)
Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 309; and Sec. 84001, Pub. L. 114-94, 129
Stat.1312.

0
2. Amend Sec.  229.601 by revising paragraph (b)(101) to read as
follows:

Sec.  229.601  (Item 601) Exhibits.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (101) Interactive Data File. Where a registrant prepares its
financial statements in accordance with either generally accepted
accounting principles as used in the United States or International
Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting
Standards Board, an Interactive Data File (Sec.  232.11 of this
chapter) is:
    (i) Required to be submitted. Required to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Sec.  232.405 of this chapter if
the registrant does not prepare its financial statements in accordance
with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 to 210.6-10.), except
that an Interactive Data File:
    (A) First is required for a periodic report on Form 10-Q (Sec.
249.308a of this chapter), Form 20-F (Sec.  249.220f of this chapter)
or Form 40-F (Sec.  249.240f of this chapter), as applicable;
    (B) Is required for a registration statement under the Securities
Act only if the registration statement contains a price or price range;
and
    (C) Is required for a Form 8-K (Sec.  249.308 of this chapter) only
when the Form 8-K contains audited annual financial statements that are
a revised version of financial statements that previously were filed
with the Commission that have been revised pursuant to applicable
accounting standards to reflect the effects of certain subsequent
events, including a discontinued operation, a change in reportable
segments or a change in accounting principle, and, in such case, the
Interactive Data File would be required only as to such revised
financial statements regardless whether the Form 8-K contains other
financial statements.
    (ii) Permitted to be submitted. Permitted to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Sec.  232.405 of this chapter if
the:
    (A) Registrant does not prepare its financial statements in
accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 to 210.6-
10.); and
    (B) Interactive Data File is not required to be submitted to the
Commission under paragraph (b)(101)(i) of this section.
    Instruction to paragraphs (b)(101)(i) and (ii): When an Interactive
Data File is submitted as provided by Sec.  232.405(a)(3)(i) of this
chapter, the exhibit index must include the word ``Inline'' within the
title description for any eXtensible Business Reporting Language
(XBRL)-related exhibit.
    (iii) Not permitted to be submitted. Not permitted to be submitted
to the Commission if the registrant prepares its financial statements
in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 to
210.6-10).
* * * * *

PART 230--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

0
3. The authority citation for Part 230 continues to read in part as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77b, 77b note, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h,
77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78o-
7 note, 78t, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-28, 80a-29, 80a-
30, and 80a-37, and Pub. L. 112-106, sec. 201(a), sec. 401, 126
Stat. 313 (2012), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  230.144 by revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii) and paragraphs
1.b and 2 of Note to Sec.  230.144(c) to read as follows:

Sec.  230.144  Persons deemed not to be engaged in a distribution and
therefore not underwriters.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Submitted electronically every Interactive Data File (Sec.
232.11 of this chapter) required to be submitted pursuant to Sec.
232.405 of this chapter, during the 12 months preceding such sale (or
for such shorter period that the issuer was required to submit such
files); or
* * * * *
    Note to Sec.  230.144(c):
* * * * *
    1. * * *
    b. Submitted electronically every Interactive Data File (Sec.
232.11 of this chapter) required to be submitted pursuant to Sec.
232.405 of this chapter, during the preceding 12 months (or for such
shorter period that the issuer was required to submit such files);
or
    2. A written statement from the issuer that it has complied with
such reporting or submission requirements.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  230.485 by revising 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 any Interactive
Data File as required by General Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A
(Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter). A suspension under
this paragraph (c)(3) shall become effective at such time as the
registrant fails to submit 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 the Interactive Data File as required by
General Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  230.497 by revising the last sentence of paragraphs (c)
and (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  230.497  Filing of investment company prospectuses--number of
copies.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * Investment companies filing on Form N-1A must, if
applicable pursuant to General Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A, submit
an Interactive Data File (Sec.  232.11 of this chapter).
* * * * *
    (e) * * * Investment companies filing on Form N-1A must, if
applicable pursuant to General Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A, submit
an Interactive Data File (Sec.  232.11 of this chapter).
* * * * *

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

0
7. The authority citation for Part 232 continues to read in part as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77c, 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, 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350,
unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  232.11 by revising the definition of ``Interactive Data
File'', removing the definition of ``Promptly'' and revising the
definition of ``Related Official Filing'' to read as follows:

Sec.  232.11 232.11  Definition of terms used in part 232.

* * * * *
    Interactive Data File. The term Interactive Data File means the

machine-readable computer code that presents information in eXtensible
Business Reporting Language (XBRL) electronic format pursuant to Sec.
232.405 and as specified by the EDGAR Filer Manual. When a filing is
submitted using Inline XBRL as provided by Sec.  232.405(a)(3), a
portion of the Interactive Data File is embedded into a form with the
remainder submitted as an exhibit to the form.
* * * * *
    Related Official Filing. The term Related Official Filing means the
ASCII or HTML format part of the official filing with which all or part
of an Interactive Data File appears as an exhibit or, in the case of a
filing on Form N-1A (Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter),
the ASCII or HTML format part of an official filing that contains the
information to which an Interactive Data File corresponds.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  232.201 by revising Note 1 to paragraph (b), paragraph
(c) and Note to paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  232.201  Temporary hardship exemption.

* * * * *

    Note 1 to paragraph (b):  Failure to submit the confirming
electronic copy of a paper filing made in reliance on the temporary
hardship exemption, as required in paragraph (b) of this section,
will result in ineligibility to use Forms S-3, S-8, F-3 and SF-3
(see Sec. Sec.  239.13, 239.16b 239.33 and 239.45 of this chapter,
respectively), restrict incorporation by reference into an
electronic filing of the document submitted in paper (see Sec.
232.303), and toll certain time periods associated with tender
offers (see Sec.  240.13e-4(f)(12) of this chapter and Sec.
240.14e-1(e) of this chapter).

* * * * *
    (c) If an electronic filer experiences unanticipated technical
difficulties preventing the timely preparation and submission of an
Interactive Data File (Sec.  232.11) as required pursuant to Sec.
232.405, the electronic filer still can timely satisfy the requirement
to submit the Interactive Data File in the following manner:
    (1) Substitute for the Interactive Data File a document that sets
forth the following legend:
    IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEMPORARY HARDSHIP EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY
RULE 201 OF REGULATION S-T, THE DATE BY WHICH THE INTERACTIVE DATA FILE
IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED HAS BEEN EXTENDED BY SIX BUSINESS DAYS; and
    (2) Submit the required Interactive Data File no later than six
business days after the Interactive Data File originally was required
to be submitted.

    Note to paragraph (c): Electronic filers unable to submit the
Interactive Data File under the circumstances specified by paragraph
(c) of this section, must comply with the provisions of this section
and cannot use Form 12b-25 (Sec.  249.322 of this chapter) as a
notification of late filing. Failure to submit the Interactive Data
File as required by the end of the six-business-day period specified
by paragraph (c) of this section 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, respectively) and constitute a failure to have filed
all required reports for purposes of the current public information
requirements of Sec.  230.144(c)(1) of this chapter.

* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  232.202 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c)(1) and (c)(2);
0
c. Removing paragraph (c)(3); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) and Notes 3 and 4 to Sec.
232.202.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  232.202  Continuing hardship exemption.

    (a) An electronic filer may apply in writing for a continuing
hardship exemption if all or part of a filing, group of filings or
submission, other than a Form ID (Sec. Sec.  239.63, 249.446, 269.7,
and 274.402 of this chapter), a Form D (Sec.  239.500 of this chapter),
or an Asset Data File (Sec.  232.11), otherwise to be filed or
submitted in electronic format cannot be so filed or submitted, as
applicable, without undue burden or expense. Such written application
shall be made at least ten business days before the required due date
of the filing(s) or submission(s) or the proposed filing or submission
date, as appropriate, or within such shorter period as may be
permitted. The written application shall contain the information set
forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) If the Commission, or the staff acting pursuant to delegated
authority, denies the application for a continuing hardship exemption,
the electronic filer shall file or submit the required document or
Interactive Data File in electronic format, as applicable, on the
required due date or the proposed filing or submission date, or such
other date as may be permitted.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The burden and expense involved to employ alternative means to
make the electronic submission; and/or
    (3) The reasons for not submitting electronically the document,
group of documents or Interactive Data File, as well as the
justification for the requested time period.
    (c) * * *
    (1) Electronic filing of a document or group of documents, not
electronic submission of an Interactive Data File, then the electronic
filer shall submit the document or group of documents for which the
continuing hardship exemption is granted in paper format on the
required due date specified in the applicable form, rule or regulation,
or the proposed filing date, as appropriate and the following legend
shall be placed in capital letters at the top of the cover page of the
paper format document(s):
    IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 202 OF REGULATION S-T, THIS (specify
document) IS BEING FILED IN PAPER PURSUANT TO A CONTINUING HARDSHIP
EXEMPTION.
    (2) Electronic submission of an Interactive Data File, then the
electronic filer shall substitute for the Interactive Data File a
document that sets forth one of the following legends, as appropriate:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Electronic filing of a document or group of documents, not
electronic submission of an Interactive Data File, then the grant may
be conditioned upon the filing of the document or group of documents
that is the subject of the exemption in electronic format upon the
expiration of the period for which the exemption is granted. The
electronic format version shall contain the following statement in
capital letters at the top of the first page of the document:
    THIS DOCUMENT IS A COPY OF THE (specify document) FILED ON (date)
PURSUANT TO A RULE 202(d) CONTINUING HARDSHIP EXEMPTION.
    (2) Electronic submission of an Interactive Data File, then the
grant may be conditioned upon the electronic submission of the
Interactive Data File that is the subject of the exemption upon the
expiration of the period for which the exemption is granted.
* * * * *

    Note 3 to Sec.  232.202: Failure to submit a required confirming
electronic copy of a paper filing made in reliance on a continuing
hardship exemption granted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section
will result in ineligibility to use Forms S-3, S-8 and F-3 (see,
Sec. Sec.  239.13, 239.16b and 239.33 of this chapter,
respectively), restrict incorporation by reference into an
electronic filing of the document submitted in paper (see Sec.
232.303), and toll certain time periods associated with tender
offers (see Sec.  240.13e-4(f)(12) of this chapter and Sec.
240.14e-1(e) of this chapter).

    Note 4 to Sec.  232.202: Failure to submit the Interactive Data
File as required by Sec.  232.405 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, respectively), constitute a
failure to have filed all required reports for purposes of the
current public information requirements of Sec.  230.144(c)(1) of
this chapter, and, pursuant to Sec.  230.485(c)(3) of this chapter,
suspend the ability to file post-effective amendments under Sec.
230.485 of this chapter.

Sec.  232.401  [Removed and reserved].

0
11. Remove and reserve Sec.  232.401.
0
12. Amend Sec.  232.405 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Removing ``Preliminary Note 1'' and ``Preliminary Note 2'' and
adding introductory text;
0
c. Removing Preliminary Note 3;
0
d. Revising the heading of paragraph (a);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2);
0
f. Removing paragraph (a)(4) and redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as new
paragraph (a)(4);
0
g. Adding new paragraph (a)(3);
0
h. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(4);
0
i. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (d) and (e);
0
j. Revising paragraph (f);
0
k. Removing paragraph (g); and
0
l. Revising Note to Sec.  232.405.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  232.405  Interactive Data File submissions.

    Section 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.  232.405) applies to electronic
filers that submit Interactive Data Files. Item 601(b)(101) of
Regulation S-K (Sec.  229.601(b)(101) of this chapter), paragraph (101)
of Part II--Information Not Required to be Delivered to Offerees or
Purchasers of Form F-10 (Sec.  239.40 of this chapter), paragraph 101
of the Instructions as to Exhibits of Form 20-F (Sec.  249.220f of this
chapter), paragraph B.(15) of the General Instructions to Form 40-F
(Sec.  249.240f of this chapter), and paragraph C.(6) of the General
Instructions to Form 6-K (Sec.  249.306 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 to submit an
Interactive Data File (Sec.  232.11), as further described in the Note
to Sec.  232.405. Section 405 imposes content, format and submission
requirements for an Interactive Data File, but does not change the
substantive content requirements for the financial and other
disclosures in the Related Official Filing (Sec.  232.11).
    (a) Content, format and submission requirements--General. * * *
    (1) Comply with the content, format and submission 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),
paragraph (101) of Part II--Information Not Required to be Delivered to
Offerees or Purchasers of Form F-10 (Sec.  239.40 of this chapter),
paragraph 101 of the Instructions as to Exhibits of Form 20-F (Sec.
249.220f of this chapter), paragraph B.(15) of the General Instructions
to Form 40-F (Sec.  249.240f of this chapter), paragraph C.(6) of the
General Instructions to Form 6-K (Sec.  249.306 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;
    (3) Be submitted using Inline XBRL,
    (i) If the electronic filer is not an open-end management
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.) and is not within one of the categories
specified in paragraph (f) of this section, as partly embedded into a
form with the remainder simultaneously submitted as an exhibit to:
    (A) A form that contains the disclosure required by this section;
or
    (B) An amendment to a form that contains the disclosure required by
this section if the amendment is filed no more than 30 days after the
earlier of the due date or filing date of the form and the Interactive
Data File is the first Interactive Data File the electronic filer
submits; or
    (ii) If the electronic filer is an open-end management investment
company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a et seq.) and is not within one of the categories specified in
paragraph (f) of this section, as partly embedded into a form with the
remainder simultaneously submitted as an exhibit to a form that
contains the disclosure required by this section; and
    (4) Be submitted in accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual and, as
applicable, either Item 601(b)(101) of Regulation S-K (Sec.
229.601(b)(101) of this chapter), paragraph (101) of Part II--
Information Not Required to be Delivered to Offerees or Purchasers of
Form F-10 (Sec.  239.40 of this chapter), paragraph 101 of the
Instructions as to Exhibits of Form 20-F (Sec.  249.220f of this
chapter), paragraph B.(15) of the General Instructions to Form 40-F
(Sec.  249.240f of this chapter), paragraph C.(6) of the General
Instructions to Form 6-K (Sec.  249.306 of this chapter), or General
Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-1A (Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A of
this chapter).
* * * * *
    (d) Format--Footnotes--Generally. The part of the Interactive Data
File for which the corresponding data in the Related Official Filing
consists of footnotes to financial statements must comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section, as
modified by this paragraph (d). Footnotes to financial statements must
be tagged as follows:
* * * * *
    (e) Format--Schedules--Generally. The part of the Interactive Data
File for which the corresponding data in the Related Official Filing
consists of financial statement schedules as set forth in Article 12 of
Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.12-01 to 210.12-29) must comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section, as
modified by this paragraph (e). Financial statement schedules as set
forth in Article 12 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.12-01 to 210.12-29)
must be tagged as follows:
* * * * *
    (f) Format--Phase-in for Inline XBRL submissions.
    (1) The following electronic filers may choose to submit an
Interactive Data File:
    (i) In the manner specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (ii) of this
section rather than as specified by paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
section: any electronic filer that is not an open-end management
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.) if it is:
    (A) A large accelerated filer (Sec.  240.12b-2 of this chapter)
that prepares its financial statements in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles as used in the United States and none of
the financial statements for which an Interactive Data File is required
is for a fiscal period that ends on or after [one year after the final
rule is effective];
    (B) An accelerated filer (Sec.  240.12b-2 of this chapter) that
prepares its financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles as used in the United States and none of the
financial statements for which an Interactive Data File is required is
for a fiscal period that ends on or after [two years after the final
rule is effective]; and
    (C) A filer not specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) or (f)(1)(i)(B)
of this section that prepares its financial statements in accordance
with either generally

accepted accounting principles as used in the United States or
International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the
International Accounting Standards Board and none of the financial
statements for which an Interactive Data File is required is for a
fiscal period that ends on or after [three years after the final rule
is effective];
    (ii) In the manner specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section
rather than as specified by paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section: any
electronic filer that is an open-end management investment company
registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a et
seq.) that, together with other investment companies in the same
``group of related investment companies,'' as such term is defined in
Sec.  270.0-10 of this chapter, has assets of:
    (A) $1 billion or more as of the end of the most recent fiscal year
until it files an initial registration statement (or post-effective
amendment that is an annual update to an effective registration
statement) that becomes effective on or after [one year after the final
rule is effective]; and
    (B) Less than $1 billion as of the end of the most recent fiscal
year until it files an initial registration statement (or post-
effective amendment that is an annual update to an effective
registration statement) that becomes effective on or after [two years
after the final rule is effective].
    (2) The electronic filers specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section may submit the Interactive Data File solely as an exhibit to:
    (i) A form that contains the disclosure required by this section;
or
    (ii) If the electronic filer is not an open-end management
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.), an amendment to a form that contains the
disclosure required by this section if the amendment is filed no more
than 30 days after the earlier of the due date or filing date of the
form and the Interactive Data File is the first Interactive Data File
the electronic filer submits.

    Note To Sec.  232.405: Item 601(b)(101) of Regulation S-K (Sec.
229.601(b)(101) of this chapter) specifies the circumstances under
which an Interactive Data File must be submitted and the
circumstances under which it is permitted to be submitted, with
respect to Forms S-1 (Sec.  239.11 of this chapter), S-3 (Sec.
239.13 of this chapter), S-4 (Sec.  239.25 of this chapter), S-11
(Sec.  239.18 of this chapter), F-1 (Sec.  239.31 of this chapter),
F-3 (Sec.  239.33 of this chapter), F-4 (Sec.  239.34 of this
chapter), 10-K (Sec.  249.310 of this chapter), 10-Q (Sec.  249.308a
of this chapter) and 8-K (Sec.  249.308 of this chapter). Paragraph
(101) of Part II--Information not Required to be Delivered to
Offerees or Purchasers of Form F-10 (Sec.  239.40 of this chapter)
specifies the circumstances under which an Interactive Data File
must be submitted and the circumstances under which it is permitted
to be submitted, with respect to Form F-10. Paragraph 101 of the
Instructions as to Exhibits of Form 20-F (Sec.  249.220f of this
chapter) specifies the circumstances under which an Interactive Data
File must be submitted and the circumstances under which it is
permitted to be submitted, with respect to Form 20-F. Paragraph
B.(15) of the General Instructions to Form 40-F (Sec.  249.240f of
this chapter) and Paragraph C.(6) of the General Instructions to
Form 6-K (Sec.  249.306 of this chapter) specify the circumstances
under which an Interactive Data File must be submitted and the
circumstances under which it is permitted to be submitted, with
respect to Form 40-F and Form 6-K(Sec.  249.240f of this chapter and
Sec.  249.306 of this chapter), respectively. Item 601(b)(101) of
Regulation S-K, paragraph (101) of Part II--Information not Required
to be Delivered to Offerees or Purchasers of Form F-10, paragraph
101 of the Instructions as to Exhibits of Form 20-F, paragraph
B.(15) of the General Instructions to Form 40-F and paragraph C.(6)
of the General Instructions to Form 6-K all prohibit submission of
an Interactive Data File by an issuer that prepares its financial
statements in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR
210.6-01 to 210.6-10). For an issuer that is an open-end management
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.), General Instruction C.3.(g) of Form N-
1A (Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter) specifies the
circumstances under which an Interactive Data File must be
submitted.

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

0
13. The authority citation for part 239 continues to read in part as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-
3, 77sss, 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78o-7 note, 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, 80a-37, and Sec. 71003 and Sec.
84001, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec.  239.13 by revising paragraph (a)(7)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  239.13  Form S-3, for registration under the Securities Act of
1933 of securities of certain issuers offered pursuant to certain types
of transactions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) Submitted electronically to the Commission all Interactive
Data Files required to be submitted pursuant to Sec.  232.405 of this
chapter during the twelve calendar months and any portion of a month
immediately preceding the filing of the registration statement on this
Form (or for such shorter period of time that the registrant was
required to submit such files).
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Form S-3 (referenced in Sec.  239.13) by revising General
Instruction I.A.7.(b) to read as follows:

    Note:  The text of Form S-3 does not, and this amendment will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Form S-3

Registration Statement Under the Securities Act of 1933

* * * * *

General Instructions

I. Eligibility Requirements for Use of Form S-3

* * * * *

A. * * *

7. * * *
    (b) Submitted electronically to the Commission all Interactive Data
Files required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T
(Sec.  232.405 of this chapter) during the twelve calendar months and
any portion of a month immediately preceding the filing of the
registration statement on this Form (or for such shorter period of time
that the registrant was required to submit such files).
* * * * *
0
16. Amend Sec.  239.16b by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  239.16b  Form S-8, for registration under the Securities Act of
1933 of securities to be offered to employees pursuant to employee
benefit plans.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Submitted electronically to the Commission all Interactive Data
Files required to be submitted pursuant to Sec.  232.405 of this
chapter during the twelve calendar months and any portion of a month
immediately preceding the filing of the registration statement on this
Form (or for such shorter period of time that the registrant was
required to submit such files).
0
17. Amend Form S-8 (referenced in Sec.  239.16b) by revising General
Instruction A.3.(b) to read as follows:

    Note:  The text of Form S-8 does not, and this amendment will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Form S-8

Registration Statement Under the Securities Act of 1933

* * * * *

General Instructions

A. Rule as to Use of Form S-8

* * * * *
3. * * *
    (b) Submitted electronically to the Commission all Interactive Data
Files required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T
(Sec.  232.405 of this chapter) during the twelve calendar months and
any portion of a month immediately preceding the filing of the
registration statement on this Form (or for such shorter period of time
that the registrant was required to submit such files).
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec.  239.33 by revising paragraph (a)(6)(ii) to read as
follows:

239.33  Form F-3, for registration under the Securities Act of 1933 of
securities of certain foreign private issuers offered pursuant to
certain types of transactions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) Submitted electronically to the Commission all Interactive
Data Files required to be submitted pursuant to Sec.  232.405 of this
chapter during the twelve calendar months and any portion of a month
immediately preceding the filing of the registration statement on this
Form (or for such shorter period of time that the registrant was
required to submit such files).
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Form F-3 (referenced in Sec.  239.33) by revising paragraph
I.A.6.(ii) to read as follows:

    Note:  The text of Form F-3 does not, and this amendment will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Form F-3

Registration Statement Under the Securities Act of 1933

* * * * *

General Instructions

I. Eligibility Requirements for Use of Form F-3

* * * * *

A. Registrant Requirements

* * * * *
    6. Electronic filings. * * *
* * * * *
    (ii) Submitted electronically to the Commission all Interactive
Data Files required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation
S-T (Sec.  232.405 of this chapter) during the twelve calendar months
and any portion of a month immediately preceding the filing of the
registration statement on this Form (or for such shorter period of time
that the registrant was required to submit such files).
* * * * *
0
20. Amend Form F-10 (referenced in Sec.  239.40) by revising paragraph
(101) of Part II--Information Not Required to be Delivered to Offerees
or Purchasers to read as follows:

    Note: The text of Form F-10 does not, and this amendment will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Form F-10

Registration Statement Under the Securities Act of 1933

* * * * *

Part II--Information Not Required To Be Delivered To Offerees or
Purchasers

* * * * *
    (101) Where a registrant prepares its financial statements in
accordance with either generally accepted accounting principles as used
in the United States or International Financial Reporting Standards as
issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, an Interactive
Data File (Sec.  232.11 of this chapter) is:
    (a) Required to be submitted. Required to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.
232.405 of this chapter) if the registrant does not prepare its
financial statements in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17
CFR 210.6-01 et seq.), except that an Interactive Data File:
    (i) First is required for a periodic report on Form 10-Q (Sec.
249.308a of this chapter), Form 20-F (Sec.  249.220f of this chapter)
or Form 40-F (Sec.  249.240f of this chapter), as applicable; and
    (ii) Is required for a registration statement under the Securities
Act only if the registration statement contains a price or price range.
    (b) Permitted to be submitted. Permitted to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.
232.405 of this chapter) if the:
    (i) Registrant does not prepare its financial statements in
accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 et seq.);
and
    (ii) Interactive Data File is not required to be submitted to the
Commission under subparagraph (a) of this paragraph (101).
    (c) Not permitted to be submitted. Not permitted to be submitted to
the Commission if the registrant prepares its financial statements in
accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 et seq.).
    Instruction to paragraphs (101)(a) and (b): When an Interactive
Data File is submitted as provided by Rule 405(a)(3)(i) of Regulation
S-T (Sec.  232.405(a)(3)(i) of this chapter), the exhibit index must
include the word ``Inline'' within the title description for any
eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL)-related exhibit.

PART 249--FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

0
21. The authority citation for part 249 continues to read in part as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. and 7201 et seq.; 12 U.S.C.
5461 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. 1350; Sec. 953(b), Pub. L. 111-203, 124
Stat. 1904; and Sec. 102(a)(3), Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 309
(2012); Sec. 107, Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 313 (2012), and Sec.
72001, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015), unless otherwise
noted.
* * * * *
0
22. Amend Form 20-F (referenced in Sec.  249.220f) by:
0
a. Revising the undesignated paragraph on the cover that begins
``Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically''; and
0
b. Revising paragraph 101 of the Instructions as to Exhibits.
    The revisions read as follows:

    Note: The text of Form 20-F does not, and this amendment will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Form 20-F

[square] Registration Statement Pursuant To Section 12(b) OR (g) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Or

[square] Annual Report Pursuant To Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

* * * * *
    Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.  232.405 of this chapter)
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to submit such files).
* * * * *

Instructions as to Exhibits

* * * * *
    101. Interactive Data File. Where a registrant prepares its
financial statements in accordance with either generally accepted
accounting principles as used in the United States or International
Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting
Standards Board, an

Interactive Data File (Sec.  232.11 of this chapter) is:
    (a) Required to be submitted. Required to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.
232.405 of this chapter) if the Form 20-F is an annual report and the
registrant does not prepare its financial statements in accordance with
Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 et seq.).
    (b) Permitted to be submitted. Permitted to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.
232.405 of this chapter) if the:
    (i) Registrant does not prepare its financial statements in
accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 et seq.);
and
    (ii) Interactive Data File is not required to be submitted to the
Commission under subparagraph (a) of this paragraph 101.
    (c) Not permitted to be submitted. Not permitted to be submitted to
the Commission if the registrant prepares its financial statements in
accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 et seq.).
    Instruction to paragraphs 101.(a) and (b): When an Interactive Data
File is submitted as provided by Rule 405(a)(3)(i) of Regulation S-T
(Sec.  232.405(a)(3)(i) of this chapter), the exhibit index must
include the word ``Inline'' within the title description for any
eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL)-related exhibit.
0
23. Amend Form 40-F (referenced in Sec.  249.240f) by:
0
a. Revising the undesignated paragraph on the cover that begins
``Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically''; and
0
b. Revising paragraph B.(15) of the General Instructions.
    The revisions read as follows:

    Note: The text of Form 40-F does not, and this amendment will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Form 40-F

[square] Registration Statement Pursuant To Section 12 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Or

[square] Annual Report Pursuant To Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

* * * * *
    Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.  232.405 of this chapter)
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
Registrant was required to submit such files).
* * * * *

General Instructions

* * * * *

B. Information To Be Filed on This Form

* * * * *
    (15) Where a registrant prepares its financial statements in
accordance with either generally accepted accounting principles as used
in the United States or International Financial Reporting Standards as
issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, an Interactive
Data File (Sec.  232.11 of this chapter) is:
    (a) Required to be submitted. Required to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.
232.405 of this chapter) and, to the extent submitted as an exhibit,
listed as exhibit 101, if the Form 40-F is an annual report and the
registrant does not prepare its financial statements in accordance with
Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 et seq.).
    (b) Permitted to be submitted. Permitted to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.
232.405 of this chapter) if the:
    (i) Registrant does not prepare its financial statements in
accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 et seq.);
and
    (ii) Interactive Data File is not required to be submitted to the
Commission under subparagraph (a) of this paragraph B.(15).
    (c) Not permitted to be submitted. Not permitted to be submitted to
the Commission if the registrant prepares its financial statements in
accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 et seq.).
    Instruction to paragraphs B.(15)(a) and (b): When an Interactive
Data File is submitted as provided by Rule 405(a)(3)(i) of Regulation
S-T (Sec.  232.405(a)(3)(i) of this chapter), the exhibit index must
include the word ``Inline'' within the title description for any
eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL)-related exhibit.
* * * * *
0
24. Amend Form 6-K (referenced in Sec.  249.306) by revising paragraph
(6) to General Instruction C to read as follows:

    Note: The text of Form 6-K does not, and this amendment will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Form 6-K

Report Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant To Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

* * * * *

General Instructions

* * * * *

C. Preparation and Filing of Report

* * * * *
    (6) Interactive Data File. Where a registrant prepares its
financial statements in accordance with either generally accepted
accounting principles as used in the United States or International
Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting
Standards Board, an Interactive Data File (Sec.  232.11 of this
chapter) is:
    (a) Required to be submitted. Required to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.
232.405 of this chapter) and, to the extent submitted as an exhibit,
listed as exhibit 101, if the registrant does not prepare its financial
statements in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR
210.6-01 et seq.), except that an Interactive Data File:
    (i) First is required for a periodic report on Form 10-Q (Sec.
249.308a of this chapter), Form 20-F (Sec.  249.220f of this chapter)
or Form 40-F (Sec.  249.240f of this chapter), as applicable; and
    (ii) Is required for a Form 6-K (Sec.  249.306 of this chapter)
only when the Form 6-K contains either of the following: audited annual
financial statements that are a revised version of financial statements
that previously were filed with the Commission that have been revised
pursuant to applicable accounting standards to reflect the effects of
certain subsequent events, including a discontinued operation, a change
in reportable segments or a change in accounting principle; or current
interim financial statements included pursuant to the nine-month
updating requirement of Item 8.A.5 of Form 20-F, and, in either such
case, the Interactive Data File would be required only as to such
revised financial statements or current interim financial statements
regardless whether the Form 6-K contains other financial statements.
    (b) Permitted to be submitted. Permitted to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.
232.405 of this chapter) if the:
    (i) Registrant does not prepare its financial statements in
accordance with

Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 et seq.); and
    (ii) Interactive Data File is not required to be submitted to the
Commission under subparagraph (a) of this paragraph C.(6).
    (c) Not permitted to be submitted. Not permitted to be submitted to
the Commission if the registrant prepares its financial statements in
accordance with Article 6 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR 210.6-01 et seq.).
    Instruction to paragraphs C.(6)(a) and (b): When an Interactive
Data File is submitted as provided by Rule 405(a)(3)(i) of Regulation
S-T (Sec.  232.405(a)(3)(i) of this chapter), the exhibit index must
include the word ``Inline'' within the title description for any
eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL)-related exhibit.
* * * * *
0
25. Amend Form 10-Q (referenced in Sec.  249.308a) by revising the
undesignated paragraph on the cover that begins ``Indicate by check
mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically'' to read as
follows:

    Note: The text of Form 10-Q does not, and this amendment will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Form 10-Q

* * * * *

[square] Quarterly Report Pursuant To Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

* * * * *

[square] Transition Report Pursuant To Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

* * * * *
    Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.  232.405 of this chapter)
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to submit such files).
* * * * *
0
26. Amend Form 10-K (referenced in Sec.  249.310) by revising the
undesignated paragraph on the cover that begins ``Indicate by check
mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically'' to read as
follows:

    Note: The text of Form 10-K does not, and this amendment will
not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Form 10-K

* * * * *

[square] Annual Report Pursuant To Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

* * * * *

[square] Transition Report Pursuant To Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

* * * * *
    Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Sec.  232.405 of this chapter)
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to submit such files).
* * * * *

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

0
27. 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, 80a-29, and Pub. L. 111-203,
sec. 939A, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
28. Amend Form N-1A (referenced in Sec. Sec.  239.15A and 274.11A) by
revising General Instruction C.3.(g) to read as follows:

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

Form N-1A

* * * * *

[square] Registration Statement Under the Securities Act OF 1933

* * * * *

[square] Registration Statement Under the Investment Company Act of
1940

* * * * *

General Instructions

* * * * *

C. * * *

3. * * *
    (g) Interactive Data File
    (i) An Interactive Data File (Sec.  232.11 of this chapter) is
required to be submitted to the Commission 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, 3,
or 4.
    (A) Except as required by paragraph (g)(i)(B), 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 on or before the date the registration statement or post-
effective amendment that contains the related information becomes
effective.
    (B) In the case of a post-effective amendment to a registration
statement filed pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii), (v), or (vii)
of rule 485 under the Securities Act [17 CFR 230.485(b)], the
Interactive Data File must be submitted either with the filing, or as
an amendment to the registration statement to which the Interactive
Data Filing relates that is submitted on or before the date the post-
effective amendment that contains the related information becomes
effective.
    (ii) An Interactive Data File is required to be submitted to the
Commission in the manner provided by Rule 405 of Regulation S-T for any
form of prospectus filed pursuant to paragraphs (c) or (e) of rule 497
under the Securities Act [17 CFR 230.497(c) or (e)] that includes
information provided in response to Items 2, 3, or 4 that varies from
the registration statement. The Interactive Data File must be submitted
with the filing made pursuant to rule 497.
    (iii) The Interactive Data File must 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,