Release No. 33-8819 Release No. 34-56013 Release No. 39-2447 FILE NO. S7-15-07 RIN 3235-AJ86

Smaller Reporting Company Regulatory Relief and Simplification

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed amendments.

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is proposing rule amendments relating to our disclosure and reporting requirements for smaller companies under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. We propose to extend the benefits of our current optional disclosure and reporting requirements for smaller companies to a much larger group of companies. The proposals would allow companies with a public float of less than $75 million to qualify for the smaller company requirements, up from $25 million for most companies today. The proposals also would combine for most purposes the small business issuer and non-accelerated filer categories of smaller companies into a single category of smaller reporting companies. In addition, the proposals would maintain the current disclosure requirements for smaller companies contained in Regulation S-B, but integrate them into Regulation S-K. We also are soliciting suggestions for additional ways in which we could better scale our disclosure and reporting requirements to the needs of smaller reporting companies and their investors.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before September 17, 2007.

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

Electronic Comments:

• Use the Commissions Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml);
• Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number S7-15-07 on the subject line; or
• Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov ). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments:

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-15-07. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site ( http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commissions Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 am and 3:00 pm. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald J. Laporte, Chief, Kevin M. ONeill, Special Counsel, or Johanna Vega Losert, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Small Business Policy, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-3628, (202) 551-3460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We propose amendments to Regulation S-K, ¹ and rules and forms under the Securities Act of 1933, ² Securities Exchange Act of 1934, ³ and Trust Indenture Act of 1939. ⁴ In Regulation S-K, we propose to amend Items 10, 101, 201, 301, 302, 303, 305, 401, 402, 404, 407, 503, 504, 512, 601, 701, and 1118. ⁵ We propose to add a new Item 310 to Regulation S-K. We propose to amend Securities Act Rules 110, 138, 139, 158, 175, 405, 415, 428, 430B, 430C, 455, and 502. ⁶ Further, we propose to repeal Regulation S-B ⁷ and eliminate the forms associated with it, which include Forms SB-1, SB-2, 10-SB, 10-QSB, and 10-KSB. ⁸ We propose to amend Securities Act Forms 0-1, S-1, S-3, S-4, S-8, S-11, 1-A, and F-X. ⁹ We also propose to amend Exchange Act Rules 0-2, 0-12, 3b-6, 10A-1, 10A-3, 12b-2, 12b-23, 12b-25, 12h-3, 13a-10, 13a-13, 13a-14, 13a-16, 13a-20, 14a-3, 14a-5, 14a-8, 14c-3, 14d-3, 15d-10, 15d-13, 15d-14, 15d-20, and 15d-21 ¹⁰ and Exchange Act Forms 0-1, 8-A, 8-K, 10, 10-Q, 10-K, 11-K,20-F, and SE. ¹¹ We also propose to amend Schedules 14A and 14C. ¹² Under Regulation S-X, ¹³ we propose to amend Rules 210.3-01, 210.3-10, 210.3-12, 210.3-14, 210.4-01, and 210.10-01. ¹⁴ Finally, we propose to amend Trust Indenture Act Rules 0-11, 4d-9, 10a-5, ¹⁵ and 269.0-1 of the Trust Indenture Act Forms. ¹⁶

I. Background

Since the federal securities laws were first enacted, the Commission has made special efforts not to subject smaller companies and their investors to unduly burdensome federal securities regulation. ¹⁷ This special concern for small business in part reflects recognition of the special role that small business historically has played as a driver of economic activity, innovation, and job creation in the United States. In March 2005, we chartered the Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies and asked that panel to assess the current regulatory system for smaller companies under the federal securities laws and to recommend changes to that system. ¹⁸ The major proposals we are making in this release stem from the Advisory Committees recommendations.

Our rules currently include two major categories of smaller companies small business issuers and non-accelerated filers for purposes of scaling our disclosure and reporting requirements to the needs of smaller companies and their investors. These two categories of smaller companies are defined as follows:

• Small business issuers essentially are companies with both a public float and revenues of less than $25 million. Of the 11,898 companies that filed annual reports under the Exchange Act in 2006, 3,749 had a public float of less than $25 million. ¹⁹
• Non-accelerated filers are companies that do not qualify as large accelerated filers or accelerated filers under our rules. ²⁰ Non-accelerated filers essentially are companies with a public float of less than $75 million. Of the 11,898 companies that filed annual reports under the Exchange Act in 2006, 4,976 had a public float of less than $75 million. ²¹

  The scaled disclosure and reporting requirements available to these smaller companies apply to companies filing registration statements covering offerings of securities under the Securities Act and companies required to file annual and other reports under Exchange Act Sections 13 and 15(d). ²²

Small business issuers are eligible to make required disclosures based on the requirements in Regulation S-B, ²³ which sets forth disclosure standards for small business issuers that must file documents with the Commission under the Securities Act, Exchange Act, or Trust Indenture Act. In most cases, small business issuers may make disclosures based on Regulation S-B only if they use one of the forms we have designated with the letters SB Form 10-SB, Form 10-QSB, Form 10-KSB, Form SB-1, and Form SB-2. One of the most important provisions of Regulation S-B is Item 310, which governs the form, content, and preparation of financial statements for companies that provide disclosure pursuant to Regulation S-B. The requirements in Item 310 of Regulation S-B are less detailed than the requirements in Regulation S-X, the regulation that governs the financial statements of most companies that do not rely on Regulation S-B. Regulation S-B also contains a number of disclosure requirements that are scaled to the characteristics of smaller companies, including requirements on executive compensation, related person transactions, and managements discussion and analysis of financial condition and results or plan of operation. ²⁴

Smaller companies qualifying as non-accelerated filers may file their annual reports no later than 90 days after fiscal year end and their quarterly reports no later than 45 days after the end of each fiscal quarter. ²⁵ This contrasts with the 60-day and 75-day deadlines for the annual reports of large accelerated filers and accelerated filers, respectively, and the 40-day deadline for quarterly reports of those larger companies. Non-accelerated filers also are treated differently with regard to the compliance dates applicable to the internal control over financial reporting provisions in Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. ²⁶

Our proposals have three primary objectives, each of which is consistent with investor protection:

• Expanding eligibility for our scaled disclosure and reporting requirements for smaller companies by making those requirements available to most companies with a public float of less than $75 million;
• Simplifying our rules for smaller companies by combining the two categories of small business issuers and non-accelerated filers into one category called smaller reporting companies; and
• Simplifying and improving our disclosure and reporting rules for smaller companies by maintaining the Regulation S-B disclosure requirements for smaller companies but integrating them into the disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K.

The Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies addressed these objectives in the following recommendations:

• Recommendation II.P.1: Establish a new system of scaled or proportional securities regulation for smaller public companies using the following six determinants to define a smaller public company:
  • the total market capitalization of the company;
  • a measurement metric that facilitates scaling of regulation;
  • a measurement metric that is self-calibrating;
  • a standardized measurement and methodology for computing market capitalization;
  • a date for determining total market capitalization; and
  • clear and firm transition rules, i.e., small to large and large to small.

Develop specific scaled or proportional regulation for companies under the system if they qualify as microcap companies because their equity market capitalization places them in the lowest 1% of total U.S. equity market capitalization or as smallcap companies because their equity market capitalization places them in the next lowest 1% to 5% of total U.S. equity market capitalization, with the result that all companies comprising the lowest 6% would be considered for scaled or proportional regulation; ²⁷

• Recommendation IV.P.1: Incorporate the scaled disclosure accommodations currently available to small business issuers under Regulation S-B into Regulation S-K, make them available to all microcap companies, and cease prescribing separate specialized disclosure forms for smaller companies; ²⁸ and
• Recommendation IV.P.2: Incorporate the primary scaled financial statement accommodations currently available to small business issuers under Regulation S-B into Regulation S-K or Regulation S-X and make them available to all microcap and smallcap companies. ²⁹

It has been maintained that regulation and disclosure standards are proportional when compliance requirements are flexible enough to be modified and scaled according to the size, resources, operations, and financial complexities of the reporting company without sacrificing investor protection. ³⁰ We believe that our proposals meet this standard. We also believe these proposals maintain investor protection while providing greater capital formation opportunities for smaller reporting companies and encouraging more robust smaller company participation in the United States capital markets.

II. Explanation of Proposals

The proposals that we publish for comment today would simplify, and increase significantly the number of companies eligible for our scaled disclosure and reporting rules for smaller reporting companies, consistent with investor protection. Our proposals largely would implement several of the recommendations of our Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies in these areas.

A. Expanding Eligibility for Smaller Company Scaled Regulation

The proposals would expand the availability of our disclosure and reporting requirements for smaller companies to most companies with a public float of less than $75 million. ³¹ We are proposing a new term smaller reporting company to replace the term small business issuer and proposing to make available to these smaller reporting companies³²the disclosure and reporting standards that we make available to small business issuers and most non-accelerated filers. ³³ Our proposals would provide further regulatory simplification and relief for smaller reporting companies by integrating into Regulation S-K the salient small business issuerdisclosure requirements currently found in Regulation S-B. Finally, our proposals would eliminate all SB forms associated with Regulation S-B.

1. Quantitative Standards in the Proposed Definition of Smaller Reporting Company

a. Proposed Standard

The smaller reporting company definition would include a public float eligibility ceiling of $75 million for most companies. Other companies, for example, companies that do not have a public float as defined or are unable to calculate it, would be eligible for scaled treatment if their revenues are below $50 million annually. ³⁴ At present, 3,395 reporting companies use our current scaled disclosure and reporting requirements for smaller companies. ³⁵ If the proposals are adopted, a total of 4,976 companies would be eligible to use the scaled disclosure item requirements. The 4,976 eligible companies represent 42% of the 11,898 companies that filed annual reports under the Exchange Act in 2006. ³⁶

The term smaller reporting company would replace the term small business issuer, which defines the companies eligible currently to use the Regulation S-B disclosure requirements. ³⁷ The proposed definition of smaller reporting company also would include most non-accelerated filers, which generally are those filers with a public float of less than $75 million. ³⁸ Non-accelerated filers are the companies currently eligible to use different compliance dates applicable to internal control over financial reporting and different periodic report deadlines. By using the same term to refer to both current groups of companies, we would effectively combine the two groups of scaled requirements into a single group companies with a public float of less than $75 million, or revenues below $50 million if their public float cannot be calculated. As proposed, the $75 million and $50 million ceilings would be adjusted for inflation on September 1, 2012, and every fifth year thereafter, to reflect any changes in the value of the Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (PCECTP Index) (or any successor index thereto), as published by the Department of Commerce, from December 31, 2006. ³⁹

We propose to set the initial ceiling for smaller reporting companies at $75 million in public float because we now have several rules using the $75 million public float metric to distinguish smaller companies. In addition to the use of this public float metric in the definition of accelerated filer, the $75 million public float requirement is used to determine expanded eligibility in Form S-3 and Form F-3. ⁴⁰ Further, issuers are required to provide their public float on the cover page of their Exchange Act annual reports.

Our proposed definition of smaller reporting company does not include a revenue test for most companies. While our current definition of small business issuer includes a revenue standard, the classification of an issuer as a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or (by default) a non-accelerated filer does not involve a revenue standard. We chose not to propose a revenue standard to qualify for smaller reporting company status for most companies to provide greater simplicity, consistency, and certainty.

While our proposed definition of smaller reporting company does not generally apply a revenue standard, where an issuer has no common equity public float or market price, we propose a revenue test. ⁴¹ If an issuer has no common equity public float or market price and it has reported annual revenues of less than $50 million in the most recently completed fiscal year for which audited financial statements are available, then it would qualify initially for scaled regulation as a smaller reporting company for the fiscal year in which it files a registration statement under the Securities Act or Exchange Act with the Commission as a smaller reporting company. ⁴²

As proposed, the determination date for calculating a companys public float to establish eligibility for smaller reporting company status would be the same date used to determine accelerated filer status today the last business day of a companys second fiscal quarter. ⁴³ The public float of a reporting company would be calculated by using the price at which the shares of its common equity were last sold or the average of the bid and asked prices of such shares in the principal market for the shares as of the last business day of the companys second fiscal quarter, multiplied by the number of outstanding shares held by non-affiliates. ⁴⁴

With regard to a Securities Act registration statement for an initial public offering of common equity securities, however, a company would calculate its public float as of a date within 30 days of the date it files the initial registration statement. These companies would compute public float by multiplying the aggregate worldwide number of such shares held by non-affiliates before the offering plus the number of such shares included in the registration statement by the estimated public offering price of the shares. ⁴⁵ The proposed method of calculating public float with regard to a Securities Act registration statement for an initial public offering would operate consistently with the following example:

• Company X has 50,000,000 shares of common stock outstanding;
• Company X has 25,000,000 shares of common stock outstanding that are held by non-affiliates;
• Company X files a Securities Act registration statement for its initial public offering in that registration statement, Company X registers 7,000,000 shares of common stock to be sold at an estimated offering price of $10 per share; and
• For purposes of the smaller reporting company definition, Company Xs public float would be $320,000,000 ((25,000,000 shares + 7,000,000 shares) x $10 per share).

Currently, Regulation S-B requires a company preparing an initial public offering of securities to calculate its public float for purposes of determining small business issuer status on the basis of the total number of equity shares outstanding before the offering and the estimated public offering price of the securities. Our proposed change to this rule is intended to more accurately reflect the companys public float by requiring companies to include the number of shares registered to be offered to the public in calculating the public float.

With regard to a companys initial registration statement under the Exchange Act covering a class of securities, the company would calculate its public float as of a date within a 30-day window of the registration statement being filed. Because such an Exchange Act registration statement would not directly affect the issuers public float, if an issuer that files such an Exchange Act registration statement does not have a public float or its public float cannot be calculated because there is no market price for the issuers equity securities, the issuers eligibility for the scaled disclosure and reporting would be based on its revenue.

b. Comparison of the Proposed Standard to the Advisory Committees Recommendation

The proposal to broaden the number of smaller companies eligible for our scaled disclosure and reporting requirements is consistent with, but not identical to the Advisory Committee recommendation. The Advisory Committee recommended that we make the majority of our smaller company requirements available to companies whose equity market capitalization places them in the lowest 1% of total U.S. market capitalization, which it called microcap companies. The Advisory Committee indicated that, based on the information it relied upon, the ceiling for that category was $128 million in market capitalization. ⁴⁶ We have chosen to propose using public float rather than market capitalization to set the ceiling for several reasons:

• The Commission has consistently used public float in this context,⁴⁷rather than market capitalization;
• Each reporting company already is required to disclose its public float on the cover page of its annual report on Form 10-K or Form 10-KSB;
• The use of market capitalization would require us to establish new standards for reporting companies to calculate that information and a new obligation for those companies to disclose that information; and
• The overlap between reporting companies with $128 million in market capitalization and reporting companies with $75 million in public float is approximately 98%. ⁴⁸

We have not proposed a standard based on a companys ranking within a specified percentage of total U.S. market capitalization because we believe that such a standard may make the smaller reporting company system unduly complicated and create confusion among both smaller companies and their investors. Our proposal to adjust the $75 million public float and $50 million in revenue ceilings every five years to account for inflation, however, responds to the Advisory Committees concern that our regulatory metrics should be adjusted in a timely manner to reflect changes in our economy.

The Advisory Committee received numerous comments to the effect that the $25 million public float and revenue standards in Regulation S-B are too low and should be increased to permit a broader range of smaller companies to be eligible for its benefits, particularly in light of the increased costs associated with Exchange Act reporting obligations. ⁴⁹ A group responding to the Advisory Committees request for comments on its proposed agenda noted that the $25 million standards resulted in Regulation S-B being available only to the very smallest public companies. ⁵⁰ This group also expressed the view to the Advisory Committee that, for Regulation S-B to have any meaningful benefit to new and smaller public companies, the threshold needed to be raised to $100 million in both revenue and market capitalization. Another commentator has argued that the standard should be less concerned with market capitalization and more concerned with revenue, which in part indicates the ability of small companies to shoulder the burdens of regulation. ⁵¹ The Advisory Committee rejected a revenue-based metric in determining general eligibility for scaling, however, stating that market capitalization should be the primary metric for determining eligibility for scaling regulations and that including revenues would introduce unnecessary additional complexity. ⁵²

The Advisory Committee recommended that we extend eligibility for scaled disclosure to two tiers of companies what the Advisory Committee called microcap companies and smallcap companies. More specifically, the Committee recommended that we develop scaled or proportional regulation for companies that qualify as microcap companies because their equity market capitalization places them in the lowest 1% of total U.S. market capitalization and smallcap companies because their equity market capitalization places them in the next lowest 1% to 5% of total U.S. equity market capitalization, with the result being that all companies comprising the lowest 6% would be eligible for scaled or proportional regulation. ⁵³ Based on the statistics relied upon by the Advisory Committee, companies with less than $787 million in market capitalization would have been included in the lowest 6% of market capitalization as of March 31, 2005. ⁵⁴ Our proposals do not extend the scaled disclosure regime or develop another scaled disclosure regime for companies between $75 million and $787 million in market capitalization at this time. We solicit comment below on the appropriateness of scaled disclosure requirements for companies with a public float greater than $75 million.

2. Exclusions from the Definition of Smaller Reporting Company

The current definition of small business issuer excludes companies that are not organized in the United States or Canada, investment companies, and asset-backed issuers. ⁵⁵ Under the proposed amendments, all foreign companies that meet the criteria would be able to qualify as smaller reporting companies. Foreign companies could, therefore, take advantage of the scaled standards available to domestic smaller reporting companies if they otherwise qualify for that status and file a form that permits disclosure based on the standards for smaller reporting companies, such as Forms S-1, S-3, S-4, and Forms 10-Q and 10-K. In this regard, the forms available only to foreign private issuers, such as Form F-1, ⁵⁶ Form F-3 ⁵⁷ , Form F-4, ⁵⁸ and Form 20-F, ⁵⁹ would not permit disclosure based on the standards for smaller reporting companies. ⁶⁰ Foreign private issuers who qualify for smaller reporting company status could choose whether to use the domestic forms and be able to provide disclosure based on these standards or to use the F forms and comply with the disclosure requirements of those forms.

We propose to continue to exclude investment companies and asset-backed issuers from eligibility for scaled reporting and disclosure regulation. Investment companies are subject to separate disclosure and reporting requirements. ⁶¹ Asset-backed issuers have a separate disclosure system that applies to them and do not use Regulation S-K for their disclosure requirements. ⁶²

Request for Comments

• Should the definition of smaller reporting company include tests based on both public float and revenue? Should the definition contain only a revenue test, rather than the proposed public float test? If the definition contained a revenue test, should the standard be $50 million, $75 million, $100 million, or some other amount? Please explain in detail and provide a reasoned basis for your views.
• Is a public float of less than $75 million the appropriate standard for defining a smaller reporting company? Should the public float standard be $50 million, $150 million, or some other amount? Please explain in detail and provide a reasoned basis for your views.
• Is it appropriate to compute public float for an initial public offering by a smaller reporting company by multiplying the aggregate worldwide number of such shares held by non-affiliates before the offering plus the number of shares included in the registration statement by the estimated public offering price of the shares? Is it appropriate to permit the calculation of public float on any date within 30 days of a filing?
• Is it appropriate to require companies to estimate the public offering price of the securities before filing an initial registration statement that would qualify them for smaller reporting company status, as has been required in the past under Regulation S-B and as we propose to continue to require? For purposes of calculating the estimated public offering price per share, should we require issuers to rely on the high, low, or mid-point of the price range for the securities?
• Is there an alternative standard that would more accurately calculate a companys public float before it files its initial Securities Act registration statement with the Commission to determine smaller reporting company eligibility? Please provide details and reasoned support for your position.
• Should the definition of smaller reporting company be based on market capitalization, as suggested by the Advisory Committee, rather than public float? If so, should the market capitalization standard be $150 million, $125 million, $100 million, or some other level? Please discuss the benefits and burdens of your suggested standard and provide reasoned support for your position.
• Should a system of scaled or proportional regulation be made available to companies in the lowest 1% of total U.S. market capitalization (less than $128 million as of March 31, 2005) or the lowest 6% of total U.S. market capitalization ($787 million as of March 31, 2005), as suggested by the Advisory Committee? Please provide reasoned support for your position.
• Is the $50 million revenue threshold an appropriate level for companies without a public float or market price, or should the test be $75 million or $25 million in revenue or some other standard?
• Should any public float and/or revenue ceilings be indexed to adjust for inflation? Should any ceilings be indexed using a different index than the PCECTP Index, the one we propose to use? Please provide details and reasoned support for your position.
• Should the Commission allow asset-backed issuers and investment companies, including business development companies, or business development companies only, to qualify as smaller reporting companies?
• Is it appropriate to permit all non-U.S. companies to qualify for smaller reporting company status?
• Are there companies reporting as small business issuers that have only public debt outstanding and have little or no publicly-held common equity? Are there companies with one or more classes of public debt outstanding but no significant amount of outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates that should qualify as smaller reporting companies? If so, should we permit such companies to qualify as smaller reporting companies on the basis of a revenue test? Does the proposed revenue test meet the needs of smaller companies?
• What benefits would flow to investors if the Commission adopted these proposals? For example, would the possible cost savings for the company provide a net benefit to shareholders? Please provide details and reasoned support for your position.
• If adopted, would these proposals have any negative effect on investors? For example, would investors in companies that have a public float of between $25 million and $75 million be harmed if a company chose to provide the disclosure required of a smaller reporting company rather than the disclosure currently required under Regulation S-K? If so, please describe the negative effect in detail, providing data and support where possible.

B. Integrating Requirements of Current Regulation S-B into Regulation S-K

1. Policy Objectives of Proposal

We have maintained a separate registration, reporting, and qualification system for small business issuers under the Securities Act, Exchange Act, and Trust Indenture Act since 1992. ⁶³ The centerpiece of this system, Regulation S-B, followed the model of Regulation S-K. When adopting Regulation S-B, we incorporated some concepts from Form S-18, which was a simplified registration form for smaller companies under the Securities Act that we replaced with Forms SB-1 and SB-2. ⁶⁴

Regulation S-B was designed to provide small business issuers with a single source for their SEC disclosure requirements. Our objectives in adopting a disclosure system for smaller companies were to reduce compliance costs while maintaining adequate investor protection, to improve the ability of start-ups and other small businesses to obtain financing through the public capital markets, and to encourage those companies to provide their investors with the benefits of trading in those markets. ⁶⁵

We propose to integrate the substantive provisions of Regulation S-B into Regulation S-K for a number of reasons. We believe integration will simplify regulation for small business and lower costs. The current dual system scheme is complex, and we believe this complexity may deter smaller companies from taking advantage of scaled regulation. We also are aware of anecdotal reports that securities lawyers recommend against using the Regulation S-B system because it results in increased legal costs. The Advisory Committee, in recommending that we integrate the scaled disclosure requirements available to small business issuers into Regulation S-K and make them available to microcap companies, heard testimony that Regulation S-B was not used for two principal reasons. The first reason is that lawyers assert that they cannot use prior examples of filings involving companies that are not relying on Regulation S-B. The second reason is that the lawyers must maintain expertise in two different disclosure systems. ⁶⁶ Maintaining two separate but largely similar systems also results in increased burdens on the Commission staff.

Request for Comments

• Assuming we should revise Regulation S-B, should we do so in some way other than integrating its substantive provisions into Regulation S-K? Please be as specific as possible with your comments.
• Might integrating our two disclosure systems make it more difficult to maintain scaled securities regulation for smaller companies? How should we maintain scaled regulation over time? Please provide opposing or supporting views and clearly explain the bases for your views.
• Will this proposal simplify the disclosure obligations of smaller companies? Please provide details to support your view.
• If these proposals are adopted, would smaller companies experience lower costs for legal assistance and other services?
• If adopted, would these proposals have any effect on investors, either positive or negative? Please provide a detailed explanation of your views, with supporting data if possible.

2. Specific Integration Proposals

a. Financial Statements

We propose to add a new Item 310 (Financial Statements of Smaller Reporting Companies) to Regulation S-K to set forth the alternative requirements on form and content of financial statements for smaller companies that now appear in Item 310 of Regulation S-B. Item 310 of Regulation S-B constitutes perhaps the most significant example of scaling for smaller companies in all of Regulation S-B, as it bases the requirements on form, content, and preparation of financial statements for smaller companies solely on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). It does not require smaller companies to conform their financial statements to the Commissions Regulation S-X. ⁶⁷ Item 310 of Regulation S-B allows smaller companies to provide an audited balance sheet for the latest fiscal year only and audited statements of income, cash flows, and changes in stockholders equity for each of the latest two fiscal years only, rather than an audited balance sheet for the latest two fiscal years and audited statements of income, cash flows, and changes in stockholders equity for each of the latest three fiscal years, as required in Regulation S-X. Item 310 of Regulation S-B also differs from Regulation S-X in its requirements for historical and pro forma financial statements for significant acquired businesses, the maximum age of financial statements, and limited partnerships. ⁶⁸

We propose one substantive change in Item 310 that would differentiate it from the current Item 310 in Regulation S-B. Currently, in Note 2 preceding the Item, foreign private issuers are permitted to prepare and present financial statements in accordance with Item 17 of Form 20-F. Item 17 of Form 20-F allows an issuer to provide alternative financial statements prepared according to a comprehensive body of accounting principles other than those generally accepted in the United States if certain conditions are met. Regulation S-B currently is available only to U.S. and Canadian issuers, so permitting non-U.S. GAAP for Canadian foreign private issuers was a modest adjustment in terms of the number of companies eligible to use this adjustment. Because we propose to expand the definition of smaller reporting company to include all foreign companies, we do not feel that non-U.S. GAAP financial statements would be appropriate for a larger number of issuers. Therefore, we propose that foreign issuers who elect to use Item 310 disclosure for smaller reporting companies be required to present financial statements pursuant to U.S. GAAP. Currently, all financial statements in registration statements that may be used by domestic issuers, other than Canadian small business issuers using Forms SB-1 and SB-2, are required to conform to U.S. GAAP. ⁶⁹

Request for Comments

• Should the Commission incorporate the requirements on form and content of financial statements of smaller companies now in Item 310 of Regulation S-B into Regulation S-X, as proposed? Should the Commission modify proposed Item 310 in any way?
• Is it appropriate to require U.S. GAAP for foreign private issuers and other foreign issuers who take advantage of the smaller reporting company requirements? Or is the option of filing a registration statement on Form 20-F an acceptable alternative? What effect, if any, will this have on foreign private issuers?
• The Advisory Committee believed that a second year of audited balance sheet data would provide investors with a basis for comparison with the current period, without substantially increasing audit costs. ⁷⁰

Should we consider following the Advisory Committee recommendation to require smaller reporting companies to provide two years of audited balance sheet data in annual reports and registration statements?

b. Proposed Changes to Other Regulation S-K Disclosure Items

As a general rule, we propose to integrate the individual Regulation S-B disclosure items (other than Item 310 as discussed immediately above) into Regulation S-K. To do this, we propose to add a new paragraph to each item of Regulation S-K that will contain separate disclosure standards for smaller reporting companies, to the extent that a particular item permits such disclosure. ⁷¹ To ease navigation, each new paragraph would have a heading reading Smaller reporting companies, so readers can easily find the requirements tailored for smaller reporting companies. At this time, we do not propose any major substantive changes to the items that we are moving from Regulation S-B into Regulation S-K. Where the disclosure standards of identically numbered items in Regulation S-B and Regulation S-K are substantially the same for smaller reporting companies and larger companies, we propose no change to the existing Regulation S-K disclosure items. ⁷² We discuss our proposed treatment of specific Regulation S-K disclosure items below.

Item 101 (Description of Business). We propose to add a new paragraph (h) to Item 101 of Regulation S-K to set forth the alternative disclosure standards for smaller companies that appear now in Item 101 of Regulation S-B. Under Item 101 of Regulation S-B, smaller companies are required to provide a description of their business that is less detailed than the description that larger companies provide and to disclose business development activities for only three years, instead of the five-year disclosure required of larger companies by Item 101 of Regulation S-K.

Item 201 (Market Price of and Dividends on Registrants Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters). We propose only a minor change in wording to this item because Instruction 6 to paragraph (e) of Item 201 of Regulation S-K currently contains a provision permitting smaller companies to use the alternative disclosure standards of Regulation S-B when preparing documents under Regulation S-K. Therefore, no substantive change is necessary. We propose to replace the reference to a small business issuer with a reference to a smaller reporting company and add a heading to Instruction 6.

Items 301 (Selected Financial Data) and 302 (Supplementary Financial Information). Regulation S-B currently does not require smaller companies to disclose Item 301 (Selected Financial Data) or Item 302 (Supplementary Financial Information) data. We therefore propose to add a new paragraph (c) to Items 301 and 302 in Regulation S-K, providing that smaller reporting companies are not required to present the information required by these items.

Item 303 (Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations). We propose to add a new paragraph (d) to Item 303 of Regulation S-K to reflect the alternative disclosure standards for smaller companies now in Item 303 of Regulation S-B. Regulation S-B provides more streamlined disclosure requirements for a smaller companys management to present its discussion and analysis of the companys financial condition and results of operations. It requires only two years of analysis if the company is presenting only two years of financial statements instead of the three years of analysis required of larger companies as required in Regulation S-X. Further, Regulation S-B does not require smaller companies to provide tabular disclosure of contractual obligations, as required for companies reporting under Item 303(a)(5) of Regulation S-K. ⁷³

Item 305 (Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk). Regulation S-B currently does not require smaller companies to disclose Item 305 (Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk) information. We therefore propose to add a new paragraph (e) to Item 305 of Regulation S-K providing that smaller reporting companies are not required to respond to this item.

Item 402 (Executive Compensation). We propose to add a new paragraph (l) to Item 402 of Regulation S-K to add the alternative standards for smaller reporting companies for disclosure of compensation of executives and directors now in Item 402 of Regulation S-B. Under Item 402 of Regulation S-B, a smaller company is allowed to provide executive compensation disclosure for only three officers, rather than the five required under Item 402 of Regulation S-K, and Summary Compensation Table disclosure for only two years, rather than the three years required under Regulation S-K. A smaller company does not need to provide a Compensation Discussion and Analysis, is required to provide only three of the seven tables prescribed by Item 402 of Regulation S-K, and is required to provide alternative narrative disclosures. In the Director Compensation Table, a smaller company need not include footnote disclosure of the grant date fair value of equity awards, given that no corresponding Grants of Plan-Based Award Table disclosure for named executive officers of smaller companies is required. ⁷⁴

Item 404 (Transactions with Related Persons, Promoters and Certain Control Persons).

We propose to add a new paragraph (d) to Item 404 of Regulation S-K to add the alternative standards for disclosure of related person transactions now available to smaller companies in Item 404 of Regulation S-B. A smaller reporting company would not be required to disclose policies and procedures for approving related person transactions, which is required of other companies under paragraph (b). Item 404 of Regulation S-B requires disclosure regarding transactions where the amount exceeds the lesser of 1% of a smaller companys total assets or $120,000. Companies using Regulation S-K are required to disclose information only about transactions above $120,000 in amount. As such, for smaller companies with an asset level such that 1% of its assets would equal a dollar amount lower than $120,000, related person disclosure under Item 404 is more rigorous than for larger companies. Further, smaller companies are required to disclose additional specific information about underwriting discounts and commissions and corporate parents. We propose, however, to change the calculation of total assets for smaller reporting companies from 1% percent of their total assets based on the average of total assets at year end for the last three completed fiscal years to the last two completed fiscal years. This standard is more consistent with the two years of financial statements required of smaller reporting companies in the filings containing these disclosures.

Item 407 (Corporate Governance). We propose to add a new paragraph (g) to Item 407 of Regulation S-K to add the corporate governance disclosure standards now available to smaller companies in Item 407 of Regulation S-B. Smaller reporting companies would not be required to provide Compensation Committee Interlock and Insider Participation disclosure or a Compensation Committee Report. In addition, smaller reporting companies would not be required to provide an Audit Committee Report until the first annual report after their initial registration statement is filed with the Commission.

Item 503 (Prospectus Summary, Risk Factors, and Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges). We propose to add a new paragraph (e) to Item 503 of Regulation S-K to add the alternative standards for disclosure now available to smaller companies in Item 503 of Regulation S-B. Item 503 of Regulation S-B does not require smaller companies to provide the information required by paragraph (d) of Item 503 regarding the ratio of earnings to fixed charges when a registrant issues debt, or the ratio of combined fixed charges and preference dividends to earnings when a registrant issues preference equity securities.

Item 504 (Use of Proceeds). We propose no change to the primary text of Item 504 of Regulation S-K because the disclosure standards of Regulation S-K and Regulation S-B currently are substantially the same. We propose a minor change to the instructions to the item, however, to clarify that new Item 310 of Regulation S-K, rather than Regulation S-X, will govern whether financial statements of businesses proposed to be acquired are to be included in the filings of smaller reporting companies relying on Item 310 of Regulation S-K rather than Regulation S-X. We recognize that the instructions to Item 504 in Regulation S-K are more specific than and more than twice as long as those in Item 504 of Regulation S-B. We do not propose to substitute the shorter instructions of Regulation S-B for smaller reporting companies complying with Item 504 because we do not regard the longer instructions as necessarily more burdensome or not scaled to the needs of smaller companies.

Item 512 (Undertakings). We propose to add a new paragraph (m) to Item 512 of Regulation S-K to add the alternative standards for disclosure now available to smaller companies in Item 512 of Regulation S-B. Item 512 of Regulation S-B does not require smaller companies to provide the information about asset-backed securities, foreign private issuers, and trust indenture offerings now required by Regulation S-K.

Item 601 (Exhibits). We propose to add a new paragraph (c) to Item 601 of Regulation S-K to incorporate the standards currently in Item 601 of Regulation S-B. The paragraph would clarify that a smaller reporting company is not required to provide Exhibit 12 (Statements re Computation of Ratios) unless it discloses one of the ratios discussed in the requirement upon the registration of debt or preference equity securities. The paragraph also would clarify that, for purposes of Exhibit 7 (Correspondence from an Independent Accountant Regarding Non-Reliance on a Previously Issued Audit Report or Completed Interim Review), new Item 310 of Regulation S-K, rather than Regulation S-X, may govern the form, content, and preparation of financial statements provided by a smaller reporting company. Our proposal also would revise Item 601 of Regulation S-K to delete references to several SB forms and to Regulation S-B, all of which would be deleted from our rules and regulations.

Request for Comments

• Would a different format in the proposed integrated Regulation S-K more clearly identify the provisions that are different for smaller reporting companies?
• Is the proposed Item 101 (Description of Business) requirement adequate for most smaller reporting companies? Please be as specific as possible and provide details to support your position.
• Should the Commission consider requiring smaller reporting companies to provide tabular disclosure of contractual obligations required in paragraph (5) of Regulation S-K Item 303? Would this disclosure provide meaningful information for investors or would it be overly burdensome for smaller reporting companies?
• Should smaller reporting companies be required to fully comply with any other items of Regulation S-K to which we do not propose to subject them?
• Are there any other provisions in current Regulation S-B that should be carried over for smaller reporting companies into Regulation S-K that we have not proposed to be carried over?
• Conversely, are any of the current Regulation S-B items that we propose to carry over inappropriate for the larger group of companies we propose to define as smaller reporting companies?

c. A La Carte Approach

We propose to allow a company that qualifies as a smaller reporting company to choose, on an item-by-item or a la carte basis, to comply with either the scaled disclosure requirements made available in Regulation S-K for smaller reporting companies or the disclosure requirements for other companies in Regulation S-K, when the requirements for other companies are more rigorous. ⁷⁵ A smaller reporting company would have the option to take advantage of the smaller reporting company requirements for one, some, all or none of the items, at its election, in any one filing, in such cases. We would require, however, that a smaller reporting company provide its financial statements on the basis of either Item 310 of Regulation S-K or Regulation S-X for an entire fiscal year, and not be permitted to switch back and forth from one to the other in different filings within a single fiscal year. If this approach is adopted, we would expect that our staff, in reviewing filings of smaller reporting companies, would be instructed to evaluate item-by-item compliance only with the Regulation S-K requirements applicable to smaller reporting companies, and not with the requirements applicable to larger companies, even if the company whose filing is being reviewed chooses to comply with the larger company requirements. ⁷⁶ The staff also would continue to seek clarity in disclosure provided by smaller reporting companies.

Our objective in proposing the a la carte approach is to provide maximum flexibility for smaller reporting companies without disadvantaging investors. While establishing a baseline of required disclosure, we want to encourage smaller reporting companies to determine for themselves the proper balance and mix of disclosure for their investors within the boundaries of the law, given the costs of compliance and the market demand for information.

We propose to add a check box to the cover page of all filings in which smaller reporting companies may take advantage of the alternative disclosure requirements. The check box would require smaller reporting companies to indicate that they are eligible for Smaller Reporting Company status. Investors and others reviewing the filing would be able to tell from the check box that the disclosing company is eligible to comply with the scaled disclosure available to smaller reporting companies.

In proposing to require smaller reporting to companies to check a box identifying themselves as such on the cover page of their filings, we are attempting to strike the appropriate balance among investor protection, transparency, and the legitimate needs of smaller companies. We are aware that, as discussed by the Advisory Committee, a major reason our current Regulation S-B system has not worked as well as intended is that it requires filing on SB forms that may not have achieved an optimal level of market acceptance. ⁷⁷ By requiring a company to check a box on the front of its filings, we are trying to address the legitimate needs of investors who may want to know if a company is eligible to comply with standards scaled for smaller companies. We are attempting, however, to avoid unduly stigmatizing smaller companies. We believe that, if we have scaled our disclosure and reporting requirements to properly reflect the characteristics of smaller companies, investors will be adequately protected by our rules and should not be unduly concerned that a company may be providing information under a different, scaled standard.

Request for Comments

• Should the Commission adopt the a la carte approach, allowing smaller reporting companies to take advantage of the adjusted disclosure requirements available to them on an item-by-item basis?
• Have smaller companies filing on SB forms not achieved greater market acceptance because investors believe that the disclosure required by Regulation S-K is valuable? Please provide a detailed explanation and a reasoned basis for your view.
• Does the proposal to scale disclosure for smaller reporting companies strike the proper balance between imposing proportional costs and burdens on smaller reporting companies while adequately protecting investors?
• Should the Commission adopt an approach requiring smaller reporting companies to comply with all disclosure requirements for larger companies if they elect to comply with any of those requirements? Should we require smaller reporting companies that choose to no longer follow the disclosure requirements for larger companies to separately disclose that change?
• Is the Commission creating a situation in which newly eligible companies could selectively choose not to disclose information that may be beneficial to investors?
• Does requiring smaller reporting companies to check a box indicating their Smaller Reporting Company status on the cover page of filings unduly penalize or stigmatize smaller reporting companies? Is a check box necessary for investor protection? Is another alternative preferable to a check box?
• Should the proposal require a smaller reporting company to check the box only if it is choosing to comply with at least one item in Regulation S-K scaled for smaller reporting companies, rather than requiring all eligible companies to check the box even if they choose not to comply with any scaled items?
• What should be the impact on a smaller reporting company that attempts to satisfy the disclosure requirements of larger companies but fails to satisfy those requirements? Please provide details to support your views.
• Instead of a check box indicating the size of the company, would it be preferable to have check boxes or some other form of identification indicating what smaller reporting company items the company has relied upon in preparing its filing?
• How would the a la carte approach affect the ability of investors to compare disclosures of smaller reporting companies?

d. Eliminating SB Forms

We anticipate that the elimination of forms associated with Regulation S-B (Forms 10-SB, 10-QSB, 10-KSB, SB-1, and SB-2) will result in regulatory simplification by mainstreaming smaller reporting company filers into the Regulation S-K framework. We anticipate that legal practitioners, accountants, and other individuals preparing disclosure forms will appreciate the convenience of referring to only one set of disclosure requirements.

The Advisory Committee noted that elimination of the SB forms would reduce the complexity of federal securities regulations. The Advisory Committee recognized that the drawbacks associated with Regulation S-B included a lack of acceptance of SB filers in the marketplace. ⁷⁸ Also, North American Securities Administrators Association officials representing state securities regulators have commented that small businesses issuing securities were especially vulnerable to loss of investor confidence if some issuers poisoned the well with material misstatements. ⁷⁹

The elimination of the forms associated with Regulation S-B would result in most smaller reporting companies using Securities Act Form S-1 to offer securities to the public. Since 2005, an issuer using Form S-1 that is subject to the requirement to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act may be permitted to incorporate by reference its previously filed Exchange Act reports if it has filed an annual report for its most recently completed fiscal year, has filed all reports and other materials required to be filed by Sections 13(a), 14, or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and makes available all incorporated materials on its Web site. ⁸⁰ We believe that this ability to incorporate previously filed reports by reference would result in some cost savings and efficiencies in preparing registration statements for smaller reporting companies.

It is our intention that the integration of the disclosure standards of Regulation S-B into Regulation S-K will mitigate the reported lack of market acceptance associated with smaller filers. As one commentator has explained, it is not enough to establish that small business should at times be treated separately from larger business; the manner in which the distinction is made is equally important, for a misguided partition may be worse than no partition at all. ⁸¹ We expect that adoption of our proposal to eliminate the forms associated with Regulation S-B will further our goals of eliminating unwarranted negative perceptions of the smaller reporting company disclosure regime.

Request for Comments

• Is it appropriate to eliminate all SB forms associated with Regulation S-B?
• Should we maintain some or all of the SB forms, even if we integrate the provisions of Regulation S-B into Regulation S-K?
• If adopted, would elimination of the SB forms provide significant benefits to legal practitioners, accountants, and other individuals preparing disclosure for smaller companies? Would there be any impact on investors? Please provide details to support your views.

e. Transition to and from Smaller Reporting Company Status

As discussed above, we propose to significantly expand eligibility for smaller company scaled regulation by combining our two current smaller company regulatory categories, small business issuer and non-accelerated filer, into a new category called smaller reporting company. These companies would have their own eligibility standards and rules for transitioning up to a category of larger companies once a company exceeds the limitations for the smaller reporting company designation. In addition, each category of larger companies has rules for transitioning down to a smaller company category. This ordinarily would occur if the company drops below the ceiling marking the boundary between the smaller and larger company categories.

Currently, a small business issuer that exceeds the $25 million revenue and $25 million public float standards for that status at the end of two consecutive fiscal years must transition out of small business issuer status, effective immediately for filings covering events and completed fiscal periods in the next fiscal year. A non-accelerated filer ceases to qualify for that status and must transition to accelerated filer status in the next fiscal year after its public float first rises above $75 million as of the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter. ⁸² For smaller reporting companies, we propose to follow the transition model currently used to determine accelerated filer status. Under our proposal, smaller reporting companies would lose eligibility to claim that status in the first fiscal year following a fiscal year in which the smaller reporting companys public float rises above $75 million as of the last business day of the second fiscal quarter. ⁸³

We also propose to follow the accelerated filer model in establishing rules for companies to transition to smaller reporting company status. Under our current rules, a reporting company may transition to small business issuer status in the next fiscal year if its public float and revenue fall below $25 million at the end of two consecutive fiscal years. ⁸⁴ An accelerated filer may transition to non-accelerated filer status in the next fiscal year if its public float falls below $50 million as of the last business day of the companys second fiscal quarter. We propose that a reporting company that does not file reports claiming smaller reporting company status be required to transition to that status in the next fiscal year if its public float falls below $50 million as of the last business day of the companys second fiscal quarter. ⁸⁵

Where an issuer does not have a public float or no public market for its common equity securities exists and it has less than $50 million in revenue, we propose to allow it to use the scaled disclosure item requirements until it exceeds $50 million in annual revenue. Once an issuer fails to qualify for smaller reporting status under the revenue test, it would remain unqualified unless its annual revenues fall below $40 million during the previous fiscal year.

The determination as to whether a company qualifies for smaller reporting company treatment would be made at the beginning of a fiscal year on the basis of the information in a quarterly report on Form 10-Q or an initial registration statement under the Securities Act or Exchange Act, whichever is the first to be filed during that year. If an issuer that qualified on the basis of revenue develops a public float or its public float increases during the year, the issuer would remain a smaller reporting company for the entire fiscal year.

Our purpose in proposing these transition rules is to provide both predictability and flexibility to smaller companies, while at the same time assuring that investors have access to the appropriate level of disclosure. We do not wish to have the rules under which a smaller company is reporting change too frequently. It also is our intention to provide smaller reporting companies with the ability to take advantage of scaled regulation in the appropriate circumstances.

Request for Comments

• Should the transition rules to and from smaller reporting company status be more similar to the current transition rules for small business issuer status?
• Should we provide a two-year test period, rather than a single determination date, for transitioning from smaller reporting company status, as is the case for transitioning from small business issuer status today?
• Should the Commission consider a threshold other than $50 million in public float to transition into smaller reporting company status? Should we set the public float level for transitioning into smaller reporting company status at $40 million, $60 million, $75 million, or some other level?
• Is there a better way for smaller reporting companies to transition to or from that status? Please be as specific as possible and provide details with your comments.

f. Eliminating Transitional Small Business Issuer Format

As part of the adoption of Regulation S-B, and later additional small business initiatives, the Commission developed a transitional registration statement, Form SB-1, and annual report, Form 10-KSB, allowing disclosure based on Model A or B found in Regulation A. ⁸⁶ The Commission allowed the question-and-answer format for small business issuers to make an easy transition from a non-reporting company to a reporting company under the Securities Act or Exchange Act. A small business issuer may use this transitional disclosure format until it:

• registers more than $10 million under the Securities Act in any continuous 12-month period, other than on a Form S-8;
• elects to graduate to a non-transitional disclosure system; or
• is no longer a small business issuer.

The number of companies that registered on Form SB-1 and followed the transitional disclosure format within Form 10-KSB has declined over time. During the past five years, the Commission has received only 56 Form SB-1 registration statements. ⁸⁷ The number of companies that file their Form 10-KSB using the transitional disclosure format is also small. For the calendar years 2000 to 2005, two small business issuers out of 56 filed a Form 10-KSB using the transitional disclosure format.

Because the transitional disclosure format is not commonly understood and infrequently used, we propose to eliminate this disclosure option. Accordingly, smaller reporting companies no longer would have the option to use Form SB-1 and the transitional format version of Form 10-KSB. Instead, they would use Form S-1 and 10-K. Our proposal would remove all references to transitional filer status, including removing paragraph 4 of General Instruction D in Form S-4, the Note to Small Business Issuers in Rules 14a-3 and 14c-3, and General Instructions G in Schedule 14A. We are not proposing to alter the disclosure format permitted in Regulation A offerings on Form 1-A.

Request for Comments

• Should the Commission maintain the transitional disclosure format option? If so, please indicate the reasons why the option should be maintained.

g. Other Proposals

We also are soliciting suggestions for additional ways in which we could better scale our disclosure and reporting requirements to the needs of smaller companies and their investors. All suggestions that ease the burdens of smaller companies without compromising investor protection are welcome.

We also propose several minor and technical amendments to our rules and forms to conform them to the regulatory changes we propose today. Most of these amendments are deletions of references to Regulation S-B or a small business issuer rule and substitutions of references to Regulation S-K. In a few instances, we propose to amend rules to reflect the Commissions current address of 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.

Request for Comments

• Are there additional ways in which we could better scale our disclosure and reporting requirements to the needs of smaller reporting companies and their investors, while continuing to take investor protection into account? Please be as specific as possible and provide detailed support for your suggestions.

III. General Request for Comments

We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments on any aspect of our proposals and any of the matters that might have an impact on the proposed amendments. We request comment from investors and companies that may be affected by the proposals. We also request comment from service professionals, such as law and accounting firms, and facilitators of capital formation, such as underwriters and placement agents, and other regulatory bodies, such as state securities regulators. We are especially interested in comments from service professionals that regularly work with smaller reporting companies. With respect to any comments, we note that they are of greatest assistance to our rulemaking initiatives if accompanied by supporting data and analysis of the issues addressed and by alternatives to our proposals where appropriate.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. Background

The proposed amendments contain collection of information requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. ⁸⁸ We are submitting a request for approval of the proposed amendments to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and its implementing regulations. ⁸⁹ The titles of the collections of information are: ⁹⁰

(1) Regulation S-B (OMB Control No. 3235-0417);

(2) Regulation S-K (OMB Control No. 3235-0071);

(3) Regulation C (OMB Control No. 3235-0074);

(4) Form SB-1 (OMB Control No. 3235-0423);

(5) Form SB-2 (OMB Control No. 3235-0418);

(6) Form S-1 (OMB Control No. 3235-0065);

(7) Form S-3 (OMB Control No. 3235-0073);

(8) Form S-4 (OMB Control No. 3235-0324);

(9) Form S-8 (OMB Control No. 3235-0066);

(10) Form S-11 (OMB Control No. 3235-0067);

(11) Form 1-A (OMB Control No. 3235-0286);

(12) Form 10 (OMB Control No. 3235-0064);

(13) Form 10-SB (OMB Control No. 3235-0419);

(14) Form 10-K (OMB Control No. 3235-0063);

(15) Form 10-KSB (OMB Control No. 3235-0420);

(16) Form 8-K (OMB Control No. 3235-0060);

(17) Form 8-A (OMB Control No. 3235-0056);

(18) Form 10-Q (OMB Control No. 3235-0070);

(19) Form 10-QSB (OMB Control No. 3235-0416);

(20) Form 11-K (OMB Control No. 3235-0082); and

(21) Form SE (OMB Control No. 3235-0327).

We adopted all of the existing regulations and forms pursuant to the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, and the Trust Indenture Act. These regulations and forms set forth the disclosure requirements for annual, periodic, and current reports and registration statements that are prepared by issuers to provide investors information to make informed investment decisions in registered offerings of securities and in secondary market transactions.

Our proposed amendments to existing forms and regulations and the proposed elimination of Regulation S-B, Form SB-1, Form SB-2, Form 10-SB, Form 10-KSB, and Form 10-QSB are intended to:

• make proportional and scaled disclosure options available to a larger number of smaller companies;
• promote regulatory simplification; and
• integrate current Regulation S-B disclosure requirements for smaller companies into disclosure requirements of Regulation S-K.

These proposed amendments are intended to result in regulatory simplification for a greater number of entities that would be eligible for scaled disclosure item requirements. These proposals should not increase the disclosure requirements for any registrant, but will require some registrants to file different forms than they currently use. These proposals do not affect any disclosure requirements for any company with a public float over $75 million.

The hours and costs associated with preparing disclosure, filing information required by forms, and retaining records constitute reporting and cost burdens imposed by collection of information requirements. 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 control number.

The information collections related to annual, periodic, and current reports and registration statements would be mandatory for larger reporting companies; some of the requirements, however, would be voluntary for smaller reporting companies.

B. Summary of Information Collections

Our proposals would amend the forms listed above as collections of information but focus primarily on the forms discussed below.

The proposals would increase existing collection of information total burden estimates for reports on Form 10-K and Form 10-Q as well as registration statements on Form 10, Form S-1, and Form S-11 for the following reasons:

• the elimination of Form 10-KSB would cause an increase in the number of companies that are required to file an annual report on Form 10-K; ⁹¹
• the elimination of Form 10-QSB would cause an increase in the number of companies that are required to file quarterly reports on Form 10-Q; ⁹²
• the elimination of Form SB-1 would cause an increase in the number of registration statements filed on Form S-1; ⁹³
• the elimination of Form SB-2 would cause an increase in the number of registration statements filed on Form S-1; ⁹⁴ and
• the elimination of Form SB-2 would cause real estate companies that had previously used that form to use Form S-11 instead, thereby increasing the number of registration statements filed on Form S-11. ⁹⁵

At the same time, the proposals would decrease existing collection of information total burden estimates for annual reports on Form 10-KSB, quarterly reports on Form 10-QSB, and registration statements on Form 10-SB, Form SB-1, and Form SB-2 by:

• eliminating Form SB-1, Form SB-2, Form 10-SB, Form 10-KSB, and Form 10-QSB and integrating the disclosure requirements of Regulation S-B into Regulation S-K, thereby simplifying the disclosure requirements by combining them into one regulation.

In addition, the proposals may decrease existing collection of information total burden estimates, or not affect them at all, for some reports filed on Form 10-K and Form 10-Q and some registration statements on Form 10, Form S-1, and Form S-11, depending on the companys particular circumstances, by:

• replacing the definition of small business issuer with a broader category of smaller reporting companies comprised of most non-accelerated filers with a public float between $25 million and $75 million, and providing these smaller reporting companies with the option of scaled disclosure;
• allowing smaller reporting companies to provide a three-year discussion of their business development (Item 101), rather than five years as required of larger companies;
• allowing smaller reporting companies to provide more streamlined disclosure for managements discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations (Item 303) by requiring two years of analysis if the company is presenting only two years of financial statements rather than three years as required of larger companies. Further, smaller reporting companies would not have to provide tabular disclosure of contractual obligations as required for larger companies under Item 303(a)(5);
• allowing smaller reporting companies to provide an audited balance sheet for the most recent fiscal year and audited statements of income, cash flows, and changes in stockholders equity for each of the latest two fiscal years rather than an audited balance sheet for the latest two fiscal years and audited statements of income, cash flows and changes in stockholders equity for each of the latest three fiscal years as required by Regulation S-X for larger companies;
• allowing smaller reporting companies to provide information about the chief executive officer and two other highly compensated executive officers (Item 402), rather than information about the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and three other highly compensated executive officers as required for larger companies and to provide only a summary compensation table, an outstanding equity awards table, and a director compensation table, rather than the seven tables required for larger companies. Furthermore, a smaller reporting company would not be required to provide a Compensation Discussion and Analysis, as required of larger companies; and
• allowing smaller reporting companies to disclose related person transactions that exceed the lower of 1% of their total assets or $120,000 in amount. In this instance, a smaller reporting company for which 1% of its assets is less than $120,000 may have a more rigorous disclosure burden than a larger registrant if it chose to provide the scaled disclosure available to smaller reporting companies. Smaller reporting companies also would provide the related person disclosure for two years rather than the three years required for larger companies. A smaller reporting company would not be required to disclose its policies and procedures for approving related person transactions.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Estimates

For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, we believe that if these proposals were adopted, the burden changes would be insignificant for companies that currently meet the small business issuer definition.

We estimate that the total increase in burden hours for Form 10-K, Form 10-Q, Form 10, Form S-1, and Form S-11 would be 6,151,112 and that the total increase in cost would be $933,954,800. These increases are offset by the total decrease in burden hours for Form 10-KSB, Form 10-QSB, Form 10-SB, Form SB-1, and Form SB-2 of 6,149,012 burden hours and a total decrease in cost of $927,927,800. The net difference between the increase and decrease is an increase of 2,100 burden hours and a cost of $6,027,000. The reason for the net difference is that small real estate companies, which are currently eligible to use Form SB-2, would be required to use Form S-11 if these proposals are adopted. Form S-11 is a form tailored to the real estate industry that requires more internal burden hours and increased professional costs. The net increase of 2,100 burden hours and costs of $6,027,000 is outweighed by the possible decrease of 356,390 burden hours and costs of $47,479,000, as discussed in detail below.

Our methodologies for deriving the burden hour and cost estimates presented below represent the average burdens for all issuers, both large and small. For Exchange Act annual reports and quarterly reports on Form 10-K and 10-Q, we estimate that 75% of the burden of preparation is carried by the company internally and that 25% of the burden is carried by outside professionals retained by the issuer at an average cost of $400 per hour. ⁹⁶

For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, we estimate that over a three-year period ⁹⁷ the annual increased incremental disclosure burden imposed by the proposed revisions would average 4,457,088 hours per Form 10-K, 7,387 hours per Form 10, 1,155,209 hours per Form 10-Q, 138,765 hours per Form S-1, and 7,413.75 hours per Form S-11. The plain English requirements would apply to these disclosure statements and is factored into the incremental burden of preparing these forms.

These estimates were based on the following assumptions:

Form 10-K

• The elimination of Form 10-KSB would cause the number of Form 10-Ks filed to increase. We estimate there were approximately 3,504 Form 10-KSBs filed in the last fiscal year so there would be a corresponding increase of 3,504 Form 10-Ks filed.
• We estimate that an increase of 3,504 Form 10-Ks filed would result in an increase in the compliance burden by an estimated 4,457,088 hours (3,504 companies x 1,272 internal hours per company) and an annual cost increase of $594,278,400 ($169,600 cost per response x 3,504 annual responses) with respect to the current Form 10-K. ⁹⁸

Form 10-Q

• The elimination of Form 10-QSB would cause the number of Form 10-Qs to increase. We estimate that there were approximately 11,299 Form 10-QSBs filed last fiscal year so there would be a corresponding increase of 11,299 more Form 10-Qs filed.
• We estimate that an increase of 11,299 to the number of Form 10-Qs filed would result in an increase in the compliance burden by 1,155,209 hours (11,299 responses by companies x 102.24 internal hours per response) and an annual cost increase of $154,027,968 (34.08 professional hours x $400 per hour = $13,632 cost per response x 11,299 responses annually) with respect to the current Form 10-Q.

Form 10

• The elimination of Form 10-SB would cause the number of Form 10s to increase. We estimate that approximately 166 Form 10-SBs were filed in the last fiscal year so there would be a corresponding increase of 166 Form 10s.
• We estimate that an increase of 166 to the number of Form 10s filed would result in an increase in the compliance burden by 7,387 hours (166 responses by companies x 44.5 internal hours per response) and an annual cost increase of $8,864,000 (133.5 professional hours x $400 per hour = $53,400 cost per response x 166 responses annually) with respect to the current Form 10.

Form S-1

• The elimination of Form SB-1 would cause the number of Form S-1s to increase. We estimate there were approximately 17 Form SB-1s filed in the last fiscal year so there would be a corresponding increase of 17 Form S-1s filed.
• We estimate that 17 more Form S-1s would increase the compliance burden by 3,009 hours (17 company responses x 177 internal hours per response) and increase the annual cost by $3,610,800 (531 professional hours x $400 per hour = $212,400 cost per response x 17 responses annually).
• The elimination of Form SB-2 would cause the number of Form S-1s to increase. We estimate that there were approximately 870 Form SB-2s filed in the last fiscal year so there would be a corresponding increase of 870 more Form S-1s filed.
• We estimate that 870 more Form S-1s would result in an increase in the compliance burden by 138,765 hours (870 company responses x 159.5 internal hours per response) and an annual cost of $166,518,000 (478.5 professional hours x $400 per hour = $191,400 cost per response x 870 responses annually) increase to the current Form S-1.

Form S-11

• The elimination of Form SB-2 would also cause the number of Form S-11s to increase. We estimate there were approximately 15 Form SB-2s filed by real estate companies in the last fiscal year so that there would be a corresponding increase of 15 Form S-11s filed.
• We estimate that 15 more Form S-11s would result in an increase in the compliance burden by 7,414 hours (15 company responses x 494.25 internal hours per response) and an annual cost of $8,898,000 (1,483 professional hours x $400 per hour = $593,200 cost per response x 15 responses annually) increase in the current Form S-11.

The annual decrease in incremental disclosure burden resulting from the proposed revisions would average 4,457,000 hours per Form 10-KSB, 7,387 hours per Form 10-SB, 1,540,458 hours per Form 10-QSB, 3,009 hours per Form SB-1, and 141,158 hours per Form SB-2. The annual decrease in incremental cost burden resulting from the proposed revisions would average $594,278,000 per Form 10-KSB, $8,864,000 per Form 10-SB, $151,786,000 per Form 10-QSB, $3,610,800 per Form SB-1, and $169,389,000 per Form SB-2. The plain English requirements would apply to these disclosure statements and is factored into the incremental burden of preparing these forms.

These estimates were based on the following assumptions:

Form 10-KSB

• We estimate that the elimination of 3,504 Form 10-KSBs filed would result in a decrease in the compliance burden by 4,457,088 hours (3,504 responses by companies x 1,272 internal hours per response) and an annual cost decrease of $594,278,400 (424 professional hours x $400 per hour = $169,600 cost per response x 3,504 responses annually).

Form 10-QSB

• We estimate that the elimination of 11,299 Form 10-QSBs filed would result in a decrease in the compliance burden by 1,155,209 hours (11,299 responses by companies x 102.24 internal hours per response) and an annual cost decrease of $154,027,968 (34.08 professional hours x $400 per hour = $13,632 cost per response x 11,299 filings annually).

Form 10-SB

• We estimate that the elimination of 166 Form 10-SBs filed would result in a decrease in the compliance burden by 7,387 hours (166 responses by companies x 44.5 internal hours per response) and an annual cost decrease of $8,864,000 (133.5 professional hours x $400 per hour = $53,400 cost per response x 166 responses annually).

Form SB-1

• We estimate that the elimination of 17 Form SB-1s would result in a decrease in the compliance burden by 3,009 hours (17 company responses x 177 internal hours per response) and an annual cost decrease of $3,610,800 (531 professional hours x $400 per hour = $212,400 cost per response x 17 responses annually).

Form SB-2

• We estimate the elimination of 885 Form SB-2s would result in a decrease in the compliance burden by 141,157.5 hours (885 company responses x 159.5 internal hours) and an annual cost decrease of $169,389,000 (478.5 professional hours x $400 per hour = $191,400 cost per response x 885 responses annually).

Additionally, we estimate that approximately 1,581 companies would become newly eligible to use scaled disclosure for smaller reporting companies or have a new opportunity to assess whether they should avail themselves of scaled regulation under the restructured regime and could experience significant burden and cost savings if these proposals are adopted. ⁹⁹ We estimate that if these smaller reporting companies use all of the scaled smaller reporting company requirements, they would save 713,031 burden hours and an aggregate cost of $95,018,100. ¹⁰⁰ We do not expect all of the 1,581 companies, however, to use all of the scaled disclosure available to smaller reporting companies.

While we are unsure how many of the 1,581 smaller reporting companies would use the scaled disclosure requirements, for purposes of this analysis, we estimate that approximately 50% of these companies would use the proposed scaled disclosure available to smaller reporting companies. As a result, we estimate that these 790 smaller reporting companies could save 356,390 internal burden hours and costs of $47,479,000 as indicated in the table below showing our estimates if 50% of the companies used the scaled disclosure in preparing their Form 10-K. ¹⁰¹

Totals

The tables below illustrate the incremental annual compliance burden in the collection of information in hours and cost for Exchange Act periodic reports, Exchange Act registration statements, and Securities Act registration statements.

Calculation of Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Estimates for Exchange Act Reports, Exchange Act Registration Statements, and Securities Act Registration Statements

Table 1-Decreases

Table 2-Increases
(Part 1 of 2)

Table 2-Increases
(Part 2 of 2)

Table 1- Decreases for Newly Eligible Companies

D. Request for Comment

We request comment in order to (a) evaluate whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of collections of information; (c) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. ¹⁰²

Any member of the public may direct to us any comments concerning the accuracy of these burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing these burdens. 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 should send a copy to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-15-07. Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to these collections of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-15-07, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Records Management, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312. Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information requirements between 30 and 60 days after publication of this release, your comments are best assured of having their full effect if OMB receives them within 30 days of publication.

V. Cost-Benefit Analysis

A. Background

We are proposing to eliminate our SB forms and integrate Regulation S-B item requirements into amended Regulation S-K. We propose to amend all relevant rules and forms under the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, and the Trust Indenture Act to replace the existing definition of small business issuer with the new definition of a smaller reporting company. The smaller reporting company would replace the current small business issuer eligibility standards to allow a broader range of public companies to provide disclosure based on the scaled disclosure requirements. The proposed new definition for smaller reporting company would include companies with a public float of less than $75 million and would therefore provide a significant increase from the $25 million levels for public float and revenue under the current small business issuer definition.

B. Summary of Proposals

As noted above, our proposals would eliminate the separate disclosure framework of Regulation S-B by integrating those requirements into Regulation S-K. The proposed new definition for smaller reporting company would expand the number of filers that would qualify to provide disclosure under the more scaled item requirements of the current Regulation S-B framework. As proposed, smaller reporting companies and non-accelerated filers would both be subject to Regulation S-K, but smaller reporting companies would have the option to provide disclosure on an item-by-item basis according to the scaled item requirements of amended Regulation S-K.

New Definition of Smaller Reporting Company in Regulation S-K

Under the proposals, the newly defined term smaller reporting company would include previously excluded companies with public float levels of between $25 and $75 million. Additionally, companies that do not have a public float as defined, or are unable to calculate it, would be eligible for scaled disclosure if their revenues are below $50 million annually. A smaller reporting company would have the option to prepare disclosure based on the scaled disclosure item requirements of amended Regulation S-K. The proposed amendments to Regulation S-K would foster regulatory flexibility because eligible filers would be able to choose the level of disclosure to provide on an item-by-item basis. We believe providing disclosure choice is consistent with a principles-based approach, which encourages filers to provide more meaningful and relevant disclosure that is specific to the needs of the company and its investors.

Description of Business

Under the proposal, companies with public float levels of less than $75 million would be able to elect to provide disclosure regarding the development of their business for three years rather than the current requirement applicable to companies between $25 million and $75 million in public float to disclose the general development of the business for the past five years.

Financial Information

As part of our proposals to reduce costs associated with regulatory compliance, we are proposing to simplify financial statement disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies.

As proposed, the current financial statement requirements in Item 310 of Regulation S-B would be available to smaller reporting companies. As proposed, Item 310 of Regulation S-K would permit smaller reporting companies to provide an audited balance sheet for the last fiscal year and audited statements of income, cash flows, and changes in stockholders equity for each of the latest two fiscal years. In addition, the expanded category of smaller reporting companies (companies with public float levels between $25 and $75 million) would no longer be required to provide an audited balance sheet for the latest two fiscal years and audited statements of income, cash flows, and changes in stockholders equity for each of the latest three fiscal years as required by Regulation S-X. Other simplified aspects under proposed Item 310 of Regulation S-K would include:

• the historical and pro forma financial statements for significant acquired businesses;
• the maximum age of financial statements; and
• limited partnerships financial statement disclosure of general partners.

Executive Compensation

As proposed to be amended, Item 402 of Regulation S-K would require smaller reporting companies to provide:

• disclosure about the chief executive officer and two other highly compensated executive officers only, rather than the information for the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and three other executive officers required of larger registrants; and
• only three of the seven tables (Summary Compensation, Outstanding Equity Awards, and Director Compensation) required of larger reporting companies.

Transactions with related persons, promoters, and certain control persons

Under the proposals, smaller reporting companies would be able to use the scaled disclosure requirements for transactions with related persons currently in Item 404 of Regulation S-B. Unlike Item 404 of Regulation S-K, Item 404 of Regulation S-B does not require disclosure regarding the companys policies and procedures for approving related person transactions. Smaller reporting companies would be required, however, to report transactions occurring within the last two years, whereas Item 404 of Regulation S-K requires disclosure for the last fiscal year, unless the information is included in a Securities Act or Exchange Act registration statement, where information as to the last three fiscal years is required.

C. Benefits

As discussed above, our proposals would promote regulatory simplification by eliminating all SB forms and consolidating the Regulation S-B disclosure item requirements into Regulation S-K. The integrated Regulation S-K regime would enable a larger category of public companies to have more flexibility in tailoring disclosure standards to fit the realities of their company. The proposed increased public float standards in the definition of smaller reporting company would provide more companies the flexibility to choose between scaled item requirements such as financial statement information and executive compensation disclosure.

Eliminating the SB forms would mitigate the perceived notion that smaller companies are currently reporting under a completely different disclosure framework. Integrating smaller reporting companies into the Regulation S-K framework and importing Regulation S-B disclosure standards into Regulation S-K would provide regulatory flexibility and reduce compliance costs for companies. We believe that these proposals will benefit the capital markets by encouraging private companies to consider offerings that are registered under the Securities Act or to enter the Exchange Act reporting system.

As proposed, an integrated disclosure system for all companies filing forms using Regulation S-K would promote efficiency because practitioners and investors would refer to one disclosure framework. Filers and their practitioners would have one consolidated regulation to find all relevant disclosure item requirements, which would reduce complexity and improve regulatory efficiencies.

The disclosure requirements will not change for current small business issuers that have filed under Regulation S-B. We nonetheless believe that the benefits of increased flexibility and efficiency and mitigating the perceived notion that small business issuers are reporting under a different framework are important to small business issuers.

As discussed earlier in this release, we estimate that approximately 1,581 companies would have a new opportunity to use the restructured scaled disclosure requirements for smaller reporting companies and could experience significant burden and cost savings if these proposals are adopted. ¹⁰³ If all 1,581 smaller reporting companies provided scaled disclosure, they could save 713,031 burden hours and costs of $95,018,100, using the assumptions from our Paperwork Reduction Analysis. ¹⁰⁴ However, we do not expect all of the 1,581 companies to use all of the scaled disclosure available to smaller reporting companies.

For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Analysis, we assumed that approximately 50% of the 1,581 companies (or 790 companies) would use the scaled disclosure requirements. We estimate that these 790 smaller reporting companies could save 356,390 internal burden hours and costs in the amount of $47,479,000 by using the scaled disclosure requirements. ¹⁰⁵

We believe investors would benefit from the proposed scaled and proportional disclosure amendments to Regulation S-K because the proposals would allow issuers to make disclosure based on the size, business operations, and financial condition of the smaller reporting company. Allowing smaller reporting companies to choose scaled disclosure on an item-by-item basis allows companies to tailor their disclosure to meet their own needs.

Finally, another benefit to smaller reporting companies is that by using Registration Statement Form S-1 a company may be permitted to incorporate by reference its previously filed periodic reports. We believe that this would result in some minor cost savings and efficiencies in preparing registration statements for smaller reporting companies.

D. Costs

In our view, the proposed elimination of the SB forms and the proposed consolidation of the Regulation S-B disclosure standards into Regulation S-K would not increase significantly the costs of complying with the Commissions rules. For current SB filers, we estimate the net difference of reporting under Regulation S-K would be an increase of 2,100 burden hours and a cost of $6,027,000. ¹⁰⁶ The reason for the net difference is that small real estate companies, which are currently eligible to use Form SB-2, would be required to use Form S-11 if these proposals are adopted. Form S-11 is a form tailored to the real estate industry and requires more internal burden hours and increased professional costs.

As proposed, we are not creating new rules or item requirements that would increase burdens or impose new requirements other than requiring foreign private issuers that elect to file reports as smaller reporting companies to provide financial statements according to U.S. GAAP. We believe that combining disclosure standards into one centralized source in amended Regulation S-K would streamline and simplify the disclosure burdens associated with the registration process for many filers. Under the proposed amendments, our intention is to provide regulatory relief to a broader category of filers consistent with investor protection. We anticipate that companies would be able to reduce costs associated with the preparation of disclosure.

We recognize that some of the 1,581 companies may choose to avail themselves of the scaled disclosure requirements when they have complied with standard Regulation S-K previously. These companies may be providing less information to the marketplace. But more information is not necessarily better if the cost to provide the information is greater than the benefit. These companies would be providing scaled disclosure to fit the characteristics of their company while balancing the burdens of providing information with their benefits.

Request for Comments

We solicit comments, especially quantitative data, to assist in our assessment of the benefits and costs of scaled disclosure resulting from:

• expanding the category of filers that may be eligible for smaller reporting company status by increasing the public float threshold to a level of less than $75 million in public float;
• eliminating all forms associated with Regulation S-B;
• allowing smaller reporting companies to provide disclosure based on the scaled item requirements of amended Regulation S-K, which would include Items 101, 303, 310, 402, 404, and any others that would be amended based on the current scaled standards set forth in Regulation S-B;
• indexing the public float threshold for smaller reporting company eligibility to provide for periodic adjustments based on inflation; and
• making the scaled disclosure requirements in current Regulation S-B Items 101, 303, 310, 402, and 404 available to more companies eligible for smaller reporting company status.

Additionally, we request comments on the following:

• Do members of the public have comments, especially quantitative data, to assist our assessment of the benefits and costs of scaled disclosure resulting from our proposed amendments?
• Are there costs or benefits to our proposals that we have not identified?
• Some companies with a public float between $25 million and $75 million may choose to use the scaled disclosure to provide less information to investors than they have in the past. Would this loss of information have a negative or positive effect on investors? Would it affect the cost of capital?
• It may be more difficult under the current proposal for a smaller reporting company that filed as a Regulation S-K filer in the past to differentiate itself from other smaller companies. Would the lack of differentiation affect investors and, if so, what impact will it have? Would it affect the cost of capital?
• Would any reporting companies that would newly qualify for scaled disclosure requirements incur increased costs as a result of adoption of our proposed amended and scaled item requirements of Regulation S