More than two dozen trade associations, including the American Bankers Association, Investment Adviser Association, Investment Company Institute, Risk Management Association, SIFMA, Small Business Investor Alliance, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce CCMC, joined in a letter to the SEC expressing significant concerns about the brief comment periods ascribed to the numerous, overlapping, and, in many cases, complex and voluminous, rulemaking proposals issued by the SEC during Chair Gary Gensler’s administration, which don’t accommodate sufficient opportunity for the association members (or other commenters) to provide the type of fulsome, well-considered , analytical, and data-rich input the SEC claims to be seeking in the rulemaking process.
In addition to asserting that the SEC’s current comment period approach runs counter to its historical practices, case law, and federal standards and guidance, and identifying the potential for significant adverse impacts on investors, capital formation, and the economy generally, the letter notes the plausible inference that the comment periods are a mere formality (i.e., the rulemaking is effectively decided at the proposal stage). The letter further observes that the SEC of just one of many agencies and governmental bodies that regulate the associations’ members and that are concurrently issuing rulemaking proposals for comment.
See our prior report: “Rulemaking Comment Periods Need to Allow Time for Meaningful Input”; these posts from Mayer Brown and Jim Hamilton’s World of Securities Regulation; and this BNN Bloomberg article.
This post first appeared in the weekly Society Alert!