The SEC will ask the public to retrospectively review its existing regulations and to comment on how they can be improved.  [C-I Note: A wide-ranging directive that could yield enormous and disparate responses that the SEC will find difficult to decipher.]  The decision follows a 7/11 order from President Barack Obama which recommends that independent regulatory agencies consider how they might best analyze rules that may be outmoded, ineffective or excessively burdensome, and modify, streamline or repeal them. Why Here, Why Now? Because today's financial markets are dynamic and fast-moving, the regulations affecting the markets and its participants must be reviewed over time and revised as necessary so that the regulations continue to fulfill the SEC's mission.  The SEC has long had formal and informal processes in place to review its existing rules, and a considerable portion of its rule-making already involves changes to existing rules.  Most recently, in March, the Commission began a retrospective review of offering and reporting requirements, and posted a regulatory review webpage seeking public input. The SEC would like the public to comment on such areas as: (i) how often rules should be reviewed; (ii) factors that should be considered; (iii) ways to improve public participation in the rule-making process.  

---

SEC Specifically Requests Comment on the Following. In furtherance of its ongoing efforts to update regulations to reflect market developments and changes in the regulatory landscape, and in light of Executive Order 13579, the Commission invites public comments on the development of a plan for retrospective review of existing significant regulations.  The Commission welcomes general comments on what the scope and elements of such a plan should be.  In addition, the Commission encourages commentators to respond to the questions below:  

1. What factors should the Commission consider in selecting and prioritizing rules for review?
2. How often should the Commission review existing rules?
3. Should different rules be reviewed at different intervals?  If so, which categories of rules should be reviewed more or less frequently, and on what basis?
4. To what extent does relevant data exist that the Commission should consider in selecting and prioritizing rules for review and in reviewing rules, and how should the Commission assess such data in these processes?  To what extent should these processes include reviewing financial economic literature or conducting empirical studies?  How can our review processes obtain and consider data and analyses that address the benefits of our rules in preventing fraud or other harms to our financial markets and in otherwise protecting investors?
5. What can the Commission do to modify, streamline, or expand its regulatory review processes?
6. How should the Commission improve public outreach and increase public participation in the rule-making process?
7. Is there any other information that the Commission should consider in developing and implementing a preliminary plan for retrospective review of regulations?

For further details, go to:  [SEC PR 11-178, 9/6/11].