From: Maggie Bick and Ann Murray [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Submission herewith of comments on proposed rule and form amendments to mandate electronic filing of Form ID:
1. The regulations should include the process by which the applicant/filer receives confirmation that the Form ID has been received by the Commission for processing (i.e. via e-mail message, similar to an acceptance message, stating that the Form ID has been received).
2. The regulations should include the process by which the applicant/filer receives the new access codes upon receipt by the Commission of the electronic Form ID (i.e. via e-mail message, after receipt of faxed, notarized document authenticating the Form ID, similar to an acceptance message).
3. The regulations should include the procedures to protect existing access codes from being duplicated or overwritten upon electronic submission of the Form ID as this has been an on-going problem we have encountered. For example:
#1 - codes for one of our Sec. 16 insiders were obtained, by our office on his behalf, prior to the mandatory electronic filing of Forms 3, 4 and 5. It was our understanding, after the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that Commission personnel administrating the Form IDs protected pre-existing codes from duplication. (NOTE: these codes were provided to this Sec. 16 insider to pass on to other entities in which he was a Sec. 16 insider.) However, another entity applied for and received access codes for this same Sec. 16 insider, thus establishing duplicate codes for that insider. After discovery of such duplication, and discussion with Commission personnel, the codes that were first in existence were established as the proper codes for that Sec. 16 insider. Fortunately, no filings were affected by this duplication.
#2 - in compliance with the two-day reporting rule for Sec. 16 reports, our office attempted to file a Form 4 on behalf of one of our Sec. 16 insiders. Our submission was repeatedly suspended due to an "inconsistent tag value" despite the fact that our records verified that we were using the correct CIK and CCC access codes for that particular Sec. 16 insider (issued by the SEC on 10/17/00). After communications with this Sec. 16 insider, we received from her another set of access codes (but the same CIK) and promptly submitted, albeit late, the Form 4. Over the next few days, we were able to determine through conversations with your office that the CCC, Password and PMAC codes for this particular Sec. 16 insider had been changed, without notice to us. It was later determined that a law firm, representing another company for which this particular Sec. 16 insider serves as a director, requested the change and your office acquiesced to that request. We currently have a re! quest to the SEC that it change the Form 4 filing date to the date we originally attempted to file.
We respectfully request assurance that, under this proposed mandated electronic filing process for Form IDs, situations like these experienced in the examples above, do not occur, resulting in potential late filings, further, unnecessary reporting requirements, and additional labor by EDGAR Filer Support.
Thank you for your consideration.
Maggie Bick and Ann Murray