Notice2024-18986
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Order Granting Approval of Amendments Related to Aspects of Designing and Performing Audit Procedures That Involve Technology-Assisted Analysis of Information in Electronic Form
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 23, 2024
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 164 (Friday, August 23, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68219-68223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18986]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-100774; File No. PCAOB-2024-03]
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Order Granting
Approval of Amendments Related to Aspects of Designing and Performing
Audit Procedures That Involve Technology-Assisted Analysis of
Information in Electronic Form
August 20, 2024.
I. Introduction
On June 20, 2024, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(the ``Board'' or the ``PCAOB'') filed
[[Page 68220]]
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''),
pursuant to section 107(b) \1\ of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(``SOX'') and section 19(b) \2\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act''), a proposal to adopt amendments to auditing
standard (``AS'') 1105, Audit Evidence, and AS 2301, The Auditor's
Responses to the Risks of Material Misstatement, and conforming
amendments to AS 2501, Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair
Value Measurements (collectively, the ``Amendments''). The Amendments
were published for comment in the Federal Register on July 2, 2024.\3\
We received six (6) comment letters in response to the Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rules.\4\ This order approves the Amendments, which we find
to be consistent with the requirements of Title I of SOX and the rules
and regulations issued thereunder and necessary or appropriate in the
public interest or for the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 7217(b).
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
\3\ See Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rules on Amendments Related to Aspects of
Designing and Performing Audit Procedures that Involve Technology-
Assisted Analysis of Information in Electronic Form, Release No. 34-
100430 (June 26, 2024) [89 FR 54922 (July 2, 2024)] (``Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rules''), available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/pcaob/2024/34-100276.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/pcaob/2024/34-100276.pdf</a>.
\4\ The Commission received comment letters from Deloitte &
Touche LLP (July 18, 2024) (``Deloitte''); KPMG LLP (July 23, 2024)
(``KPMG''); PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (July 23, 2024) (``PWC'');
RSM US LLP (July 23, 2024) (``RSM''); Center for Audit Quality (July
23, 2024) (``CAQ''); and Ernst & Young LLP (Aug. 12, 2024) (``EY'').
Comment letters received by the Commission on the Amendments are
available on the Commission's website at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/comments/pcaob-2024-003/pcaob2024003.htm">https://www.sec.gov/comments/pcaob-2024-003/pcaob2024003.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Amendments
On June 12, 2024, the Board unanimously adopted the Amendments.\5\
The Amendments are intended to more specifically address certain
aspects of designing and performing audit procedures that involve
analyzing information in electronic form with technology-based tools
(i.e., technology-assisted analysis). The Amendments should promote
investor protection by enhancing the quality of audits. The
requirements contained within the Amendments are discussed further
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Amendments Related to Aspects of Designing and
Performing Audit Procedures that Involve Technology-Assisted
Analysis of Information in Electronic Form, PCAOB Release No. 2024-
007 (June 12, 2024) (``Adopting Release''), available at <a href="https://assets.pcaobus.org/pcaob-dev/docs/default-source/rulemaking/docket-052/2024-007-adoptingrelease.pdf?sfvrsn=28f44e9e_2">https://assets.pcaobus.org/pcaob-dev/docs/default-source/rulemaking/docket-052/2024-007-adoptingrelease.pdf?sfvrsn=28f44e9e_2</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Changes to PCAOB Standards
The Amendments are principles-based in how they further specify and
clarify certain existing auditor responsibilities and are therefore
intended to be adaptable to the evolving nature of the use of
technology in the audit. In particular, the Amendments:
<bullet> Clarify the description of what constitutes a test of
details; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See AS 2301.48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Specify auditor responsibilities when identifying items
that require further investigation when performing tests of details;
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See AS 2301.10, .49 and .50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Specify that if the auditor uses an audit procedure for
more than one purpose (e.g., risk assessment, test of controls, or
substantive procedure), the auditor should achieve each objective of
the procedure; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See AS 1105.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Specify auditor responsibilities for evaluating the
reliability of external information provided by the company under
audit; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See AS 1105.10A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Emphasize the importance of controls over information
technology; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See AS 1105.08, .10, and .15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Emphasize the importance of appropriate disaggregation or
detail of information to the relevance of audit evidence; \11\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See AS 1105.07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Make conforming changes to AS 2501.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See AS 2501.12 and footnote 14 to paragraph .13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Applicability and Effective Date
The Amendments will be effective for audits of financial statements
for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2025. The PCAOB has
proposed application of the Amendments to include audits of emerging
growth companies (``EGCs''),\13\ as discussed in section IV below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The term ``emerging growth company'' is defined in section
3(a)(80) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(80)). See also
Inflation Adjustments under Titles I and III of the JOBS Act,
Release No. 33-11098 (Sept. 9, 2022) [87 FR 57394 (Sept. 20, 2022)],
available at <a href="https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2022/33-11098.pdf">https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2022/33-11098.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Comment Letters
As noted above, to date the Commission has received six (6) comment
letters in response to the Notice of Filing of Proposed Rules.\14\
Commenters generally supported the Board's efforts to modernize the
requirements related to certain aspects of designing and performing
audit procedures that involve technology-assisted analysis to support
the objective of improving audit quality. A number of commenters, while
generally supportive of the Amendments, sought clarification of
specific issues raised, which are detailed below.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See supra note 4.
\15\ See letters from KPMG; PWC; RSM; CAQ; and EY. PWC expressed
support for the overall goal of the rulemaking but indicated that it
could not support the Amendments ``without further amendment or
contemporaneous interpretive guidance'' to address its concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of commenters identified the requirements in new paragraph
.10A(b) of AS 1105 as requiring further clarity or modification.\16\
Commenters stated their view that the requirements could be read as not
allowing the auditor to apply a risk-based approach, but instead
requiring the auditor, in all circumstances, to either test each piece
of external information obtained from the company to determine if it
was modified before it was provided to the auditor, or test controls
over receiving, maintaining, and, if applicable, processing the
information.\17\ Commenters stated that this reading of the
requirements appeared to be in conflict with language included in the
Adopting Release that indicated that a risk-based approach could be
taken \18\ as well as with AS 1105.09, which states that the auditor is
not expected to be an expert in documentation authentication.\19\
Commenters also stated that if the requirements were not risk-based,
they would likely result in significant additional costs, without a
commensurate benefit, that have not been accounted for in the Board's
economic analysis.\20\ Commenters also stated that, in some cases, an
entity may not have identified the risk of modification as one that
represents a reasonable possibility of a material misstatement, and
thus such controls would not likely be currently part of the entity's
internal control over financial reporting.\21\ Some of these commenters
stated that, in such circumstances, they
[[Page 68221]]
believe the Amendments may require the company to establish controls
solely to satisfy the requirements of its auditors.\22\ Commenters
raised concerns about auditors' ability to compare electronic
information to source records as many companies do not have physical
copies or original paper records because the information is obtained
and maintained only in electronic form.\23\ According to these
commenters, this potential limitation on the ability to compare
electronic information to source records would result in the auditor
being required to test management's controls over receiving,
maintaining, and processing the electronic information, which would not
be possible if the controls do not exist or were not operating
effectively.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See letters from KPMG; PWC; RSM; CAQ; and EY.
\17\ See, e.g., letter from PWC.
\18\ See letters from PWC; RSM; and CAQ.
\19\ See letters from KPMG; PWC; CAQ; and EY (Expressing its
concerns in the context of the interaction between AS 1105.10A(b)
and the PCAOB's proposed paragraph AS 2301.40A, which is part of the
Substantive Analytical Procedures Proposal. Infra note 25. We
believe EY's concern with respect to the Amendments is addressed by
the risk-based considerations discussed herein, and, with respect to
concerns about the Substantive Analytical Procedures Proposal
currently under consideration by the Board, we intend to encourage
the Board to consider the comments in that proposal.).
\20\ See letters from PWC and EY.
\21\ See letters from KPMG; PWC; CAQ; and EY.
\22\ See letters from KPMG; PWC; and CAQ.
\23\ See letters from KPMG; PWC; RSM; CAQ; and EY.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All commenters stated that either interpretive or other
implementation guidance was warranted to facilitate implementation of
the Amendments. One commenter recommended the Commission delay the
effective date of the Amendments to align with the effective date of
the recently proposed amendments to AS 2305.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See letter from KPMG. See Proposed Auditing Standard--
Designing and Performing Substantive Analytical Procedures and
Amendments to Other PCAOB Standards, PCAOB Release No. 2024-005
(June 12, 2024) (``Substantive Analytical Procedures Proposal''),
available at <a href="https://assets.pcaobus.org/pcaob-dev/docs/default-source/rulemaking/docket-056/2024-006-as-2305-proposal.pdf?sfvrsn=d174cacf_2">https://assets.pcaobus.org/pcaob-dev/docs/default-source/rulemaking/docket-056/2024-006-as-2305-proposal.pdf?sfvrsn=d174cacf_2</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, a number of commenters were of the view that
new paragraph AS1105.10A(b) requires the auditor, in all circumstances,
to test whether each piece of information provided to the auditor by
the company, which the company received from external sources, has been
modified by the company. Although we understand the concerns raised by
such commenters, we believe these concerns may be misplaced,
particularly in light of the guidance provided by the Board in the
Adopting Release. For example, in the Adopting Release, the Board
stated that ``[it was] not prescribing the nature, timing, or extent of
the auditor's procedures to evaluate the reliability of the external
information.'' \26\ Instead, as the Board explained, ``[a]n auditor
would design the procedures considering the wide variety of types of
external information received by companies and differences in the
processes for receiving, maintaining and, where applicable, processing
such information.'' \27\ Therefore, our understanding of the
Amendments, when read in the overall context of the PCAOB auditing
standards, is that they do not preclude a risk-based approach to
testing external information. Nevertheless, given the concerns raised
by commenters, we encourage the PCAOB to provide further implementation
guidance on this point. Given our understanding of the risk-based
nature of the standards, we believe the commenters' concern that the
costs of this requirement were not appropriately considered in the
Board's economic analysis reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of
the requirement and that the Board adequately considered the costs
related to the Amendments.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Adopting Release, supra note 5 at 26-32.
\27\ Id. See also AS 2110 Identifying and Assessing Risks of
Material Misstatement; AS 1105.08; AS 1105.09; and new AS
1105.10A(a).
\28\ See letters from PWC and EY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding commenter concerns about the availability of source
records, we do not believe that having source records only available in
electronic form would inhibit procedures to compare information to
source records. Source records are not defined in the PCAOB's auditing
standards and may exist in many forms, including in electronic form. We
note that, when considering the reliability of such a record, AS
1105.10A and AS 1105.09 require the auditor to consider, among other
things, the means by which it was obtained, including any processing by
the company and whether there are indications that it may not be
authentic.
We also do not believe that the Amendments would require management
to establish new controls solely for purposes of satisfying the
requirements of the auditor as raised by commenters. The PCAOB
addressed this concern in the Adopting Release by explicitly stating
that the Amendments do not require testing of controls to establish
reliability.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Adopting Release, supra note 5 at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter stated that aspects of revised AS 2301.48 ``impact
auditors' ability to consistently determine whether a particular audit
procedure qualifies as a test of details.'' \30\ This comment appears
to be based on a misunderstanding of the amendment. AS 2301.48 provides
examples of items in an account or disclosure for which audit
procedures are performed, but does not specify at what level audit
procedures should be applied. In the Adopting Release, the Board was
explicit that the Amendments are not intended to define ``items
included in an account or disclosure'' because a definition is
impractical, and the Board explained that the auditor will determine
the level of disaggregation or detail based on the facts and
circumstances of the individual audit engagement.\31\ We believe the
approach to allow the auditor to determine what level of disaggregation
is most appropriate in light of the specific circumstances of the
engagement is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See letter from KPMG.
\31\ See Adopting Release, supra note 5 at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the comment recommending the Commission delay the
effective date to align with the Substantive Analytical Procedures
Proposal, the effective date was addressed by the Board in the Adopting
Release, and the Board specifically highlighted that they considered
``the effective dates for other Board rulemaking projects.'' \32\ We
agree with the Board's assessment and support the conclusion reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Adopting Release, supra note 5 at 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We acknowledge commenters' concerns about the need for
implementation guidance and we note that the Board has a historical
practice of performing a post-implementation review \33\ as well as
issuing appropriate implementation guidance for new standards and rule
amendments when needed.\34\ We encourage the Board to do the same with
respect to the Amendments. We also acknowledge the importance of
monitoring the implementation of the Amendments and the Commission
staff works closely with the PCAOB as part of our general oversight
mandate.\35\ As part of that oversight, Commission staff will keep
itself apprised of the PCAOB's activities for monitoring the
implementation of the Amendments and update the Commission, as
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See, e.g., Interim Analysis Report--Evidence of the Initial
Impact of New Requirements for Auditing Accounting Estimates and the
Auditor's Use of the Work of Specialists, Release No. 2022-008 (Dec.
8, 2022), available at <a href="https://assets.pcaobus.org/pcaob-dev/docs/default-source/economicandriskanalysis/pir/documents/estimates-specialists-interim-analysis-report.pdf?sfvrsn=e1b0eb15_4">https://assets.pcaobus.org/pcaob-dev/docs/default-source/economicandriskanalysis/pir/documents/estimates-specialists-interim-analysis-report.pdf?sfvrsn=e1b0eb15_4</a>.
\34\ See, e.g., Staff Guidance--Auditing Accounting Estimates
(Aug. 22, 2019), available at <a href="https://assets.pcaobus.org/pcaob-dev/docs/default-source/standards/documents/staff-guidance-auditing-accounting-estimates.pdf?sfvrsn=80016a49_0">https://assets.pcaobus.org/pcaob-dev/docs/default-source/standards/documents/staff-guidance-auditing-accounting-estimates.pdf?sfvrsn=80016a49_0</a>.
\35\ See section 107 of SOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Effect on Emerging Growth Companies
In the Notice of Filing of Proposed Rules, the Board recommended
that the Commission determine that the Amendments apply to audits of
EGCs.\36\
[[Page 68222]]
Section 103(a)(3)(C) of SOX requires that any rules of the Board
requiring mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the
auditor's report in which the auditor would be required to provide
additional information about the audit and the financial statements of
the issuer (auditor discussion and analysis) shall not apply to an
audit of an EGC. The provisions of the Amendments do not fall into
these categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Notice of Filing of Proposed Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 103(a)(3)(C) further provides that ``[a]ny additional
rules'' adopted by the PCAOB do not apply to audits of EGCs ``unless
the Commission determines that the application of such additional
requirements is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, after
considering the protection of investors and whether the action will
promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.'' The
Amendments fall within this category. Having considered those statutory
factors, we find that applying the Amendments to the audits of EGCs is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest.
With respect to the Commission's determination of whether the
Amendments will apply to audits of EGCs, the PCAOB provided
information, including data and analysis of EGCs that sets forth its
views as to why it believes the Amendments should apply to audits of
EGCs.\37\ In addition, the Board sought public input on the application
of the Amendments to the audits of EGCs. Commenters who responded to
the Board agreed the Amendments should apply to the audits of EGCs.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Adopting Release, supra note 5 at 58-61.
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board indicated in its assessment that for all audits performed
pursuant to PCAOB standards, including audits of EGCs, the Amendments
may lead to higher audit quality, more efficient audits, lower audit
fees, or some combination of the three.\39\ These benefits may apply
both to audit engagements where auditors currently incorporate
technology-assisted analysis into their audit approach and engagements
where auditors have been previously reluctant to use technology-
assisted analysis because of the risk of noncompliance.\40\ As the
Board noted in its assessment, the use of technology-assisted analysis
appears to be less prevalent among U.S. non-affiliated firms (``NAFs'')
than U.S. global network firms (``GNFs'').\41\ Therefore, since EGCs
are more likely than non-EGCs to be audited by NAFs,\42\ and to the
extent NAFs are not more likely than other firms to newly implement
technology-assisted analysis in response to the Amendments, the impacts
of the Amendments on EGC audits may be less than on non-EGC audits.\43\
Nevertheless, the Board stated that it expects the Amendments to
enhance the efficiency and quality of EGC audits that implement
technology-assisted analysis and contribute to an increase in the
credibility of financial reporting by those EGCs.\44\ An improvement in
EGCs' financial reporting quality, may also improve the efficiency of
capital allocation and enhance capital formation.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Id. at 45.
\40\ Id. at 46-47.
\41\ See Adopting Release, supra note 5 at 36. The U.S. GNFs are
BDO USA P.C., Deloitte & Touche LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, Grant
Thornton LLP, KPMG LLP, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. The U.S. NAF
firms include registered public accounting firms that are not
members of global network firms.
\42\ See Adopting Release, supra note 5 at 60. PCAOB staff
analysis indicates that, compared to exchange-listed non-EGCs,
exchange-listed EGCs are approximately 2.6 times more likely to be
audited by an NAF and approximately 1.3 times more likely to be
audited by a triennially inspected firm.
\43\ See Adopting Release, supra note 5 at 60.
\44\ Id.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board noted that the Amendments could impact the ability of
EGCs to compete if the costs of the Amendments to audited companies (as
a result of any increase in costs to their auditors) disproportionately
impact EGCs relative to their competitors.\46\ However, as the direct
costs associated with the Amendments are expected to be relatively
modest, the Board concluded that the impact of the Amendments on
competition, if any, is likewise expected to be limited.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Id. at 54.
\47\ Id. at 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree with the Board's findings and further emphasize the
benefits of the Amendments for EGCs. The Amendments may promote higher
audit quality for EGC audits employing technology-assisted analysis,
and thus a higher reliability of financial reporting for the affected
EGCs. An increased reliability of financial reporting may enhance
investor protection and lead to an improved efficiency of capital
allocation and enhanced capital formation with respect to EGCs. These
benefits may be moderated relative to the effects on other issuers,
because, for example, the auditors of EGCs are currently less likely to
employ technology-assisted analysis. However, any potential costs
passed down to EGCs may be similarly moderated.
We note that the Amendments could also impact competition for
capital or in product markets in which EGCs compete. For example, if
non-EGCs are more likely to be the subject of audits using technology-
assisted analysis, these issuers may experience greater improvements in
the reliability of their financial reporting and thereby attract more
capital than EGCs. Alternatively, if any incremental costs or savings
passed down to audited companies by auditors as a result of the
Amendments are disproportionately directed to either EGCs or their
competitors, competition may be affected. However, given that the
direct benefits and costs of the rule (including effects on audit
quality and audit fees) are expected to be relatively modest, any
resulting impact on competition is likely to be relatively limited.
While there may be additional effects if the Amendments result in a
larger number of auditors newly incorporating or expanding the use of
technology-assisted analysis in their audits, and it is difficult to
predict which auditors and which engagements would most likely be the
subject of such changes, it is not clear that such effects would
disproportionately favor the competitors of EGCs. Further, many of the
potential effects on competition are unlikely to be mitigated by
applying the Amendments only to audits of non-EGCs.
Accordingly, after considering the protection of investors and
whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation, we believe there is a sufficient basis to determine that
applying the Amendments to the audits of EGCs is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest.
V. Conclusion
The Commission has reviewed and considered the Amendments, the
information submitted therewith by the PCAOB, the comment letters
received, and the recommendation of the Commission's staff. The
Commission concludes that the determinations made by the PCAOB as
described in the Adopting Release are reasonable. In particular, the
Amendments address challenges with the rapidly evolving use of
technology-based analytical tools that may not be sufficiently
addressed under current professional audit standards. Addressing these
challenges will advance the Board's investor protection mandate under
SOX given that (1) the use of technology-based analytical tools is
substantially increasing and is expected to continue to do so; (2)
technology-based analytical tools have the potential to enhance the
effectiveness of audit procedures by, for example, increasing the
amount of data an auditor is able to analyze or
[[Page 68223]]
otherwise validate, allowing the auditor to perform more robust
analysis or analyze more complex relationships, or by allowing the
auditor to focus their procedures on the transactions with the most
risk; and (3) PCAOB research indicates that some auditors may be
reluctant to implement new technologies due to perceived regulatory
uncertainty, which can be addressed through the clarity provided in the
Amendments.\48\ Therefore, in connection with the PCAOB's filing and
the Commission's review,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Adopting Release, supra note 5 at 12. (``The [Data and
Technology] research [project] further suggests that clarifications
to PCAOB standards could more specifically address certain aspects
of designing and performing audit procedures that involve
technology-assisted analysis. The Board's Investor Advisory Group
has also noted that auditors' use of technology-assisted analysis is
an area of concern due to auditors' potential overreliance on
company-produced information, and that addressing the use of such
analysis in the standards could be beneficial.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Commission finds that the Amendments are consistent with the
requirements of Title I of SOX and the rules and regulations thereunder
and are necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors; and
B. Separately, the Commission finds that the application of the
Amendments to the audits of EGCs is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, after considering the protection of investors and
whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 107 of SOX and section
19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that the Amendments (File No. PCAOB-2024-
03) be and hereby are approved.
By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-18986 Filed 8-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 23, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.