The US Securities and Exchange Commission was scheduled to vote on final rules to rework Form PF at its Wednesday open meeting. Late on Tuesday evening, the rules disappeared from the Commission’s agenda.

“It’s been a busy few weeks, and the Commission decided to take a little more time with the Form PF adoption release,” agency spokeswoman Aisha Johnson told affiliate title Regulatory Compliance Watch in an e-mail statement.

It is rare for the US regulator to remove an item from an open meeting agenda. Final votes are sometimes taken in closed session, and federal laws require such votes to be publicly noted in advance. Sometimes the chair does not have the votes he or she needs, or sometimes a chair might believe there is a chance to win an extra vote.

The SEC proposed in January last year to enhance transparency in the private fund industry through the Form PF – a regulatory filing requirement that mandates private fund managers report certain assets under management to monitor risks to the US financial system.

The Commission is weighing two sets of Form PF proposals. The first, posted in the Federal Register in February last year, were aimed mostly at large private equity firms. The second was published in September and was aimed mostly at large hedge fund advisers. The second of these was accompanied by a companion proposal by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Lobbying records show that among the last groups to discuss the proposed form changes was the Managed Funds Association, which met with SEC and CFTC officials on 9 March. In that meeting, MFA officials warned both agencies that the SEC did not properly assess how the changes suggested in the August rules affected the changes proposed in the January rules. That opens the door for a procedural challenge to any new rules.

“As such, there is not sufficient opportunity for public review and comment on those aspects of the September proposed rules that would affect the February proposed rules,” MFA vice-president Jennifer Han said in a 16 March open letter to both agencies after the meeting.

“For this reason, we believe the SEC should remedy this gap by analysing the effects of the September proposed rules on the February proposed rules, and provide an opportunity for public review and comment on that analysis before proceeding to any final rules.”