Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57127 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 26, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–19554 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

National Marine Sanctuary Program 

Policy on Permit Applications for 

Artificial Reef Development 

AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary 

Program (NMSP), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Policy statement; response to 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Sanctuary Program (NMSP) has 

developed a final policy and permitting 

guidelines for applications to establish 

artificial reefs within National Marine 

Sanctuaries. The NMSP is releasing its 

final policy and permitting guidelines, 

and responding to comments on the 

interim final policy. 

DATES: This notice is effective as a final 

policy as of September 30, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You can download a copy 

of the final policy from the NMSP’s Web 

site at http://sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/ 

library/library.html. You may also 

request a copy of the NMSP’s final 

policy on artificial reefs and submit 

written comments on the policy by 

contacting John Armor, National Marine 

Sanctuary Program, 1305 East West 

Highway (N/ORM6), 11th floor, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Armor at (301) 713–3125. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The National Marine Sanctuary 

Program (NMSP) manages a system of 

thirteen National Marine Sanctuaries 

(NMSs or Sanctuaries) and the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral 

Reef Ecosystem Reserve that protect 

special, nationally significant areas of 

the marine environment under the 

authority of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1431 

et seq.). Sanctuaries protect a variety of 

marine areas including coral reefs, 

mangrove forests, and seagrass beds in 

the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary; deep-sea canyons, kelp beds, 

and hardbottom habitats in the 

Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary; and historic shipwrecks in 

the Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve. 

In the last few years the NMSP has 

experienced an increased number of 

permit applications to establish artificial 

reefs inside NMS boundaries, 

particularly in the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary. Because NMSP 

regulations generally prohibit placing 

structures on sanctuary submerged 

lands, any individual who wishes to 

establish an artificial reef inside a NMS 

must first get approval from the NMSP 

through the onsite sanctuary manager. 

To ensure that applications to 

establish artificial reefs in sanctuaries 

are reviewed consistently and in a 

manner that adheres to the NMSA and 

NMSP regulations (15 CFR Part 922), the 

NMSP developed permitting guidelines 

specific for such applications. The 

guidelines build on lessons learned 

from past experience permitting 

artificial reefs within sanctuaries and 

apply knowledge from other sources of 

information. They are intended to guide 

decision makers as they review 

proposals for artificial reefs in 

sanctuaries. They clarify how decision 

making criteria contained in NMSP 

regulations will be applied specifically 

to permit applications for artificial reef 

development. 

Response to Comments 

On July 18, 2003, NOAA published a 

notice of availability of the NMSP’s 

Artificial Reef Policy and Permitting 

Guidelines in the Federal Register (68 

FR 42690, Jul. 18, 2003). The policy and 

permitting guidelines have been 

implemented on an interim-final basis 

since that date. NOAA also requested 

comments on the policy and permitting 

guidelines through September 16, 2003. 

The following are NOAA’s responses to 

the comments received. 

Comment 1. Many commenters felt 

that the policy prohibited or was overly 

restrictive of artificial reef development 

within national marine sanctuaries. 

Response: NOAA disagrees. The 

NMSP’s regulations prohibit artificial 

reef development in NMSs by 

prohibiting the placement of structures 

on the submerged lands. This policy 

creates a framework to allow artificial 

reefs under specific conditions (i.e., 

when a project is expected to benefit 

NMS management and would not have 

a detrimental effect on NMS resources). 

The policy applies higher standards of 

resource protection to artificial reef 

projects within NMSs than would apply 

to projects outside NMSs or other 

protected areas. More protective 

requirements are appropriate given the 

nature and purpose of the NMSs. 

Comment 2. Several commenters 

suggested expanding the policy or 

definition of artificial reefs to address 

specific issues, such as coral reef 

restoration and reef balls. 

Response: The primary purpose of the 

policy is to guide decision making 

related to placement of artificial reefs 

within the Sanctuary System. The 

policy is intended to apply to all types 

of artificial reef projects, and not to 

direct the policy to a specific type of 

artificial reef. The policy appropriately 

and specifically excludes natural reef 

restoration projects from application of 

this policy because such projects are 

addressed by the NMSP in a much 

different manner. 

Comment 3. A few commenters felt 

that artificial reefs should not be placed 

in sanctuaries under any circumstances. 

Response: See response to comment 

number 1. 

Comment 4. A few commenters stated 

that all or part of the policy conflicted 

with the National Fishing Enhancement 

Act of 1984 (NFEA). 

Response: NOAA disagrees. While the 

NFEA encourages artificial reef 

development it does not, under any 

circumstance, require their use. Any 

regulatory or statutory requirement that 

prohibits or imposes more restrictive 

requirements on artificial reef 

development is not in direct conflict 

with that statute. The NMSP’s artificial 

reef policy is written pursuant to the 

NMSA and the regulations promulgated 

thereunder. Because the primary 

objective of the NMSA is resource 

protection, it is entirely appropriate that 

the NMSP’s policy be more protective 

than the policy applicable to nonsanctuary waters under the NFEA. 

Comment 5. Some commenters felt 

that the NMSP’s policy imposes more 

burdens on an applicant than the 

requirements of the National Artificial 

Reef Plan (NARP). 

Response: NOAA agrees. The policy 

does exceed the requirements of the 

NARP in several respects including the 

types of monitoring and insurance 

required. As discussed in the response 

to comment number 4, these more 

stringent requirements are consistent 

with the purposes and policies of the 

NMSA and are appropriate for NMSs. 

Comment 6. One commenter 

suggested that the section on the 

definition of an artificial reef should 

refer to applying the policy to oil rigs 

and existing structures that may end up 

being used as artificial reefs in the 

future. 

57128 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: NOAA does not feel 

abandoning existing oil rigs would 

qualify as artificia1 reef development 

within a NMS as it is defined in the 

NMSP policy, because the policy is not 

meant to address the abandonment of 

existing structures inside NMSs. If 

presented with an application to 

abandon an oil rig inside a NMS, the 

NMSP would use certain aspects of its 

artificial reef policy during its review of 

such a proposal, if appropriate. 

Comment 7. Several commenters 

provided information about artificial 

reefs they felt should be included or in 

some manner referenced in the policy. 

Response: NOAA appreciates the 

additional information provided by 

some commenters. However, none of it 

necessitated changes in the procedures 

for reviewing permit applications for 

artificial reef development in NMSs. 

Comment 8. One commenter asked if 

a complete proposal submitted to the 

NMSP would have to include a U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) or 

relevant state permits. The commenter 

also asked if the NMSP would review 

and approve a proposal before those 

permits are obtained. 

Response: NOAA will begin 

reviewing permit applications to 

establish artificial reefs inside NMSs 

prior to the issuance of an ACOE or 

required state permit. During this 

review period, the NMSP will confer 

with all tribal, local, State, and Federal 

agencies with jurisdiction. The NMSP 

will not take final action on any such 

permit until it understands the positions 

of all relevant agencies. Nothing in the 

policy or in the NMSP regulations, 

however, precludes the NMSP from 

issuing its permit prior to the permittee 

receiving other required permits. 

Comment 9. One commenter 

requested that the diagram illustrating 

the review process indicate that public 

review of the application would occur 

before a decision would be made. 

Response: The public review process 

is sufficiently represented in the 

National Environmental Policy act 

process on the diagram. As stated in 

section 2.4.1 of the policy (page 15), the 

NMSP will prepare a draft 

environmental assessment or impact 

statement and will release the document 

for public comment prior to making a 

final decision on the application. 

Comment 10. One commenter 

requested an independent assessment, 

inspection, or certification of material 

proposed to be used in artificial reef 

development to ensure contaminant risk 

has been adequately researched and 

minimized. 

Response: NOAA agrees that these 

types of assessments are appropriate, 

particularly for artificial reef projects 

using an obsolete vessel as the material. 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

and/or United States Coast Guard 

inspect and certify vessels proposed to 

be deployed as artificial reefs. However, 

such an assessment might not be 

necessary for artificial reef projects 

using other types of material. Therefore, 

NOAA does not feel independent 

inspection will be necessary in all cases. 

Comment 11. One commenter wanted 

an independent assessment of the 

deployment and stabilization plan for 

each permit. 

Response: The NMS manager or 

superintendent and other NMSP staff 

will review every permit application 

(including the deployment and 

stabilization plans) for artificial reef 

development within NMS boundaries. 

The NMSP’s assessment is independent 

of the permit applicant’s. In some cases 

NMSP may obtain outside expertise to 

assist in its assessment. 

Comment 12. One commenter felt that 

the NMSP should not put itself in a 

sponsorship or permittee role for any 

artificial reef project. 

Response: As a permitting agency, the 

NMSP will not sponsor any artificial 

reef project for which it is processing a 

permit application or expects to receive 

a permit application in the future. The 

NMSP will also not co-apply for any 

such permit. 

Comment 13. One commenter wanted 

clarification as to why NOAA would 

consider an applicant eligible for a 

permit and allow him/her to go through 

the effort of submitting a proposal, 

knowing that NOAA was not going to 

approve the request? 

Response: The NMSP’s permitting 

process does not prevent an applicant 

from submitting an application to 

conduct activities within sanctuaries. 

After receiving and reviewing an 

application, the NMSP will decide 

whether or not to approve the activity. 

Based on the nature, scope, and 

complexity of the proposal, the review 

process and need for additional 

information may vary. In some cases, it 

may be possible for the NMSP to 

dismiss an application without asking 

for additional information from the 

applicant. In others, the NMSP may 

need this additional information to 

make a final determination. 

Comment 14. One commenter stated 

that NMSP should require copies of data 

and reports, and that the projects should 

make management recommendations 

with justifications. 

Response: The NMSP has monitoring 

and reporting components described 

within the policy. The NMSP will assess 

results and make adjustments to 

management practices when warranted 

by information obtained from the 

monitoring reports. 

Comment 15. One commenter felt that 

the policy should allow for involvement 

of all stakeholders and that it should not 

have special provisions for Native 

American tribes. 

Response: Special provisions related 

to Native American Tribes are 

warranted in circumstances such as 

when tribal treaty rights or NMSP 

regulations provide involvement of 

tribes in permit decisionmaking. In 

general this only applies to the Olympic 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary but 

will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis for other NMSs. 

Comment 16. One commenter was 

concerned that the section in the policy 

on ‘‘Authorizations’’ was the weakest. 

They felt the process described in this 

section was a means to circumvent 

requirements of NMSA and that 

proposals should still be held to the 

same regulations, including enhancing 

resources. 

Response: The NMSP reviews 

artificial reef projects with the same 

level of scrutiny, whether they are being 

considered under authorizations or 

other forms of approval. 

Comment 17. One commenter did not 

agree with the five-year duration for 

special use permits. 

Response: The five-year duration for 

special use permits is mandated by the 

NMSA. When a special use permit is 

issued, the permit cannot be issued for 

a period longer than five years, but may 

be renewed. 

Comment 18. One commenter wanted 

clarification on what type of monitoring 

NOAA was referring to in the section of 

the policy that describes evaluating the 

effects of a project. 

Response: NOAA was referring to all 

forms of monitoring required under a 

permit and described in section 2.2.2 

(page 10) of the policy. 

Comment 19. One commenter 

questioned why NOAA was requiring 

the permittee to prove that there are 

funds available to remove the reef if 

something goes wrong. 

Response: NOAA was primarily 

referring to problems encountered 

during installation. In the event of a 

problem, NOAA must be certain the 

applicant has funds to ensure there will 

be no damage to NMS resources, which 

may include removal of the artificial 

reef. Additionally, should pieces 

separate from the main structure of the 

artificial reef, NOAA may require the 

permittee to remove them from the 

Sanctuary. 

Comment 20. One commenter wanted 

to know if bonds would be retroactive 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57129 

to cover materials already in the Florida 

Keys NMS (FKNMS). 

Response: Bonds will not be required 

retroactively for preexisting materials 

within the Sanctuary. 

Comment 21. One commenter wanted 

to know how long the NMSP considered 

to be the life of a project. 

Response: The duration of a project is 

as long as the artificial reef is within the 

Sanctuary. 

Comment 22. Some commenters felt 

that it is difficult to obtain a bond for 

monitoring. 

Response: A bond is not necessarily 

the only way to demonstrate that an 

applicant has financial resources 

available. When discussing the issue of 

obtaining a bond for monitoring 

purposes, the policy is referring to the 

permittee providing some form of 

financial security. If a bond is not a 

practical form of financial security, the 

permittee may find another method. The 

policy has been revised to better express 

this point. 

Comment 23. One commenter 

expressed concerns about an artificial 

reef releasing toxic materials or other 

pollutants into the water after it is 

placed on the bottom. The commenter 

suggested that the policy should address 

the issue more directly. 

Response: The NMSP agrees artificial 

reefs placed inside NMSs must not 

release into the water pollutants of any 

kind that have the potential to adversely 

affect sanctuary resources. This issue is 

discussed in Appendix B to the 

guidelines as an issue that the NMSP 

should consider when reviewing 

applications to establish artificial reefs. 

Furthermore, potential pollutants must 

be disclosed in the permit application as 

specified in Appendix C. The NMSP 

will consult with the Environmental 

Protection Agency to consider this 

information and to assess the impacts it 

would have on sanctuary resources. 

Comment 24: Several comments were 

received on how NOAA will evaluate 

the effects of removal of an artificial 

reef. 

Response: If an artificial reef is not 

permanent and NOAA requires removal 

as part of the project, the effects of that 

removal process will be evaluated 

before a permit is issued. NOAA may 

also conduct a supplemental analysis 

immediately prior to removal of the 

artificial reef to consider whether 

removal is inappropriate. 

Comment 25. One commenter felt that 

Executive Order 13089 on Coral Reef 

Protection should have been included in 

the NEPA Documentation and 

Interagency Consultation section of the 

policy. 

Response: The policy applies to all 

NMSs (most of which do not have coral 

reef resources). Therefore, Executive 

Order 13089 will not apply to every 

artificial reef proposal for every NMS. 

When the requirements of Executive 

Order 13089 apply to a proposed 

artificial reef development project, the 

NMSP will take the required steps to 

ensure the Executive Order is followed. 

Comment 26. One commenter thought 

that the NMSP should provide an 

analysis of each alternative that the 

applicant is allowed to pursue under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). 

Response: As indicated in Appendix 

C to the policy, a permit application to 

establish an artificial reef in a NMS 

must include all information necessary 

for the NMSP to prepare the appropriate 

NEPA documentation. In determining 

the completeness of the permit 

application, the NMSP will ensure the 

applicant has submitted sufficient 

information to fully analyze the full 

range of reasonable alternatives as 

required by NEPA and its implementing 

regulations. 

Comment 27. One commenter pointed 

out that the NMSP does not have to 

prepare and release a draft NEPA 

analysis document for public comment 

for artificial reef projects that do not 

require the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement. 

Response: Section 5.02(b)(1) of NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6 encourages 

NOAA programs to release a draft 

environmental assessment to the public 

to the extent possible. NOAA realizes 

that this action is not required under 

NEPA, but has determined that it is 

appropriate in cases involving the 

establishment of artificial reefs in 

NMSs. 

Comment 28. One commenter wanted 

the policy to recognize that artificial 

reefs may be beneficial for Essential 

Fish Habitat (EFH). 

Response: It is not the role of the 

NMSP to artificially create new EFH (as 

defined in the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act). The NMSP, in consultation with 

NOAA Fisheries, will consider the 

extent that any proposed artificial reef 

may adversely affect EFH that naturally 

occurs in the vicinity of the project. 

Comment 29. One commenter 

suggested that biological monitoring be 

specifically included in the monitoring 

requirements. 

Response: In general, some form of 

biological monitoring will always be 

required although the exact monitoring 

requirements (e.g., parameters to be 

studied, frequency of data collection) 

will vary from permit to permit. 

Comment 30. One commenter felt that 

the monitoring of a reef and the 

placement of a reef are separate projects 

and should have separate proposals. 

Response: NOAA disagrees. 

Monitoring is an integral part of 

proposing to place an artificial reef 

within a NMS. A permittee should not 

propose to establish an artificial reef 

inside a NMS unless they are prepared 

to collect quantifiable monitoring data 

and have sufficient resources to do so. 

As discussed in section 2.5.1.1. there are 

several different types of monitoring 

that would be part of any artificial reef 

project. Some will be designed to 

determine the effectiveness of the 

artificial reef project in meeting goals 

and providing benefits to the Sanctuary. 

Other forms of monitoring will be 

designed to determine the effects of the 

project on the resources of the 

Sanctuary. 

Comment 31. One commenter did not 

agree with the discussion regarding 

lifetime monitoring. 

Response: Stability monitoring will be 

conducted as long as the artificial reef 

is in NMS waters. Other forms of 

monitoring may vary in length 

depending on the expected life of the 

project, the questions the monitoring is 

designed to answer, and other factors. 

Comment 32. Some commenters 

inquired as to what would happen if a 

permittee were to withdraw from the 

permitting agreement. Inquiries were 

also made on how permits will be 

enforced. 

Response: Before the NMSP issues a 

permit, it must be satisfied that the 

applicant has sufficient resources to 

comply with all permit terms and 

conditions, including the funding of 

long-term monitoring. The nature of this 

assurance will vary from permit to 

permit and is detailed in the policy. 

A permittee cannot unilaterally 

withdraw from a permit agreement 

without violating the permit or NMSP 

regulations. If a permittee violates a 

term or condition of his/her permit, the 

permittee is subject to possible civil 

penalties under the NMSA. 

Comment 33. Some comments 

questioned the types of building 

materials that would be approved in a 

potential artificial reef permit. 

Response: NOAA regulations do not 

currently discriminate among materials. 

The policy gives guidance on which 

materials are better than others. NOAA 

will consult with the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers, 

Environmental Protection Agency, and 

relevant state agencies on a case-by-case 

basis to ensure that hazardous materials 

are not used. Compliance with a 

sanctuary permit does not necessarily 

57130 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1We originally adopted the Filer Manual on April 

1, 1993, with an effective date of April 26, 1993. 

Release No. 33–6986 (April 1, 1993) [58 FR 18638]. 

We implemented the most recent update to the Filer 

Manual on June 6, 2005. See Release No. 33–8573 

(May 19, 2005) [70 FR 30899]. 

2This is the filer assistance software we provide 

filers filing on the EDGAR system. 

3See Rule 301 of Regulation S–T (17 CFR 

232.301). 

4See Release Nos. 33–6977 (February 23, 1993) 

[58 FR 14628], IC–19284 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 

14848], 35–25746 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 

14999], and 33–6980 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 

15009] in which we comprehensively discuss the 

rules we adopted to govern mandated electronic 

filing. See also Release No. 33–7122 (December 19, 

1994) [59 FR 67752], in which we made the EDGAR 

rules final and applicable to all domestic 

registrants; Release No. 33–7427 (July 1, 1997) [62 

FR 36450], in which we adopted minor 

amendments to the EDGAR rules; Release No. 33–

7472 (October 24, 1997) [62 FR 58647], in which 

we announced that, as of January 1, 1998, we would 

not accept in paper filings that we require filers to 

submit electronically; Release No. 34–40934 

(January 12, 1999) [64 FR 2843], in which we made 

mandatory the electronic filing of Form 13F; 

Release No. 33–7684 (May 17, 1999) [64 FR 27888], 

in which we adopted amendments to implement 

the first stage of EDGAR modernization; Release No. 

33–7855 (April 24, 2000) [65 FR 24788], in which 

we implemented EDGAR Release 7.0; Release No. 

33–7999 (August 7, 2001) [66 FR 42941], in which 

we implemented EDGAR Release 7.5; Release No. 

33–8007 (September 24, 2001) [66 FR 49829], in 

which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.0; 

Release No. 33–8224 (April 30, 2003) [66 FR 24345], 

in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.5; 

Release Nos. 33–8255 (July 22, 2003) [68 FR 44876] 

and 33–8255A (September 4, 2003) [68 FR 53289] 

in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.6; 

Release No. 33–8409 (April 19, 2004) [69 FR 21954] 

in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.7; 

Release No. 33–8454 (August 6, 2004) [69 FR 49803] 

in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.8; 

Release No. 33–8528 (February 3, 2005) [70 FR 

6573] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 

8.10; and Release No. 33–8573 (May 19, 2005) [70 

FR 30899] in which we implemented EDGAR 

Release 9.0. 

relieve the permittee of his/her 

obligation to comply with all other 

applicable Federal, State, and local 

laws. 

Dated: September 23, 2005. 

Richard W. Spinrad, 

Assistant Administrator, Ocean Services and 

Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–19502 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 232 

[Release Nos. 33–8612; 34–52477; 35–

28033; 39–2439; IC–27070] 

RIN 3235–AG96 

Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer 

Manual 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the Commission) is 

adopting revisions to the Electronic Data 

Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval 

System (EDGAR) Filer Manual to reflect 

changes made to improve, reorganize 

and restructure the EDGAR Filer 

Manual volumes to make it easier for 

filers and those wishing to apply for 

EDGAR access codes to locate the 

information that they need to apply for 

EDGAR access, maintain company 

information and submit a filing. With 

this reorganization, no changes have 

been made to the filing process. 

The revisions to the Filer Manual 

reflect changes within Volumes I, II and 

III, entitled ‘‘EDGAR Filer Manual 

Volume I General Information,’’

‘‘EDGAR Filer Manual Volume II 

EDGAR Filing,’’ and ‘‘EDGAR Filer 

Manual Volume III N–SAR 

Supplement’’ respectively. The updated 

manual will be incorporated by 

reference into the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 14, 2005. The 

incorporation by reference of the 

EDGAR Filer Manual is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register as of 

October 14, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In 

the Office of Information Technology, 

Rick Heroux, at (202) 551–8800; for 

questions concerning the Division of 

Corporation Finance filings, in the 

Division of Corporation Finance, 

Herbert Scholl, Office Chief, EDGAR 

and Information Analysis, at (202) 942–

2940; for questions concerning the 

Division of Investment Management 

filings, in the Division of Investment 

Management, Ruth Armfield Sanders, 

Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551–

6989; and, in the Office of Filings and 

Information Services, Velma Smith, at 

(202) 942–8900. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today we 

are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer 

Manual (Filer Manual). The Filer 

Manual describes how to become an 

EDGAR filer and the technical 

formatting requirements for the 

preparation and submission of 

electronic filings through the EDGAR 

system.1 It also describes the 

requirements for filing using 

EDGARLink 2 and the Online Forms/ 

XML Web site. 

The Filer Manual contains all the 

technical specifications for filers to 

submit filings using the EDGAR system. 

Filers must comply with the applicable 

provisions of the Filer Manual in order 

to assure the timely acceptance and 

processing of filings made in electronic 

format.3 Filers should consult the Filer 

Manual in conjunction with our rules 

governing mandated electronic filing 

when preparing documents for 

electronic submission.4

The revisions to the EDGAR Filer 

Manual volumes are being made to 

improve, reorganize and restructure the 

EDGAR Filer Manual volumes to make 

it easier for filers, and those wishing to 

apply for EDGAR access codes, to locate 

the information that they need to apply 

for EDGAR access, maintain company 

information and submit electronic 

filings. The EDGAR Filer Manual has 

also been rearranged to eliminate 

information that was repeated between 

the different volumes and to be more 

aligned with the logical functions 

performed by EDGAR users. The 

reorganized filer manual does not 

include any changes to the filing 

process. 

The EDGAR Filer Manual Volume I 

General Information covers the EDGAR 

application process, outlines how to 

keep company data, which is stored in 

EDGAR, current and provides a brief 

introduction to the filing process. The 

appendices in this volume, as well as 

those that are a part of the other 

volumes, ‘‘Glossary of Commonly Used 

Terms, Acronyms, and Abbreviations’’

and ‘‘Frequently Asked Questions’’ for 

example, only contain information 

specific to the processes and concepts 

covered within the volume. The 

appendices are no longer repeated in 

each volume. Volume I is intended to be 

a reference for those that need to obtain 

EDGAR access, those that are new to 

EDGAR and those that are responsible 

for keeping company information 

current. 

The EDGAR Filer Manual Volume II 

EDGAR Filing focuses entirely on the 

filing process. It illustrates each step of 

the process to submit an electronic 

submission and helps filers understand 

the tools provided by the SEC for 

constructing and transmitting those 

submissions, concisely consolidating 

information previously provided in the 

former EDGAR Release 9.0 EDGARLink 

Filer Manual Volume I and EDGAR 

Release 9.0 OnlineForms Filer Manual 

Volume III. It also provides a much 

improved Index to Forms which, in 

addition to the Submission Type and 

Description, adds the name of the tool 

(e.g., EDGARLink or Online Forms/XML 

Web site), the template number that 

contains that particular submission type 

and the Filer Constructed Form 

Specification (formerly known as 

‘‘Reduced Content Filing Specification’’) 

that should be used by those that