[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 181 (Thursday, September 17, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58018-58023]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18825]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 232

[Release Nos. 33-10821, 34-89633, 39-2532, IC-33974, S7-11-20]
RIN 3235-AM77

Administration of the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and
Retrieval System

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are publishing for comment a proposed new rule under
Regulation S-T. The proposal would specify several actions that the
Commission, in its administration of the Electronic Data Gathering,
Analysis, and Retrieval system (``EDGAR''), may take to promote the
reliability and integrity of EDGAR submissions. In addition, the
proposed rule would set forth a process for the Commission to notify
filers and other relevant persons of its actions under the proposed
rule as soon as reasonably practicable.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before October 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-11-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-11-20. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review comments more efficiently, please use only one
method of submission. We will post all comments on our website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml). Comments also are available for website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that the Commission does not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. Please submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    We or the staff may add studies, memoranda, or other substantive
items to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the
inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made
available on our website. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such
notifications, sign up through the ``Stay Connected'' option at
www.sec.gov to receive notifications by email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemary Filou, Chief Counsel; Monica
Lilly, Senior Special Counsel; or Jane Patterson, Senior Counsel; EDGAR
Business Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are proposing to add 17 CFR 232.15 (new
``Rule 15'') to Regulation S-T, General Rules and Regulations for
Electronic Filings.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 232.10 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    In 1993, the Commission adopted rules mandating that certain
filings be made with the Commission electronically through the newly
launched EDGAR system.\2\ Since then, the Commission has further
prescribed requirements and procedures for EDGAR submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., Release No. 33-6977 (Mar. 18, 1993) [58 FR 14628]
(establishing rules and procedures applicable to electronic
submissions processed by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and
Investment Management); Release No. IC-19284 (Mar. 18, 1993) [58 FR
14848] (adopting electronic submission filing rules applicable to
investment companies and institutional investment managers under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act'') and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'')); and Release No.
33-6986 (Apr. 9, 1993) [58 FR 18638] (adoption of the EDGAR Filer
Manual).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulation S-T addresses, among other things, certain
administrative issues related to EDGAR submissions. For example, Rule
13 of Regulation S-T allows a filer to request that the Commission
adjust a filing date when the filing is delayed due to technical
difficulties beyond the filer's control.\3\ In addition, pursuant to
Rule 106, the Commission may remove from EDGAR an entire accepted
submission or document if it contains executable code.\4\ Regulation S-
T further allows a filer to submit an amendment or a notice of
withdrawal of the filer's submission to remedy a submission issue
(``filer corrective disclosure'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 17 CFR 232.13(b).
    \4\ See 17 CFR 232.106. Rule 106 of Regulation S-T prohibits
submissions to EDGAR that contain executable code, and indicates
that attempted submissions identified as containing executable code
will be suspended unless the code is in a PDF document that may be
deleted.
    \5\ Regulation S-T anticipates that filers may address their own
substantive, and in some cases, administrative, submission issues
through filer corrective disclosure. See, e.g., 17 CFR 232.103
(providing that filers are not subject to the liability and anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws with respect to
errors or omissions resulting solely from electronic transmission
errors beyond the control of the filer if such filer files an
amendment as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of
the error or omission); 17 CFR 232.105, Instruction 2 to paragraph
(d) (providing that filers must correct an inaccurate or
nonfunctioning link or hyperlink to an exhibit in certain
circumstances by filing an amendment to the registration statement
containing the inaccurate or nonfunctioning link or hyperlink); 17
CFR 232.501(a)(3) and 17 CFR 232.501(b)(3) (providing that filers
may correct or amend a modular submission or a segmented filing only
by resubmitting the entire modular submission or segmented filing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent years, as the volume of EDGAR submissions has grown, the
Commission has increasingly confronted administrative issues that
impact the Commission's ability to promote the reliability and
integrity of EDGAR submissions and that are not easily addressed by
existing rules or filer corrective disclosure. When these issues arise,
they can create confusion for filers, investors, and other users of
EDGAR. To promote the reliability and integrity of EDGAR submissions
and to provide transparency about our practices, we are proposing to
specify actions that the Commission may take to facilitate the
resolution of such issues. The proposed rule would confirm and clarify
the Commission's existing approach to addressing the administrative
issues that arise in connection with EDGAR submissions.
    Specifically, proposed Rule 15 would provide that in its
administration of EDGAR, the Commission may take the following actions
to promote the reliability and integrity of EDGAR submissions: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission may delegate certain functions of proposed
Rule 15 to the Commission staff.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Redact, remove, or prevent dissemination of sensitive
personally identifiable information that if released may result in
financial or personal harm;
     prevent submissions that pose a cybersecurity threat;
     correct system or Commission staff errors;
     remove or prevent dissemination of submissions made under
an incorrect EDGAR identifier;
     prevent the ability to make submissions when there are
disputes over the authority to use EDGAR access codes;
     prevent acceptance or dissemination of an attempted
submission that it has reason to believe may be misleading or
manipulative while evaluating the circumstances surrounding the
submission; and allow acceptance or dissemination if its concerns are
satisfactorily addressed;
     prevent an unauthorized submission or otherwise remove
related access; and
     remedy similar administrative issues relating to
submissions.
    In addition, the proposed rule would set forth a process for the
Commission to notify filers and other relevant persons of its actions
under the proposed rule as soon as reasonably practicable.
    The proposed rule would not change filers' obligations under the
federal securities laws to ensure the accuracy and completeness of
information in their EDGAR submissions. Moreover, in the vast majority
of administrative and substantive EDGAR submission issues, filers would
continue to address an error by submitting a filer corrective
disclosure.\7\ We intend to continue to rely upon filer corrective
disclosure to remedy most submission errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 232.103, 232.105 and 232.501(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    Proposed Rule 15 would specify that in its administration of EDGAR,
the Commission may take actions to promote the reliability and
integrity of EDGAR submissions. The following is a discussion of the
types of actions the Commission may take pursuant to the proposed rule
to achieve those objectives.

A. Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information

    Proposed Rule 15(a)(1) would specify that the Commission may (i)
redact submissions containing personally identifiable information that
if released may result in financial or personal harm to an individual
(``Sensitive PII''); (ii) remove submissions containing Sensitive PII;
and/or (iii) prevent dissemination of submissions containing this
information.\8\ When such steps are taken, the Commission may
communicate as necessary with the filer to facilitate submission of a
version in which such information is redacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Sensitive PII may comprise a single item of information (for
example, a Social Security Number) or a combination of two or more
items (for example, a full name and financial, medical, criminal, or
employment history). See proposed Rule 15(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has sought to reduce the risk that Sensitive PII
included in EDGAR submissions may result in financial or personal harm
to individuals. For example, in April 2018, the Commission adopted
amendments to certain SEC forms to eliminate any reference to or
request for Sensitive PII.\9\ The amendments eliminated form fields
requesting Social Security numbers and other Sensitive PII that the
Commission indicated could create ``costs [for filers] related to
ongoing identity protection and monitoring, as well as reputational
costs, operational costs, and losses from theft in the event
misappropriated PII is used by bad actors.'' \10\ Similarly, the
proposed rule would clarify that the Commission may take further steps
to ensure that Sensitive PII does not reside in EDGAR and communicate
as necessary with filers to facilitate submissions in which Sensitive
PII is redacted.\11\ Whether the Commission removes, redacts, or
prevents dissemination of the Sensitive PII in the submission would be
based on when the Commission first becomes aware of the Sensitive PII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Amendments to Forms and Schedules to Remove Provision of
Certain Personally Identifiable Information, Release No. 33-10846
(Apr. 25, 2018) [83 FR 22190] (``PII Form Amendments Release'')
available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2018/33-10486.pdf.
    \10\ Id. at 4-5.
    \11\ Although the Commission may take steps to ensure that
Sensitive PII does not reside in EDGAR, the burden of the
responsibility to redact such information from submissions continues
to lie with the filer and not the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Cybersecurity Threats

    Proposed Rule 15(a)(2) would specify that the Commission may
prevent the submission to EDGAR of any submission that poses a
cybersecurity threat, including but not limited to, those containing
any malware or virus, and communicate as necessary with the filer
regarding the submission. Commission action to address cybersecurity
threats in EDGAR submissions should benefit all EDGAR users and promote
the reliability and integrity of EDGAR submissions.

C. System and Commission Staff Errors

    Proposed Rule 15(a)(3) would specify that if the Commission
determines that a submission has not been processed by EDGAR, or has
been processed incorrectly by EDGAR or contains an error attributable
to the Commission staff, the Commission may correct and/or prevent
dissemination of the submission and communicate as necessary with the
filer to facilitate filer corrective disclosure. In each of these
circumstances, under the Commission's existing practice, the Commission
first attempts to correct the error without unduly burdening filers.
Most frequently, for submissions not processed by EDGAR, for example,
due to a system outage, the Commission may assign the filing date that
would have been received had the EDGAR outage not occurred, without
first communicating directly with the filer. For other isolated system
or staff errors, such as when the Commission determines a filing was
not processed correctly, the Commission may also resolve the error
without contacting the filer. When necessary, the Commission may work
proactively with filers to accomplish filer corrective disclosure.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rule 103 of Regulation S-T addresses concerns that filers
may have about liability when issues arise that are not the fault of
the filer. See 17 CFR 232.103. Moreover, Rule 13(b) of Regulation S-
T makes clear that if a filer in good faith attempts to timely file
but the filing is delayed due to technical difficulties beyond the
filer's control, the filer may request an adjustment of the filing
date of the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Incorrect EDGAR Identifiers

    Proposed Rule 15(a)(4) would specify that the Commission may remove
and/or prevent public dissemination of a submission made under an
incorrect EDGAR unique identifying number,\13\ and communicate as
necessary with the filer and others to facilitate a filer corrective
disclosure. From time to time, filings are incorrectly submitted and
not associated with the correct unique identifying number, which can
create confusion for filers, investors and other EDGAR users. When such
errors cannot be resolved by filer corrective disclosure, the
Commission may need to remove the erroneous submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EDGAR provides each entity a unique identifying number, and
submissions made by an entity are associated with that number. If an
individual who has access to more than one unique identifying number
(for example, a filing agent) were to make a submission for one
entity using another entity's number, it erroneously would appear to
EDGAR users that the submission is a filing by the unique
identifying number holder. See 17 CFR 232.10(b).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. EDGAR Access Code Disputes

    Proposed Rule 15(a)(5) would specify that the Commission may
prevent a filer's ability to make submissions if the Commission
determines that a dispute exists as to which persons have the authority
to make submissions on behalf of the filer, until the dispute is
resolved by the disputing parties or by a court of competent
jurisdiction. These disputes may arise, for example, when two or more
parties each claim control of a filing entity and each demand access to
the entity's EDGAR account. Resolution of such disputes often turns on
matters of state corporation law or other factors outside the scope of
the federal securities laws. Accordingly, in these situations, the
Commission staff has asked the disputing parties to either resolve the
dispute themselves or have the matter adjudicated under the relevant
state corporation law.\14\ The proposed rule would affirm the
Commission's ability to take action to ensure that only persons
authorized to make submissions on behalf of the filer may do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ When a dispute arises between parties, each of whom claims
to be the legitimate corporate representative--which may occur after
a leadership change at a filing entity--the Commission staff
typically prevents future submissions until the parties can reach an
agreement, or a party is able to provide a court order designating
the appropriate corporate representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Potential Manipulation

    If the Commission has reason to believe that a submission or an
attempted submission may be misleading or manipulative, proposed Rule
15(a)(6) would specify that the Commission may prevent acceptance or
dissemination of the submission while evaluating the circumstances
surrounding the submission. For example, the filer's title or role
described in the submission may not be for the correct entity or may be
otherwise inaccurate. Additionally, the filer may include statements in
the submission that do not relate to the form or provide responsive
information. The proposed rule also specifies that the Commission may
allow acceptance or dissemination if its concerns are satisfactorily
addressed. In such circumstances, the filer would receive the filing
date it would have received had the delay by the Commission not
occurred, assuming the submission does not implicate other provisions
of Rule 15.

G. Unauthorized Submissions

    Proposed Rule 15(a)(7) would specify that the Commission may
prevent the use of EDGAR access codes if it has reason to believe that
there has been an unauthorized submission or an attempt to make an
unauthorized submission on EDGAR. Currently, when questions arise as to
whether a particular submission or attempted submission was authorized,
the Commission staff seeks to better understand the circumstances
surrounding the submission and evaluate what steps, if any, to take in
response. The proposed rule would specify that in such situations the
Commission may prevent any further submissions by the filer or
otherwise remove the filer's access to EDGAR. If its concerns are
satisfactorily addressed, the Commission would lift the suspension of
EDGAR access codes and allow the submission to proceed, assuming the
submission does not implicate other provisions of Rule 15.

H. Additional Remedial Steps

    Because the Commission cannot anticipate every submission issue
that may arise in the future, proposed Rule 15(a)(8) would specify that
in certain circumstances the Commission may take further appropriate
steps to address a matter and communicate as necessary with the filer
regarding the submission. Specifically, under the proposed rule, the
Commission may take such further steps if the Commission has reason to
believe that, to promote the reliability and integrity of EDGAR
submissions, it must address a submission issue that cannot be
addressed solely by filer corrective disclosure or by the actions set
forth in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of Rule 15.

I. Notice

    Finally, the proposed rule provides that the Commission may act
without advance notice to filers or any other person. Typically, the
Commission communicates and works with filers to address submission
issues, but there are times when the Commission needs the flexibility
to respond promptly to submission issues in order to avoid harm to
investors and other EDGAR users who depend upon the accuracy of the
information disseminated by EDGAR. In other circumstances, immediate
action may be necessary to avoid potential threats to EDGAR, to prevent
the dissemination of unauthorized or potentially false or misleading
submissions, or to prevent the improper use of filers' EDGAR accounts.
    At the same time, we are mindful that administrative actions under
the proposed rule should not unduly hinder or delay the EDGAR
submission process. Accordingly, proposed Rule 15(b) would specify a
method for the Commission to provide notice of its actions under the
proposed rule to a filer and any person the Commission determines is
relevant to the matter (``relevant person'') as soon as practicable
after those actions are taken. Specifically, the proposed rule provides
that, as soon as reasonably practicable after taking action pursuant to
Rule 15 without providing advance notice, the Commission would provide
written notice and a brief factual statement of the basis for the
action to the filer and relevant persons. The Commission would send the
notice and factual statement by electronic mail to the email address on
record in the filer's EDGAR account, and the email address of any
relevant persons. The Commission may also send, if necessary, the
notice and factual statement by registered, certified, or express mail
to the physical address on record in the filer's EDGAR account and the
physical address of any relevant persons. We are proposing to notify
other relevant persons of the action because code disputes, submissions
made in another entity's account, and similar scenarios may involve
parties other than the filer itself. Informing such parties of our
actions would provide them an opportunity to bring relevant information
in their possession to the Commission's attention and help facilitate
prompt resolution of submission issues.

III. Request for Public Comment

    We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments
on any aspect of the proposed amendments, other matters that might have
an impact on the proposed amendments, and suggestions for additional
changes. In particular, we request comment on the proposed method for
the Commission to provide notice to a filer or relevant person of the
Commission's actions under the proposed rule and whether there are
alternative or additional steps the Commission could take to facilitate
the prompt resolution of administrative issues related to EDGAR
submissions. Comments are of particular assistance if accompanied by
analysis of the issues addressed in those comments and any data that
may support the analysis. We urge commenters to be as specific as
possible.

IV. Economic Analysis

    We have carefully considered the economic effects of proposed Rule
15.\15\

The proposed rule seeks to increase transparency for filers, investors,
and other users of EDGAR by specifying the actions the Commission may
take to resolve certain administrative issues. Increased transparency
about Commission actions would create benefits for both filers and
users, because filers and users would know the types of actions they
can expect the Commission to take to promote the reliability and
integrity of EDGAR submissions. However, we anticipate these benefits
would be limited as the proposed rule largely reflects existing
Commission practice. Similarly, we do not expect filers to incur
additional costs since the proposed rule reflects corrective action the
Commission, as the administrator of EDGAR, currently takes to promote
the reliability and integrity of EDGAR submissions. Further, we
anticipate the proposed rule would marginally improve efficiency, but
would not have a significant effect on competition or capital
formation. Because we generally cannot predict the need for or extent
of corrective actions the proposed rule would address, we cannot
quantify the anticipated economic effects of future corrective actions.
Therefore, the analysis that follows provides primarily a qualitative
assessment of the likely economic effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section 2(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (``Securities
Act''), Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act, and Section 2(c) of the
Investment Company Act require us, when engaging in rulemaking that
requires us to consider or determine whether an action is necessary
or appropriate in (or, with respect to the Investment Company Act,
consistent with) the public interest, to consider, in addition to
the protection of investors, whether the action will promote
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. In addition, Section
23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to consider the
effects on competition of any rules the Commission adopts under the
Exchange Act and prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule
that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Economic Baseline

    The Commission's current processes and procedures for resolving the
enumerated administrative issues listed in the proposed rule and
discussed above serve as the baseline against which we assess the
proposed rule. This section discusses, as it relates to this
rulemaking, filers' current usage of EDGAR and the Commission's
processes for administering EDGAR.
    Because of the variety of administrative issues that may arise in
connection with EDGAR submissions, the Commission has developed
procedures for identifying and addressing the issues described above,
although the Commission has not published those procedures. Where
possible, the Commission currently communicates with relevant filers to
facilitate filer corrective disclosure to address problematic
submissions. While filer corrective disclosure addresses the majority
of known EDGAR submission issues, there are circumstances in which
working with a filer does not address problematic submissions, such as
when the filer is uncooperative or the Commission cannot validate a
filer's authorization to make submissions. Additionally, in limited
cases, the Commission has responded promptly to submission issues
without first consulting relevant filers in order to avoid harm to
investors and other EDGAR users who depend upon the accuracy of the
information disseminated by EDGAR. For these submissions, the
Commission acts expediently to minimize the time the public and the
Commission are exposed to such harm. While the Commission typically
notifies these filers of its actions afterwards, some filers may not
know specifically why the Commission took action or the nature of the
issue with the submission.

B. Costs and Benefits

    The proposed rule specifies the actions the Commission may take
with respect to specific administrative issues that impact the
Commission's ability to promote the reliability and integrity of EDGAR
submissions. We believe the proposed rule would provide increased
transparency about the Commission's administrative processes, which in
turn would benefit filers and improve the Commission's efficiency in
administering EDGAR. We believe, however, that the proposed rule would
have limited economic effects because the proposed rule largely
reflects existing Commission practice.
    More transparency into how the Commission administers EDGAR may
benefit filers in two ways. First, by specifying the types of issues
for which the Commission would take action, the proposed rule could
encourage filers to take additional actions to prevent these issues if
they believe the benefits exceed the costs of preventative actions.
Second, when the Commission must act to address a problematic
submission prior to notifying a filer or when an issue cannot be
addressed solely by a filer corrective disclosure, the proposed rule's
formal notification requirement would ensure that filers receive timely
notification of Commission action. To the extent that this requirement
results in the Commission notifying filers of issues that they can
correct, such as incorrect EDGAR identifiers, EDGAR access code
disputes, or potentially misleading filings, filers may be able to
benefit from rectifying issues sooner than they would have prior to the
rule.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In addition to filers, the Commission may work with EDGAR
filing agents, counsel, and other entities to correct administrative
issues. As with filers, these entities may incur lower costs if they
can rectify issues with EDGAR submissions sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the proposed rule would inform filers of possible action
the Commission may take to promote the reliability and integrity of
EDGAR submissions, the proposed rule would improve the efficiency of
administering EDGAR. This benefit is likely to be limited because the
proposed rule primarily codifies existing procedures and the Commission
would continue to resolve most issues by contacting filers to
facilitate filer corrective disclosure. Since filers may submit fewer
filings with errors and the Commission and filers would be able to more
quickly correct errors, the proposed rule could lead to more timely and
accurate information in EDGAR, benefiting investors, research analysts,
data aggregators, and other financial professionals.\17\ Moreover,
since the

Commission, as the administrator of EDGAR, already takes corrective
actions to promote the reliability and integrity of EDGAR submissions,
we do not expect filers to incur additional costs in connection with
these improvements. The Commission generally cannot predict the need
for or the extent of corrective actions, so we cannot quantify the
informational efficiency benefits from future corrective actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See generally Michael S. Drake, Darren T. Roulstone, and
Jacob R. Thornock, The Determinants and Consequences of Information
Acquisition via EDGAR, 32 Contemporary Accounting Research 3 (2016)
(Most EDGAR users access the database a few times per quarter around
corporate events such as restatements, earnings announcements, and
acquisition announcements. This activity is related to, but distinct
from, financial press articles. A small subset of users access EDGAR
daily for multiple filings.); Jonathan L. Rogers, Douglas J.
Skinner, and Sarah L.C. Zechman, Run EDGAR Run: SEC Dissemination in
a High-Frequency World, Chicago Booth Research Paper No. 14-36 (Feb.
17, 2017) (finding that for a sample of Form 4 filings, there was an
economically significant advantage to accessing data because of
then-existing lags between the Commission's EDGAR website and the
public dissemination feed); Brian Gibbons, Peter Iliev, and Jonathan
Kalodimos, Analyst Information Acquisition via EDGAR, Working Paper
(Nov. 15, 2019) (finding that information acquisition from EDGAR is
associated with smaller analyst forecast errors); Peter Iliev,
Jonathan Kalodimos, and Michelle Lowry, Investors' Attention to
Corporate Governance, 9th Miami Behavioral Finance Conference 2018
(Jul. 16, 2020) (using EDGAR log files, finding that investors
conduct significant research into corporate governance, particularly
for large firms, firms with low managerial entrenchment, and those
with meetings outside of the proxy season); Huaizhi Chen, Lauren
Cohen, Umit Gurun, Dong Lou, and Christopher J. Malloy, IQ from IP:
Simplifying Search in Portfolio Choice, NBER Working Paper No. 24801
(Apr. 20, 2019) (using EDGAR log data, shows institutional investors
tracked management teams and insider-trading filings of firms); and
Zhongling Qin, Measuring Attention: The Case of Amendments to 10K
Annual Reports, Working Paper (Nov. 15, 2019) (showing consistently
higher trading volume once there are enough attentive readers of 10-
K/A filings, as defined by whether the readers read the original 10-
K filings, though consistent with gradual diffusion of information).
But see Stefano DellaVigna and Joshua M. Pollet, Investor
Inattention and Friday Earnings Announcements, 64 J. of Fin. 2 (Mar.
13, 2009) (finding less immediate response for Friday announcements
than for announcements on other days, consistent with investor
inattention); and Tim Loughran and Bill McDonald, The Use of EDGAR
Filings by Investors, J. of Behavioral Fin. Forthcoming (Dec. 4,
2016) (showing that the average publicly-traded firm has its annual
report accessed only 28.4 times on the day of and day after the
filing, though other filings such as initial public offering filings
are more quickly consumed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that the proposed rule reduces the number of
cybersecurity threats or reduces the administrative frictions in
preventing cybersecurity threats, there may be benefits to the users of
EDGAR.\18\ In particular, users, including investors, analysts, asset
managers, and data collection companies, may incur fewer costs
associated with cleaning or repairing systems and recovering data.\19\
Furthermore, individuals, investors, companies, and asset managers,
among others, may benefit from the Commission and filers preventing
cybersecurity attacks that disrupt the dissemination of filings through
EDGAR or obtain confidential or protected financial information on the
Commission's or users' systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Under current practice, the Commission immediately prevents
submissions to EDGAR of any submission that poses cybersecurity
risks once the Commission identifies them. Furthermore, the
Commission has already promulgated a rule addressing the removal of
submissions or parts of submissions that contain executable code. 17
CFR 232.106.
    \19\ See The Council of Econ. Advisers, The Cost of Malicious
Cyber Activity to the U.S. Economy (Feb. 2018). Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Cost-of-Malicious-Cyber-Activity-to-the-U.S.-Economy.pdf (estimating that in
2016, malicious cyber activity cost the U.S. economy between $57 and
$106 billion through denial of service attacks, disruption of
business activity, or destruction or theft of proprietary and
strategic information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, because EDGAR submissions generally do not require
sensitive PII,\20\ and current Commission practices seek to identify
and redact sensitive PII, we do not anticipate that the proposed rule
specifying that the Commission may redact, remove and/or not
disseminate EDGAR submissions containing PII will have a substantial
economic effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In 2018, the Commission amended forms and schedules to
eliminate requirements to provide certain personally identifiable
information. See PII Form Amendments Release, supra note 9. Also, in
the EDGAR Filer Manual, the Commission advises against including
social security numbers in filings submitted to the Commission. See
https://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edgarfm-vol2-v47.pdf. Some forms may
require Sensitive PII in certain circumstances. For example, Form
20-F requires dates of birth of a company's directors and senior
management if required to be reported in the home country or
otherwise publicly disclosed by the company. Additionally, Forms MA
and Funding Portal require IRS Tax numbers if CRD numbers are
unavailable. IRS Tax numbers also are required on Form SBSE if CRD
numbers, IARD numbers, and foreign business numbers are unavailable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on all aspects of our economic analysis,
including the potential costs and benefits of proposed Rule 15.
Commenters are requested to provide empirical data, estimation
methodologies, and other factual support for their views.

V. Administrative Law Matters

    The Commission finds, in accordance with Section 553(b)(3)(A) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), that the proposed
amendments relate solely to agency organization, procedure, or
practice. They are therefore not subject to the provisions of the APA
requiring notice, opportunity for public comment, and publication. The
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 \21\ therefore does not apply.
Nevertheless, we have determined that it would be useful to publish the
proposed amendments for notice and comment before adoption. Because
these amendments relate to ``agency organization, procedure or practice
that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-
agency parties,'' they are not subject to Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.\22\ These rules do not contain any
collection of information requirements as defined by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \22\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
    \23\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory Basis and Text of Proposed Rule Amendments

    We are proposing the new rules contained in this document under the
authority in Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act,\24\
Sections 3, 4A, 4B, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15B, 23, and 35A of the Exchange
Act,\25\ Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,\26\ and
Sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, and 77s (a).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78o-4,
78w, and 78ll.
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 77sss.
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232

    Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.

    For the reasons discussed above, we propose to amend 17 CFR part
232 as follows:

PART 232 REGULATION S-T--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
ELECTRONIC FILINGS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 232 continues to read, in part, as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3,
77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-6(c),
80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350,
unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
2. Add Sec.  232.15 to read as follows:

Sec.  232.15  Administration of EDGAR.

    (a) In its administration of EDGAR, the Commission may take the
following actions to promote the reliability and integrity of
submissions made through EDGAR.
    (1) If the Commission determines that a submission contains
personally identifiable information that if released may result in
financial or personal harm to an individual, which may comprise a
single item of information or a combination of two or more items, the
Commission may redact such information from the submission, prevent
dissemination of the submission, and/or remove the submission from the
Commission's public website, and may communicate as necessary with the
filer to facilitate submission of a version in which such information
is redacted;
    (2) The Commission may prevent the submission to EDGAR of any
submission that poses a cybersecurity threat, including but not limited
to, submissions containing any malware or virus, and may communicate as
necessary with the filer regarding the submission;
    (3) If the Commission determines that a submission has not been
processed by EDGAR, or has been processed incorrectly by EDGAR, or
contains an error attributable to the Commission staff, the Commission
may correct and/or prevent public dissemination of the submission and
may communicate with the filer as necessary to facilitate the filer's
submission of an amendment to, or a notice of withdrawal of, the
filer's submission (a ``filer corrective disclosure'');
    (4) If the Commission determines that a submission is made under an
incorrect EDGAR unique identifying number, the Commission may remove
and/or prevent public dissemination of the submission and may
communicate with the filer as necessary to facilitate a filer
corrective disclosure;

    (5) If the Commission determines that a dispute exists regarding
the authority to make submissions on behalf of a filer, the Commission
may prevent a filer's ability to make submissions until the dispute is
resolved by the disputing parties or by a court of competent
jurisdiction;
    (6) If the Commission has reason to believe that an attempted
submission may be misleading or manipulative, the Commission may
prevent acceptance or dissemination of the submission while evaluating
the circumstances surrounding the submission. The Commission may allow
acceptance or dissemination if its concerns are satisfactorily
addressed;
    (7) If the Commission has reason to believe that a filer has made
an unauthorized submission or attempted to make an unauthorized
submission, the Commission may prevent any further submissions by the
filer or otherwise remove the filer's access to EDGAR; and
    (8) If the Commission otherwise has reason to believe that, to
promote the reliability and integrity of submissions made through
EDGAR, it must address a submission issue that cannot be addressed
solely by filer corrective disclosure or by the actions set forth in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) above, the Commission may take such
further steps as are appropriate to address the matter and communicate
as necessary with the filer regarding the submission.
    (b) The Commission may act under paragraph (a) without providing
advance notice to the filer or any other person. As soon as reasonably
practicable after taking action under paragraph (a), the Commission
will provide written notice and a brief factual statement of the basis
for the action to the filer and any other person the Commission
determines is relevant to the matter (``relevant persons''). The
Commission will send the notice and factual statement by electronic
mail to the email address on record in the filer's EDGAR account, and
to the email address of any relevant persons. The Commission may also
send, if necessary, the notice and factual statement by registered,
certified, or express mail to the physical address on record in the
filer's EDGAR account and the physical address of any relevant persons.
    (c) Nothing in this rule prevents a filer from addressing an error
or mistake in the filer's submission by making a filer corrective
disclosure.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: August 21, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18825 Filed 9-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50875-50877]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20218]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0575; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-086-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 747-8F and 747-8 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of delamination damage to leading
edge (LE) variable camber krueger (VCK) flaps. This proposed AD would
require repetitive inspections to detect delamination damage of the
lightning strike applique (LSA) on the LE VCK flaps, and corrective
actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct
delamination damage to the LE VCK flaps, which can reduce the lightning
strike protection capability on the LE VCK flaps and result in an
uncommanded motion of the trailing edge flap system. Such uncommanded
flap motion, without shutdown of the trailing edge or leading edge
flaps, may cause unexpected changes in lift, potentially resulting in
asymmetric lift and loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 10,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0575; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Frey, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0575;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-086-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received multiple reports of damage to the LSA on the LE
VCK flaps found during ground inspections on Model 747-8F and 747-8
series airplanes. The damage included delamination of topcoat and metal
foil layers from the underlying dielectric layer of the LSA. In some
cases, the LSA damage was incorrectly identified as missing or peeling
paint.
    Excessive delamination damage can reduce the lightning strike
protection capability on LE VCK flaps. Loss of lightning strike
protection could expose the electrical traces of the leading edge
failure indication (LEFI) system on the back side of the LE VCK flaps
to a direct lightning strike. A direct lightning strike to the LE VCK
flaps with existing LSA damage could result in direct lightning
attachment to the high lift flap control units (FCUs), potentially
resulting in an uncommanded motion of the trailing edge flap system.
Such uncommanded flap motion, without shutdown of the trailing edge or
leading edge flaps, may cause unexpected changes in lift, potentially
resulting in asymmetric lift and loss of control of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2338,
dated January 14, 2014. For information on the procedures and
compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2014-0575.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' correct or address any condition found.
Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The applicability in this proposed AD does not refer to paragraph
1.A.1. ``Effectivity,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57-2338,
dated January 14, 2014. This service bulletin does not contain a
comprehensive list of the airplanes affected by the identified unsafe
condition. Therefore, the applicability of this proposed AD is all
Model 747-8F and 747-8 series airplanes.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.......................  8 work-hours x $85               $0  $680 per inspection  $4,080 per
                                    per hour = $680                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in
this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0575; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-086-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 10, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-8F and 747-8
series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of delamination damage to
leading edge (LE) variable camber krueger (VCK) flaps. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct delamination damage to the LE
VCK flaps, which can reduce the lightning strike protection
capability on LE VCK flaps and result in an uncommanded motion of
the trailing edge flap system. Such uncommanded flap motion, without
shutdown of the trailing edge or leading edge flaps, may cause
unexpected changes in lift, potentially resulting in asymmetric lift
and loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2338, dated January
14, 2014: Do a general visual inspection to detect delamination
damage of the lightning strike applique (LSA) on the LE VCK flaps;
and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight; in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2338, dated January 14, 2014.
Repeat the inspection of the LSA on the LE VCK flaps thereafter at
the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57-2338, dated
January 14, 2014.

(h) Exception to Service Information

    Where Paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-57-2338, dated January 14, 2014, specifies a compliance
time ``after the Original issue date of this service bulletin,''
this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time
after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kenneth Frey,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 15, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-20218 Filed 8-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60188-60191]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23580]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0807; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-035-AD;
Amendment 39-17601; AD 2013-19-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France (Eurocopter)
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP
helicopters. This AD requires replacing certain serial-numbered main
gearbox (MGB) bevel gear vertical shafts because they are no longer
airworthy. Also, this AD requires certain inspections of each MGB bevel
gear vertical shaft (shaft) for a crack. Also, this AD requires if
there is a crack, replacing the shaft with an airworthy part before
further flight. This AD is prompted by two incidents of emergency
ditching after warning indications of loss of MGB oil pressure. These
actions are intended to detect a cracked shaft, which could result in
loss of MGB oil pressure, loss of the MGB lubrication system, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 16, 2013.

    We must receive comments on this AD by December 2, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact American
Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub.
    You may review the referenced service information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    We are adopting a new AD for the specified Eurocopter helicopters
with certain part-numbered shafts. This AD requires replacing certain
serial-numbered shafts because they are no longer airworthy. Also, this
AD requires certain inspections at specified intervals of each shaft
for a crack. This AD also requires if there is a crack, replacing the
shaft with an airworthy part before further flight. This AD is prompted
by two incidents of emergency ditching after warning indication of loss
of oil pressure. A full circumferential crack of the lower shaft
occurred in the area where two sections of the shaft are welded
together. As a result, the shaft stopped driving the main and backup
oil pumps leading to warning indications of the loss of the MGB
lubrication. The crew activated the MGB emergency lubrication system,
and following a warning that indicated failure of that system,
performed a controlled ditching into the sea. These actions are
intended to detect a cracked shaft, which could result in loss of MGB
oil pressure, loss of the MGB lubrication system, and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.
    This AD is prompted by EASA AD 2013-0138R1, dated July 15, 2013,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union. EASA AD 2013-0138R1 was issued to revise EASA AD
2013-0138-E, dated July 9, 2013, which superseded EASA Emergency AD
2012-1250-E, dated November 21, 2012, to correct an unsafe condition
for the Eurocopter Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and
EC225LP helicopters, all serial numbers, with certain part-numbered
shafts, installed.
    EASA advises of two events of the Model EC225LP helicopters. In
both cases, an emergency ditching was performed after warning
indication of MGB loss of oil pressure and subsequent additional red
alarm on the MGB emergency lubrication system (EMLUB). EASA also
advises of a full circumferential crack of the lower vertical shaft of
the MGB bevel gear in the area where the two sections of the shaft are
welded together. As a result, the vertical shaft ceased to drive the
main and backup oil pumps leading to warning indications of the loss of
the MGB main and standby oil lubrication systems. The crew activated
the EMLUB system and, following a subsequent warning indicating failure
of that system, performed a controlled ditching into the sea.
    EASA advises that Eurocopter determined after investigating the
incidents that the MGB bevel gear vertical shaft failures resulted from
a combination of factors, including stress hot-spots induced by the
shaft geometry, residual stresses in the shaft weld material resulting
from the manufacturing process, and corrosion pitting inside the shaft
on areas where gear spline wear particles accumulated.
    The EASA AD allows continued operations under certain conditions if
equipped with a Vibration Health Monitoring System (VHM).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. The design approval holder is
currently developing a newly-designed shaft that will address the
unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once the newly-designed shaft
is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional
rulemaking.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued the following service information:
     ASB No. AS332-01.00.82, Revision 3, dated July 8, 2013,
for the Model AS332C, C1, L, L1, L2 civil helicopters and Model AS332B,
B1, M, M1, and F1 military model helicopters. The ASB defines the new
inspection

requirements to detect a crack in the shaft.
     ASB No. EC225-04A009, Revision 3, dated July 8, 2013 for
Model EC225LP helicopters. The ASB defines the new inspection
requirements to detect a crack in the shaft.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires:
     Removing certain part-numbered and serial-numbered shafts
from service, which are no longer considered airworthy.
     For certain model helicopters, before further flight and
at specified intervals, eddy current inspecting the shaft for a crack
in the area of the weld.
     For Model EC225LP, before further flight, either
installing a placard in full view of the pilot with the following
statement in red, 6 millimeter letters on a white background: ``MAXIMUM
CONTINUOUS TORQUE LIMITED TO 70% DURING LEVEL FLIGHTS AT IAS EQUAL TO
OR MORE THAN 60 KTS,'' and before further flight and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 11.5 hours TIS, removing the main jet and
emergency spraying jet, and ultrasonic inspecting the shaft in the weld
area for a crack; or
     Before further flight and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 8 hours TIS, removing the main jet and emergency spraying jet,
and ultrasonic inspecting the shaft for a crack in the area of the
weld.
     Each eddy current or ultrasonic inspection be done by a
Level II or Level III operator certified in the ultrasonic fault
detection method in the Aeronautics Sector according to the EN4179 or
NAS410 standard.
     If there is a crack, before further flight, replacing the
shaft with an airworthy part.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD allows continued operations under certain conditions if
equipped with a VHM. The VHM system is validated by FAA for information
only, and therefore we have not adopted that portion of the EASA AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect four helicopters of U.S.
Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to comply
with this AD. We estimate labor at $85 per work hour. Minimal cost to
install a placard and 3 work hours to inspect each shaft for a crack,
it will cost $255 per helicopter and $1,020 for the fleet per
inspection. To replace a shaft, it will take 44 work hours and
$1,243,350 for required parts for a total of $1,247,090 per helicopter.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments before adopting these
AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to
correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk
to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment before
adopting this rule because the required corrective actions must be done
within 10 hours TIS and at repeated intervals within short periods of
time.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-19-19 Eurocopter France: Amendment 39-17601; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0807; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-035-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Eurocopter Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1,
AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters, with main gearbox (MGB) bevel gear
vertical shaft (shaft), part number (P/N) 332A32-5101-00, 332A32-
5101-05, 332A32-5101-10, or 332A32-5101-15, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a cracked shaft
resulting in loss of MGB oil pressure. These actions are intended to
prevent loss of the MGB lubrication system and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

 (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 16, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, remove shaft, P/N 332A32-5101-00,
332A32-5101-05, 332A32-5101-10, or 332A32-5101-15, with S/N M330
through M340 (inclusive) and S/N M370 through M5000 (inclusive) from
service, which are no longer considered airworthy.

    (2) For Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2 helicopters,
before further flight and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10
hours time-in-service (TIS), eddy current inspect the shaft for a
crack in the area of the weld, which must be done by a Level II or
Level III inspector certified in the eddy current fault detection
method in the Aeronautics Sector according to the EN4179 or NAS410
standard.
    (3) For Model EC225LP, either do paragraphs (3)(i) and (3)(ii)
or do paragraph (3)(iii).
    (i) Before further flight, install a placard in full view of the
pilot with the following statement in red, 6 millimeter letters on a
white background: ``MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS TORQUE LIMITED TO 70% DURING
LEVEL FLIGHTS AT IAS EQUAL TO OR MORE THAN 60 KTS,'' and
    (ii) Before further flight and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 11.5 hours TIS, remove the main jet and emergency spraying
jet, and ultrasonic inspect the shaft in the weld area for a crack,
which must be done by a Level II or Level III inspector certified in
the eddy current fault detection method in the Aeronautics Sector
according to the EN4179 or NAS410 standard, or
    (iii) Before further flight, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 8 hours TIS, remove the main jet and emergency spraying jet,
and ultrasonic inspect the shaft for a crack in the area of the
weld, which must be done by a Level II or Level III operator
certified in the ultrasonic fault detection method in the
Aeronautics Sector according to the EN4179 or NAS410 standard.
    (4) If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the
shaft with an airworthy part.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS332-01.00.82
and ASB No. EC225-04A009, both Revision 3, both dated July 8, 2013,
which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional
information about the subject of this AD. For service information
identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701
N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(800) 232-0323; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review a copy of the service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0138R1, dated July 15, 2013. You
may view the EASA AD at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating it in the Docket for this AD.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320 Main rotor
gearbox.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 9, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-23580 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:
Kiechle, Fredric S<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, August 4, 2016 2:28 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
May, Jeffrey X<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hill, John R<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Coke MACT ICR submittal, ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC sections I-III attachments only, email #2-16

Dr. Jones, find attached in email #2-16 ICR requested reports for Q2 2016.

F. Scott Kiechle  Sr. Engineer-Environmental
ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor
Maintenance, Environmental & Utilities | 250 W. U.S. Highway 12 Burns Harbor, IN 46304-9745
T +219 787 4968 | F +219 787 4973  | M +219 313 2661  | www.arcelormittal.c
 Qapla'!

<< Q2 16 1H16 Semiannual Compliance Cert  CO Bleeders FINAL.pdf >>
<< Q2 16 1H-16Coke Semiannual MACT Report FINAL.pdf >>
<< Q2 16 2nd Qtr Coke Plant MACT COMS FINAL.pdf >>
<< Q2 16 Benzene_L_1S16_Att.pdf >>
<< Q2 16 Benzene_L_1S16_CL.pdf >>
<< Q2 16 COB2_Att5_VEE.pdf >>
<< Q2 16 IDEM 2nd Qtr #2_ COMS FINAL 16.pdf >>
<< Q2 16 IDEM 2nd Qtr_#1_ COMS FINAL 16.pdf >>
<< Q2 16 NESHAP_Benzene_Subpart FF_2016.pdf >>


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68383-68385]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26858]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0932; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-24]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Removal of Class E Airspace, and Proposed Amendment of
Class D and Class E Airspace; Jacksonville, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to remove Class E airspace area
designated as an extension to a Class D surface area for Cecil Airport
(previously Cecil Field), Jacksonville, FL, as the Cecil very high
frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) has been decommissioned, and the
VOR approach cancelled. This action would also amend Class D and E
airspace by updating the following airport names: Jacksonville NAS
(Towers Field) (previously Jacksonville NAS); Herlong Recreational
Airport (formerly Herlong Airport); and, Jacksonville Executive Airport
at Craig (previously Craig Municipal Airport). Controlled airspace is
necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations in the area. Also, this action would update the
geographic coordinates of Cecil Airport, Jacksonville NAS (Towers
Field), Jacksonville International Airport, Mayport NAS, and Whitehouse
NOLF. This action also would make an editorial change replacing
Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the legal
descriptions of associated Class D airspace.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket No. FAA-2019-0932; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-24, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would remove Class E airspace at Cecil Airport, and amend Class D
and E airspace in the Jacksonville, FL area to support IFR operations
in the area. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2019-0932 and Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-24) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number.) You may also submit comments through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2019-0932; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-24.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective

September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove Class E surface airspace
designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Cecil Airport
due to the decommissioning of the Cecil VOR. The FAA also proposed to
amend Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface by recognizing the name changes of
Jacksonville NAS (Towers Field), (previously Jacksonville NAS), and
Herlong Recreational Airport, (previously Herlong Airport), and
Jacksonville Executive Airport at Craig, (previously Craig Municipal
Airport), Jacksonville, FL. Also, the geographic coordinates of these
airports would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database. In addition, the FAA proposes to replace the outdated term
Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the
associated Class D airspace legal descriptions for these airports.
    Class D airspace designations, Class E airspace areas designated as
an extension to a Class D or E surface area, and Class E airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface are published
in Paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively of FAA Order 7400.11D,
dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action,'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule,'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Jacksonville Cecil Airport, FL [New]

Cecil Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]13'07'' N, long. 81[deg]52'38'' W)
Jacksonville NAS (Towers Field), FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]14'01'' N, long. 81[deg]40'34'' W)
    Whitehouse NOLF, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]20'58'' N, long. 81[deg]52'01'' W)
    Herlong Recreational Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]16'40'' N, long. 81[deg]48'21'' W)
    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL, within a 4.3-mile radius of Cecil Airport; excluding
that airspace within the Jacksonville NAS Class D airspace area,
excluding that airspace north of a line from lat. 30[deg]17'11'' N,
long. 81[deg]54'22'' W to lat. 30[deg]16'58'' N, long.
81[deg]50'19'' W, which abuts the Whitehouse NOLF Class D airspace,
and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Herlong
Recreational Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during
the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

ASO FL D Jacksonville Whitehouse NOLF, FL [Amended]

Whitehouse NOLF, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]20'58'' N, long. 81[deg]52'01'' W)
Cecil Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]13'08'' N, long. 81[deg]52'38'' W)
Herlong Recreational Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]16'40'' N, long. 81[deg]48'21'' W)
    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL, within a 4.3-mile radius of Whitehouse NOLF,
excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Herlong
Recreational Airport and that airspace south of a line from lat.
30[deg]17'11'' N, long. 81[deg]54'22'' W to lat. 30[deg]16'58'' N,
long. 81[deg]50'19'' W, which abuts the Jacksonville Cecil Airport
Class D airspace. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

ASO FL D Jacksonville Executive Airport at Craig, FL [New]

Jacksonville Executive Airport at Craig, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]20'11'' N, long. 81[deg]30'52'' W)
    Mayport NAS, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]23'29'' N, long. 81[deg]25'28'' W)
    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Jacksonville Executive
Airport at Craig; excluding the portion northeast of a line
connecting the 2 points of intersection with a 4.2-mile radius
circle centered on Mayport NAS,FL. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

ASO FL D Jacksonville Cecil Field, FL [Removed]

ASO FL D Jacksonville Craig Municipal Airport, FL [Removed]

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to Class
D or E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ASO FL E4 Jacksonville Cecil Field, FL [Removed]

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Jacksonville, FL [Amended]

Jacksonville International Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]29'39'' N, long. 81[deg]41'16'' W)
Jacksonville NAS (Towers Field), FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]14'01'' N, long. 81[deg]40'34'' W)
Cecil Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]13'08'' N, long. 81[deg]52'38'' W)
Jax Executive Airport at Craig, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]20'11'' N, long. 81[deg]30'52'' W)
Mayport NAS, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]23'29'' N, long. 81[deg]25'28'' W)
Whitehouse NOLF, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]20'58'' N, long. 81[deg]52'01'' W)
    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 10-mile radius of Jacksonville International Airport and

within the 7-mile radii of Jacksonville NAS (Towers Field), Cecil
Airport, Jacksonville Executive Airport at Craig, Mayport NAS and
Whitehouse NOLF.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 5, 2019.
Ryan Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2019-26858 Filed 12-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64382-64383]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25625]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No., 14627-000]

Symphony Hydro LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On June 26, 2014, Symphony Hydro LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Symphony Hydro Project
to be located on Mississippi River, near the city of Minneapolis,
Hennepin County, Minnesota. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit,
if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) Two new
1.5-foot-thick by 56-foot-wide by 60-foot-high reinforced concrete
bulkheads containing two variable speed 1,700-

kilowatt (kW) turbine/generators mounted on roller frames for a
combined nameplate capacity of 3.4 megawatts; (2) two 6-foot-square
pad-mounted metal boxes, one containing plant controls and the other
containing a 13.8-kilovolt (kV) step-up distribution transformer; (3) a
13.8-kV transmission line; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
estimated annual generation of the Symphony Hydro Project would be
18,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Robert H. Shulte, Symphony Hydro LLC, 1742
Patriot Road, Northfield, MN 55057-1221; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tyrone A. Williams; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14627-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14627) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 22, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25625 Filed 10-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P