case scenario MVEBs in 2024, the Atlanta Area will maintain the
PM2.5 standard. Applying the projected 15 percent increase
in direct PM2.5 emissions to the proposed 2024 MVEB (2,281
tpy) yields a value of 2,623 tpy which is 44 percent less than the 2008
attainment level of on-road mobile emissions (4,662 tpy).
    Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs for
NOX and PM2.5 for 2024 for the Atlanta
Area because EPA has determined that the Area maintains the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS with the emissions at the levels of the budgets.
Once the MVEBs for the Atlanta Area are approved or found adequate
(whichever is completed first), they must be used for future conformity
determinations. After thorough review, EPA has determined that the
budgets meet the adequacy criteria, as outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the budgets because they are
consistent with maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
through 2024.

VIII. What is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the
Proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2024 for the
Atlanta Area?

    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEB, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein adequate for use in determining transportation conformity. Once
EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEBs must be used by state
and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy
consists of three basic steps: Public notification of a SIP submission,
a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy determination. This process
for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999,
guidance entitled ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2,
1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' EPA adopted regulations to codify
the adequacy process in rulemaking entitled ``Transportation Conformity
Rule Amendments for the New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing
Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court
Decision and Additional Rule Changes''; July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004).
Additional information on the adequacy process for transportation
conformity purposes is available in the proposed rule entitled
``Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision
and Additional Rule Changes''; June 30, 2003 (68 FR 38974, 38984).
    As discussed earlier, Georgia's maintenance plan submission
includes NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Atlanta Area
for 2024, the last year of the maintenance plan. EPA reviewed the
NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs through the adequacy process,
and the adequacy of the MVEBs was open for public comment on EPA's
adequacy Web site on February 21, 2013, found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment
period on adequacy for the MVEBs for 2024 for Atlanta Area closed on
March 25, 2013. EPA did not receive any comments on the adequacy of the
MVEBs, nor did EPA receive any requests for the SIP submittal.
    EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2024
MVEBs for the Atlanta Area for transportation conformity purposes in
the near future by completing the adequacy process that was started on
February 21, 2013. After EPA finds the 2024 MVEBs adequate under 40 CFR
93.118(f)(1)(iv) or takes final action to approve them into the Georgia
SIP under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii), the new MVEBs for NOX
and PM2.5 must be used for future transportation conformity
determinations. For required regional emissions analysis years that
involve 2024 or beyond, the applicable budgets will be the new 2024
MVEBs established in the maintenance plan.

IX. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
SIP Revisions Including Approval of the NOX and
PM2.5 MVEBs for 2024 for the Atlanta Area

    On December 8, 2011, EPA determined that the Atlanta Area was
attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 76620. EPA is now
proposing to take three separate but related actions regarding the
redesignation and maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
for the Atlanta Area.
    First, EPA is proposing to determine, based upon review of quality-
assured and certified ambient monitoring data for the 2008-2010 period,
and review of data in AQS for 2011 through 2014 that the Atlanta Area
continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, EPA
proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area,
including the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2024, into
the Georgia SIP (under section 175A). As described above, the
maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the budgets meet all of the
adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Third, EPA
is proposing to approve Georgia's request for redesignation of the
Atlanta Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997
p.m.2.5 NAAQS based upon the preliminary determination that
the Area has met the requirements for redesignation under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). Further, as part of today's action, EPA is describing the
status of its adequacy determination for the 2024 NOX and
VOC MVEBs in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months from
the effective date of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the
publication date for the final rule for this action, whichever is
earlier, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate
conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e).
    If finalized, approval of Georgia's redesignation request for the
Atlanta Area would change the official designation of Barrow, Bartow,
Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette,
Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale,
Spalding, Walton, and portions of Heard and Putnam Counties in Georgia,
as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these proposed actions merely approve state law as meeting
federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 22, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-33196 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40092-40098]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16978]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75377; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend
FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public)

July 7, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 29, 2015, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 2210 to require each of a
member's Web sites to include a readily apparent reference and
hyperlink to BrokerCheck on: (i) The initial Web page that the member
intends to be viewed by retail investors; and (ii) any other Web page
that includes a professional profile of one or more registered persons
who conduct [sic] business with retail investors. These requirements
would not apply to a member that does not provide products or services
to retail investors, or to a directory or list of registered persons
limited to names and contact information.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    FINRA established BrokerCheck in 1988 (then known as the Public
Disclosure Program) to provide the public with information on the
professional background, business practices, and conduct of FINRA
members and their associated persons. The information that FINRA
releases to the public through BrokerCheck is derived from the Central
Registration Depository (``CRD[supreg]''), the securities industry
online registration and licensing database. FINRA members, their
associated persons and regulators report information to the CRD system
via the uniform registration forms. By making most of this information
publicly available, BrokerCheck, among other things, helps investors
make informed choices about the individuals and firms with which they
conduct business.
    In January 2013, FINRA filed with the SEC a proposed rule change to
amend FINRA Rule 2267 (Investor Education and Protection) \3\ to
require all members to include a prominent description of and link to
BrokerCheck on their Web sites, social media pages and any comparable
Internet presence, as well as on the Web sites, social media pages and
any comparable Internet presence relating to a member's investment
banking or securities business maintained by or on behalf of any person
associated with a member.\4\ The proposed rule change was intended to
increase investor awareness and use of BrokerCheck. The Commission
received 24 comment letters in response to the proposed rule change.
FINRA withdrew the filing to better understand commenters' concerns
regarding the challenges of implementing the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Subject to limited exceptions, FINRA Rule 2267(a) requires
members to provide annually in writing to each of their customers
the BrokerCheck hotline number, the FINRA Web site address, and a
notification of the availability of an investor brochure that
describes BrokerCheck.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68700 (January 18,
2013), 78 FR 5542 (January 25, 2013) (Notice of Filing of SR-FINRA-
2013-002). See also infra Item II.C. of the filing for further
discussion of the 2013 filing and prior proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the comments received on the 2013 proposed rule change
expressed concern with the challenges of implementing the proposal with
respect to social media pages, the lack of guidance with respect to
terms and phrases in the proposed amendments, and the disadvantages of
using a ``deep'' link to BrokerCheck summary reports that would bypass
the BrokerCheck homepage.\5\ Commenters suggested that the link to
BrokerCheck be required initially for member Web sites, where its
implementation would be relatively straightforward, and that the value
of the link be assessed first in that context before expanding to third
party sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The SEC also received numerous comment letters that raised
issues outside the scope of the proposed rule change to FINRA Rule
2267. These comment letters focused generally on concerns regarding
the current operation and display of BrokerCheck reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of commenters' concerns, FINRA has developed a revised
proposal that addresses member Web sites. Specifically, the revised
proposal would amend FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public)
to require each of a member's Web sites to include a readily apparent
reference and hyperlink to BrokerCheck on: (i) The initial Web page
that the member intends to be viewed by retail investors; and (ii) any
other Web page that includes a professional profile of one or more
registered persons who conduct

[sic] business with retail investors. The proposal would not apply to a
member that does not provide products or services to retail investors,
or a directory or list of registered persons limited to names and
contact information.
    FINRA believes that the revised proposal addresses many of the
commenters' concerns on the original proposal to amend Rule 2267. By
incorporating the proposed rule change into the regulatory framework
for communications with the public, the revised proposal would group
the proposed requirement with other related standards that apply to
member Web sites. By excluding those members that do not provide
products and services to retail investors, the revised proposal is more
aligned with its goal of increasing retail investor awareness and usage
of BrokerCheck. FINRA also believes that the revised proposal should
reduce the potential burden on members by clarifying that the
requirement would not apply to directory pages limited to registered
persons' names and contact information, since firms would not need to
include as many links to BrokerCheck on their Web sites.
    The revised proposal also responds to commenters' concerns with
respect to communications on third-party sites that are not controlled
by the member, such as social media sites, by limiting its application
to Web sites of the member, rather than applying its requirements to
third-party sites, such as social media sites, which the member does
not control. The revised proposal also no longer requires a deep link
to the BrokerCheck report of a member or registered person; instead, it
would require a link to the BrokerCheck homepage.
    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days
following Commission approval. The effective date will be no later than
180 days following publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing
Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will help
protect investors by making them aware of information available on
BrokerCheck by requiring links to BrokerCheck on member Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA recognizes that the
proposed rule change would impose burdens on members associated with
implementing references and hyperlinks to BrokerCheck on their Web
sites and to keep those references and hyperlinks current. However,
FINRA believes that by limiting the application of the proposal only to
a member's own Web sites, the revised proposal significantly reduces
these implementation costs for members, while maintaining the
proposal's investor protection goals.
    FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth
below, to analyze the regulatory need for the proposed rulemaking, its
potential economic impacts, including anticipated costs and benefits,
and the alternatives FINRA considered in assessing how to best meet its
regulatory objectives.
Economic Impact Assessment
A. Regulatory Need
    BrokerCheck provides investors with information on the professional
background, business practices, regulatory history, and conduct of
members and their associated persons. Among other things, BrokerCheck
helps investors make well-informed choices about the individuals and
firms with which they conduct business. FINRA believes that the need
for greater investor awareness and access to BrokerCheck continues to
be important to protect investors. The proposed rule change will help
increase investor awareness and make it easier for investors to find
BrokerCheck by requiring references and hyperlinks to BrokerCheck on
member Web sites.
B. Economic Impacts
(i) Anticipated Benefits
    FINRA believes that BrokerCheck serves as a critical source of
information for investors and considers BrokerCheck to be among the
first resources they should turn to when choosing whether to do
business with a particular firm or registered person. BrokerCheck
enables investors to search for and download information on
professional background and regulatory history of members and their
registered persons, thereby reducing the direct and indirect costs
associated with acquiring valuable information about the members and
their registered persons (``search costs'').\7\ As discussed above, the
proposed rule will increase investor awareness and the likely usage of
BrokerCheck. By making more investors aware of the information
available on BrokerCheck, the proposed rule will make investors'
searches for information about firms and registered persons more
efficient and will help them make more informed decisions about whether
to do business with a particular firm or registered person, thereby
enhancing investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Search costs encompass the time, energy and money expended
by a consumer who is researching a product or service for purchase.
See, e.g., Meir G. Kohn & Steven Shavell, The Theory of Search, 9
Journal of Economic Theory 93 (1974); Simon P. Anderson & Regis
Renault, Pricing, Product Diversity, and Search Costs: A Bertrand-
Chamberlin-Diamond Model, 30, No. 4 The RAND Journal of Economics
719 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Anticipated Costs
    The proposed rule change will impose costs on members that provide
products and services to retail investors, which FINRA estimates to be
approximately 3,800 members.\8\ These members would incur costs
associated with identifying the Web pages that would need to be updated
based upon this proposed rule and determining where to place the
references and hyperlinks within these Web pages, updating the required
Web pages, as well as testing and deploying the updated Web site. In
addition, these members would incur costs associated with maintaining
the links on their Web pages and updating their policies and procedures
to ensure ongoing compliance as their Web sites are updated or new Web
pages are added over time. Members would have flexibility on how best
to link to BrokerCheck, which is intended to

reduce costs by allowing members to choose the most cost-effective
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FINRA's estimate is based on the types of business in which
members are engaged (based on information provided in response to
Question 12 on Form BD). FINRA identified businesses that are
generally associated with products and services for retail investors
and estimates that approximately 3,800 members are engaged in such
retail-oriented businesses. FINRA notes that this estimate includes
members engaged in private placements of securities. Form BD
information identifies members engaged in private placements but
does not distinguish between those who conduct private placement of
securities with retail versus institutional investors as those terms
are defined in Rule 2210. However, based on staff experience, FINRA
believes that a significant portion of the members engaged in
private placements provide products and services to retail
investors. Nonetheless, FINRA notes that the estimates in this
proposal could be overstated and serve as an upper-bound for the
number of impacted members and the corresponding aggregate cost
estimates, discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on staff experience, FINRA estimates that on average the
initial implementation costs for large members would be approximately
$2,400 per member, and for mid-size and small members \9\ the costs are
estimated to be approximately $128 per member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Based on FINRA By-Laws, Article I (Definitions), members
with 150 or fewer registered representatives are classified as
small, members with 151 to 499 registered representatives are
classified as mid-size, and members with 500 or more registered
representatives are classified as large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates are based on FINRA's assumption that large members
typically have full-featured Web sites that dynamically generate Web
pages based on data and logic. The technology personnel at these
members would be required to update the underlying information in order
to automate the implementation of references and hyperlinks to
BrokerCheck across all applicable Web pages. FINRA estimates that on
average it would take large members approximately 60 hours of
technology staffs' time to make the required updates, which at a $40
hourly rate would cost approximately $2,400 per firm.\10\ FINRA assumes
that mid-size and small members typically have less complex Web sites,
which they manage and maintain with non-technical staff. These members
would use personnel in non-technical roles to accomplish the required
updates to their Web sites. FINRA estimates that on average it would
take mid-size or small members approximately eight hours of non-
technical staffs' time to make the required updates, which at a $16
hourly rate would cost approximately $128 per member.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The $40 per hour estimate is based on the high end of the
compensation range for web application developers, reported on
publicly available sources. For example, the total compensation,
including salary, bonus and other benefits, reported for web
applications developer on payscale.com ranges from $33,122 to
$84,271, which on an hourly basis is approximately $16-$41 per hour.
See http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Web_Developer/Salary
(accessed May 20, 2015).
    \11\ For the purpose of estimating costs for mid-size or small
members, FINRA uses a $16 hourly rate, which corresponds to the low
end of the compensation range for a web application developer, as
discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA notes that costs associated with updating existing Web sites
to include the required information will likely vary significantly
across members depending on the scope and design of their Web sites,
the extent to which the Web sites are automated (e.g., include content
management systems that dynamically generate Web pages) and the number
of Web pages that include professional profiles of the applicable
registered representatives. FINRA further estimates that there are
approximately 175 large members and 3,625 mid-size and small members
that provide products and services to retail investors and would be
required to implement references and hyperlinks to BrokerCheck on their
Web sites. Based on its average cost estimates for large, mid-size and
small members, FINRA estimates that the total implementation costs
associated with this rule proposal to the membership would be
approximately $884,000.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As discussed above, FINRA estimates that there are 175
large members that would be required to implement references and
hyperlinks to BrokerCheck on their Web sites, and the implementation
costs for these large firms would be approximately $2,400 per firm.
Thus, the total implementation costs for these large members would
be approximately $420,000 ($2,400 x 175). Similarly, the total
implementation cost for the 3,625 mid-size and small members, based
on a $128 per firm estimate, would be approximately $464,000 ($128 x
3,625). Hence, the total implementation cost across all members is
anticipated to be about $884,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the initial implementation costs, members would also
incur ongoing costs associated with maintaining the links on their Web
pages and creating and maintaining procedures and internal controls to
ensure that they remain compliant with the proposed rule. However,
FINRA believes that the ongoing compliance costs associated with this
rule proposal would likely be minimal because, apart from standard Web
site upkeep, ``static'' BrokerCheck hyperlinks and references would
require minimal (if any) additional maintenance on an ongoing
basis.\13\ FINRA will read with interest comments from members on the
anticipated costs of compliance with the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Ongoing costs associated with maintaining hyperlinks could
be significant if the underlying hyperlinks change regularly over
time. However, considering that FINRA does not anticipate changing
the BrokerCheck hyperlink, costs associated with maintaining such a
link are anticipated to be minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Alternatives
    In considering how to best meet its regulatory objectives, FINRA
considered several alternatives to particular features of this
proposal. For example, some commenters suggested that the goals of the
rule could be attained more cost effectively if FINRA were to advertise
BrokerCheck and its benefits to investors more aggressively. FINRA
agrees that better recognition of the benefits of BrokerCheck will
serve the investing public well and is considering additional ways in
which to enhance awareness. FINRA believes that the proposed rule
change serves as a well-calibrated effort to reduce investor search
costs and to provide investors access to critical information as they
make their decision regarding whether to engage in business with a
particular firm or individual.
    In developing this proposal, FINRA considered requiring members to
include links to BrokerCheck on third-party Web sites, including social
media sites. Several commenters expressed concerns about this
requirement. As discussed in more detail below, commenters pointed out
the limitations in their ability to control the content and features of
third-party Web sites, and the significant costs associated with
complying with such a requirement. FINRA recognizes the difficulties
and costs associated with including links on third-party Web sites, and
as a result FINRA has determined at this time to exclude the third-
party Web site requirement and limit the application of the rule
proposal to members' Web sites.
    Finally, FINRA initially proposed that members would be required to
include a deep link to BrokerCheck summary reports. These links would
direct investors to the specific BrokerCheck page representing the
collected information for an individual broker. Commenters noted the
disadvantages of using a deep link that would bypass the BrokerCheck
homepage, and speculated that there would be significant costs and
operational challenges associated with including and tracking deep
links. Based on these comments, FINRA has determined not to require the
deep link in the proposed rule at this time.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received from Members, Participants or Others

Background
    In February 2012, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 12-10 seeking
comment on a proposal regarding ways to facilitate and increase
investor use of BrokerCheck information. A copy of the Regulatory
Notice is attached as Exhibit 2a.\14\ FINRA received 71 comment letters
in response to Regulatory Notice 12-10. In January 2013, FINRA filed
with the SEC SR-FINRA-2013-002, a proposed rule change to amend FINRA
Rule 2267 to require that members include a prominent description of
and link to BrokerCheck on their Web sites, social media pages and any
comparable Internet presence and on Web sites, social media pages and
any comparable Internet presence relating to a member's investment
banking or securities

business maintained by or on behalf of any person associated with a
member. A copy of the 2013 Notice of Filing is attached as Exhibit 2b.
On January 25, 2013, the 2013 filing was published for comment in the
Federal Register, and the SEC received 24 comment letters in response
to the proposal. FINRA withdrew the filing on April 18, 2013 to assess
and respond to commenters' concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Commission notes that the Exhibits referred to herein
(Exhibits 2a--2e) are attached to the filing, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of concerns raised on the earlier proposals, in April
2014, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 14-19 (``Notice 14-19''),
requesting comment on the rules as proposed therein (the ``Notice 14-19
proposal''). A copy of Notice 14-19 is attached as Exhibit 2c. The
comment period expired on June 16, 2014. FINRA received 22 comments in
response to Notice 14-19. A list of the commenters in response to
Notice 14-19 is attached as Exhibit 2d, and copies of the comment
letters received in response to Notice 14-19 are attached as Exhibit
2e.\15\ A summary of the comments and FINRA's response is provided
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exhibit 2d for a list of abbreviations assigned to
commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Notice 14-19 proposal would have required a member to include a
readily apparent reference and hyperlink to BrokerCheck on each firm
Web site that is available to retail investors. It also would have
required a member to include a readily apparent reference and hyperlink
to BrokerCheck in online retail communications with the public that
include a professional profile of, or contact information for, an
associated person.
    The requirement to include a link to BrokerCheck where there is
contact information or a professional profile of an associated person
would have been subject to the following conditions:
     If the retail communication appeared on the member's Web
site or any site that it hosted, the link would have had to appear in
close proximity to the profile or contact information.
     If the retail communication appeared on a third-party Web
site (such as a social media page) that permitted a hyperlink to
another Web site, the member would have been required to either:
    [cir] Post a hyperlink to BrokerCheck in close proximity to the
profile or contact information; or
    [cir] Post a hyperlink to the member's Web site, which included a
readily apparent reference and hyperlink to BrokerCheck, in close
proximity to the profile or contact information. The third-party Web
site would have had to disclose that a hyperlink to BrokerCheck is
available through the linked Web site.
     If the retail communication appeared on a third-party Web
site that did not permit a hyperlink to another Web site, the member
would have been required to provide the BrokerCheck web address (URL)
in close proximity to the profile or contact information and, to the
extent feasible, disclose that information concerning the associated
person is available through BrokerCheck.
    The proposal would have excepted from these requirements:
     Electronic mail and text messages;
     A retail communication that is posted on an online
interactive forum (such as a message board, Twitter feed or chat room);
     A member that does not provide products or services to
retail investors; and
     A directory or list of associated persons limited to names
and contact information.
    Seven commenters supported the proposal.\16\ Six commenters opposed
the proposal.\17\ Eight commenters did not expressly support or oppose
the proposal, but recommended changes to, or sought clarification of,
the proposal.\18\ One commenter expressed overall opposition to FINRA
and to BrokerCheck in particular.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See GSU, NASAA, ICI, PIRC, PIABA, University of Miami
School of Law Investor Rights Clinic, and Teresa Vollenweider.
    \17\ See Alpine, Buckman, Farmers, First Georgetown, MSTC, and
Windham.
    \18\ See Schwab, CAI, Commonwealth, FSI, Lincoln, NFP, SIFMA,
and Wells Fargo.
    \19\ See Carrie Devorah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Supporting Proposal
    Commenters supporting the proposal stated that the benefits of the
proposal outweigh its potential costs, and that the proposal would
increase investors' awareness of BrokerCheck. Four commenters \20\
supported the proposal overall, but opposed the omission of the 2013
version's requirement to include a deep link to an associated person's
BrokerCheck report. These commenters stated that investors would have
difficulty searching for a particular broker's BrokerCheck report on
the FINRA Web site without a deep link, particularly where a broker has
a common name, such as John Smith. One commenter recognized the
difficulty of including deep links on third-party sites, but suggested
that FINRA at least require deep links from pages on a member's Web
site that include a broker's contact or profile information.\21\ One
commenter suggested that FINRA inquire of its examination staff or,
alternatively, poll members firms to ascertain and compare utilization
rates of the different types of online communications occurring between
a financial advisor and their clients and gear the requirements toward
embedding links to BrokerCheck and deep links to individual financial
advisors in those communications.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See NASAA, GSU, PIRC and PIABA.
    \21\ See GSU.
    \22\ See NASAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters \23\ opposed the exception for electronic mail.
PIABA noted that including a link to BrokerCheck in an associated
person's email signature block would not be burdensome. PIABA also
recommended that the proposal require a BrokerCheck description and
hyperlink be placed in printed customer account statements. PIABA
further recommended changes to BrokerCheck itself to increase the
information available to investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NASAA and PIABA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Opposing the Proposal
    Six commenters opposed the proposal. All cited the potential
compliance burdens associated with this proposed rule change as a
principal reason not to adopt it, particularly the burdens it would
impose on small members. Two commenters strongly opposed the proposal
because they believe BrokerCheck presents a biased and unfavorable view
of securities firms and their personnel.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Alpine and Buckman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many questioned the potential benefits the proposal would offer to
investors, noting that investors may already search for information
about members and their representatives, such as through Google or the
FINRA Web site.\25\ One commenter also noted that the proposal will
require a small firm compliance officer to divert resources from
servicing client accounts and instead use them to achieve compliance
with a rule that offers little public benefits.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Farmers, First Georgetown, MSTC, and Windham.
    \26\ See Windham.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Recommending Changes to or Clarifications of the Proposal
    A number of commenters expressed concerns with requirements to
include links and disclosures on third-party Web sites not controlled
by a member.\27\ Commenters noted that members do not control the
content, appearance, or features of third-party sites, and thus are
dependent on these sites in terms of complying with the rule proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Schwab, CAI, FSI, Lincoln, SIFMA and Wells Fargo.

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

    Commenters pointed out that the proposal appears to be based on
technology and social media site rules as they appear today, without
taking into account future changes. For example, commenters stated the
rules fail to explain a member's responsibilities if a third-party site
revised its rules and no longer allowed links to other Web sites. These
commenters also argued that the proposal inadequately addressed limits
imposed by third-party sites. For example, although Twitter allows a
single link to another site, its Profile section limits the user to 160
characters, hardly enough to include either a link to BrokerCheck, or a
link to a member's Web site plus the additional disclosure required by
the rule proposal. In addition, the requirement would preclude a member
from including any other content in the Profile section.
    SIFMA recommended that FINRA alter its proposal to make it more
principles-based with respect to requirements applicable to third-party
sites. SIFMA suggested that the rule be revised to use ``should, to the
extent reasonable'' or similar language regarding third-party site
linking and disclosure obligations instead of ``must.'' Wells Fargo
recommended that the proposal should relieve members of its
requirements if a third-party site cannot accommodate a firm's request
to include the required link or disclosures.
    Commenters requested that FINRA clarify that the rule proposal does
not apply to either: (i) Search-engine based, text-only advertising
(such as advertisements generated by Google or Bing); or (ii) other
``static'' web-based advertising that contains general references to
the services provided by an associated person and includes a link to
the person's profile page.\28\ One commenter also requested that the
proposal expressly exclude certain types of online retail
communications, such as interviews, articles, reprints, award listings,
biographies, sponsorships, press releases, radio replays, and
advertisements that include associated persons' profiles or contact
information.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See SIFMA and Wells Fargo.
    \29\ See Wells Fargo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also urged FINRA to clarify when a member would be
deemed to have ``adopted'' or become ``entangled'' with a third-party
Web site, thus making it responsible for including a link to
BrokerCheck on the site.\30\ One commenter recommended that FINRA make
clear in the rule language that it does not apply to a third-party site
that a member has not adopted or become entangled with.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See CAI and Commonwealth.
    \31\ See Commonwealth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters requested that FINRA clarify the extent to which a
member must include a BrokerCheck link on its own Web site.\32\ For
example, does a member have to include a link on each Web page of the
firm's Web site, or only once on its homepage? Also, what if a member
has contact information or profiles of multiple representatives on a
single Web page? Does the member have to include multiple links to
BrokerCheck, or may it only include one such link?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See CAI, Commonwealth, Lincoln and SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ICI recommended that FINRA provide members with flexibility as
to where on a firm's Web site a link to BrokerCheck must appear. For
example, a member should be allowed to include the link on a Web page
that the member reasonably determines will draw the attention of retail
investors. SIFMA and the ICI also requested that FINRA clarify that
members may use ``buffer'' screens that inform a user that they are
leaving the firm's Web site before the user lands on the BrokerCheck
Web site.
    Given that FINRA includes a link to BrokerCheck on its own Web
site, one member asked whether a link to the FINRA Web site would meet
the rule's requirements.\33\ This commenter noted that, if so, the rule
proposal appears to be redundant, given that FINRA Rule 2210(e)(3)
already requires members that indicate FINRA membership to include a
link to FINRA's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See NFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters recommended that the proposal only apply to Web
pages that provide contact or profile information for registered
representatives, rather than all associated persons.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See CAI and Lincoln.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA and Wells Fargo requested that the exception for directories
be clarified. First, SIFMA sought clarification that including a link
to an associated person's profile page in a directory would not trigger
the requirements to include a link to and description of BrokerCheck.
Second, they urged FINRA to allow more information in directories
without requiring a BrokerCheck link, such as general biographical
information and areas of expertise.
    The ICI and SIFMA recommended that FINRA expand the exception for
email and text messages to include other similar forms of messaging.
This expansion would take into account future technological changes to
electronic messaging.
    SIFMA requested clarification that the rule proposal would not
apply to mobile device ``apps'' or other web-based applications (such
as trading platforms or OES) that provide customers with access to
their accounts and other member-provided information and capabilities.
SIFMA also requested that FINRA include a safe harbor for broken links
that allow members time to correct any links that subsequently fail.
    Commenters agreed with the revision to the prior proposal that
eliminated the requirement to include a deep link to a member's or
associated person's BrokerCheck report.\35\ Commenters noted that the
costs of including and tracking deep links in member and third-party
Web sites would have been significant and operationally unfeasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Schwab, CAI, Commonwealth, FSI, SIFMA and Wells Fargo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters reiterated opponents' views that the proposal would
impose significant costs and burdens on members.\36\ These costs
include requiring members to create and implement new written policies
and procedures, and performing ongoing surveillance of firm and
associated persons' Web sites to ensure compliance with the rule
proposal. One member noted that it has approved roughly 1,000 LinkedIn
profiles, and that in order to achieve compliance with the rule, the
firm would have to incur 700 employee hours (or nearly 17 weeks of a
full-time employee's time).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See CAI, FSI, Lincoln, SIFMA and Wells Fargo.
    \37\ See Lincoln.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters recommended that the Chief Economist's office perform a
cost-benefit analysis of the rule proposal to ensure that its benefits
will exceed its costs before FINRA proceeds with the proposal. Other
commenters urged that, if FINRA adopts the rule proposal, members be
given at least six months to implement any required changes.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See ICI, SIFMA and Wells Fargo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also recommended that FINRA explore alternatives to
requiring links to BrokerCheck as a means to increase investor
knowledge and usage of the site.\39\ For example, FINRA could pursue
its own investor outreach program, or encourage state securities
regulators to include links to BrokerCheck on their Web sites. FINRA
could make the references to BrokerCheck on its own Web site more
prominent and user-friendly, and improve the visual quality and clarity
of BrokerCheck summary reports. FINRA could also target focus groups in
order to identify possible alternative means of

facilitating and increasing investor use of BrokerCheck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Schwab, CAI, and FSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Comments
    One commenter strongly criticized FINRA's commitment to protect
investors. The commenter noted that the proposal would do little good
because, in this commenter's view, it would merely present ``expunged
backgrounds and brokercheck historys [sic] that are, too often,
fairytales.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Carrie Devorah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to Comments
    As discussed above, many of the comments either opposing the
proposal in full, or recommending changes to the proposal, concerned
requirements in the Notice 14-19 proposal that would have required
members to include links to BrokerCheck on third-party Web sites, such
as social media sites. FINRA believes it has addressed these concerns
by revising the current proposal to limit its applicability to a
member's own Web site. FINRA however will further consider the
commenters' concerns regarding links on third-party Web sites and
determine whether to pursue separate rulemaking addressing such links.
    Under the current version, each of a member's Web sites must
include a readily apparent reference and link to BrokerCheck on: (i)
The initial Web page that the member intends to be viewed by retail
investors; and (ii) any other Web page that includes a professional
profile of one or more registered persons who conduct [sic] business
with retail investors. The current version provides exceptions from
these requirements for: (i) A member that does not provide products or
services to retail investors; and (ii) a directory or list of
registered persons limited to names and contact information. The
current version would not require a member to include a link to
BrokerCheck from any third-party Web site, such as a social media site.
    FINRA does not agree that it is necessary at this time to reinstate
a requirement to include a deep link to a member's or a registered
person's BrokerCheck report. A deep link requirement could potentially
increase Web site maintenance costs, and FINRA is not proposing to
require such links at this time. Most investors should be able to find
information concerning particular members or registered representatives
without difficulty given the ease of operation of the BrokerCheck
search feature.
    FINRA also does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to
require links to BrokerCheck on each email sent by a member or
registered person. FINRA believes that such a requirement would be
overly burdensome and require significant system changes, without
commensurate benefit. However, FINRA has removed the express exception
for emails and text messages as unnecessary, since the proposal by its
terms only applies to a member's own Web site. For the same reason,
FINRA has removed the prior exception for retail communications posted
on online interactive forums.
    FINRA does not agree with comments that BrokerCheck presents a
biased and unfavorable view of securities firms and their personnel, or
that it omits important information to which investors should have
access. FINRA has carefully considered the need to provide investors
with information necessary to make informed choices about the
individuals and members with which they conduct business. Moreover,
FINRA is required by statute to establish and maintain a system for
collecting and retaining registration information, including
disciplinary actions, regulatory, judicial and arbitration proceedings,
and other information required by law, or exchange or association rule,
and the source and status of such information.\41\ FINRA believes that
it is important that investors have access to this information to help
them make informed decisions when selecting a broker-dealer or
registered person with whom to do business. FINRA regularly assesses
the BrokerCheck program and may consider the inclusion of additional
information in BrokerCheck at a later time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA does not agree that the proposal should allow more
information in directories of registered persons without requiring a
BrokerCheck link, such as biographical information or areas of
expertise. This kind of information is precisely the content that
should trigger a link to BrokerCheck, since its intent is to generate
investor interest in a particular registered representative.
    FINRA believes it has answered commenters' questions concerning the
scope of the proposed link requirements. In this regard, a member is
required to include a link to BrokerCheck only on Web pages that are
either the initial page that the member intends to be viewed by retail
investors, or pages that include profile information about registered
persons that conduct business with retail investors. Links are not
required on every Web page of a member's Web site. If a Web page
includes profile information about multiple registered persons, only
one link to BrokerCheck is required. In response to comments received
to the Notice 14-19 proposal, FINRA has revised the rule as proposed in
Notice 14-19 to require a link to BrokerCheck on Web pages that provide
profile information about registered persons, rather than Web pages
that provide profile information about any associated person. Members
also may use ``buffer'' screens or interstitial exiting site pages to
inform investors that they are leaving the member Web site prior to
connecting to BrokerCheck, although there is no requirement to do so.
    In addition, members have flexibility on how best to link to
BrokerCheck, as long as the reference and link to BrokerCheck are
readily apparent. For example, members have expressed interest in using
``widgets'' as a way to link to BrokerCheck. Use of widgets would meet
to [sic] the proposal's requirements, as long as the link and reference
to BrokerCheck are readily apparent.
    FINRA does not agree that the proposal is redundant given that
FINRA includes a link to BrokerCheck on the FINRA Web site. FINRA
believes that the proposal will increase awareness of BrokerCheck and
believes that more investors will use BrokerCheck after it is
implemented.
    FINRA also does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to
create an exception from the proposal for mobile device applications.
To the extent that a web-based application merely provides access to a
customer's account information and does not contain profile information
about a registered representative that conducts business with retail
investors, the proposed requirements would not apply. However, if a
customer uses his or her mobile device to access a Web page that
contains profile information about a registered representative that
conducts business with retail investors, FINRA believes it is important
for the customer to be made aware of BrokerCheck, irrespective of
whether the investor used a mobile device or a desktop or laptop
computer to view such a Web page.
    FINRA has considered the potential costs and benefits of the Notice
14-19 proposal and, accordingly, revised the proposal to reduce its
potential costs while maintaining the proposal's investor protection
goals. FINRA also has proposed to allow members at least six months to
comply with the proposed rule change. FINRA appreciates the suggestions
to explore alternatives to increase investor knowledge and usage

of BrokerCheck. While such suggestions are beyond the scope of this
proposal, FINRA intends to continue to consider ways to increase
investor knowledge and usage of BrokerCheck.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2015-022 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-022. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-022 and should be
submitted on or before August 3, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16978 Filed 7-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 161 (Thursday, August 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50620-50621]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20576]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-541-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on August 5, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed
in in Docket No. CP15-541-000, a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.203, 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations
under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to abandon by removal
its two inactive supply laterals and associated appurtenances located
in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. Specifically, Tennessee request to
abandon: (1) Line No. 521A-100 consisting of approximately 1,330 feet
of 10-inch-diameter pipe and associated appurtenances and (2) Line No.
520A-300 consisting of approximately 36,739 feet of 10-inch-diameter
pipeline and associated appurtenances all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Ben
Carranza, Manager, Regulatory, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, by telephone at (713) 420-
5535, by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Debbie Kalisek, Regulatory Analyst,
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston,
Texas 77002, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by facsimile at (713) 420-
1605, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and protest to the request,
pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR
157.205). If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the

Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
Persons unable to file electronically should submit original and 5
copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: August 14, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20576 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P