Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

12092

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

explains the Commissions decision to retain the Rule in its current form.
ESUS recommends the Commission rescind the Rule partly because the Commodity Futures Trading Commission CFTC has the legal authority and the ability to regulate market manipulation of wholesale petroleum markets.3 This overlap in regulatory authority is by design.4 It is intended to facilitate cooperation and ensure comprehensive enforcement that enhances regulatory certainty for businesses and consumers, a point the CFTC made in 2011 in response to a similar comment during the CFTCs rulemaking process.5 The Commission stated its intent to cooperate with other agencies, including the CFTC, when adopting the Rule in 2009,6 and memorialized that commitment in a 2011 Memorandum of Understanding with the CFTC. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the Commission and the CFTC continue to cooperate on issues of common regulatory interest, particularly as such interest relates to market manipulation, to foster fair competition and promote the integrity of the markets, including petroleum markets. 7
3 Comment of Eversheds Sutherland US LLP at 35 Sep. 3, 2020, available at https
beta.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2020-00470003.
4 Federal Trade Commission: Prohibitions on Market Manipulation; Final Rule, 74 FR at 40690, n.58 Aug. 12, 2009 citing Comment of Senator Maria Cantwell at 2; see also Comment of Senator Cantwell at 2 Congress, however, specifically intended for the Commission to exercise this new authority by working cooperatively and in tandem with the CFTC to prevent and deter any manipulative activity, including in the futures markets, which would affect wholesale petroleum markets.. ESUS identifies the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
Dodd-Frank as a source of legal authority for the CFTC to regulate market manipulation of wholesale petroleum markets. The Commission notes that Senator Cantwell, who sponsored the EISA
provision authorizing the Rule, also helped lead the effort to pass the Dodd-Frank provision to which ESUS refers. Federal Trade Commission:
Prohibitions on Market Manipulation; Final Rule, 74 FR at 40704 Aug. 12, 2009; Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Prohibition on the Employment, or Attempted Employment, of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices and Prohibition on Price Manipulation; Final Rule, 76
FR at 41410 July 14, 2011.
5 Commodity Futures Trading Commission:
Prohibition on the Employment, or Attempted Employment, of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices and Prohibition on Price Manipulation;
Final Rule, 76 FR at 41409 July 14, 2011.
6 Federal Trade Commission: Prohibitions on Market Manipulation; Final Rule, 74 FR at 40691
Aug. 12, 2009.
7 Federal Trade Commission, Memorandum of Understanding Between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Trade Commission Regarding Information Sharing in Areas of Common Regulatory Interest, at 1 3 Apr.
12, 2011, available at https www.ftc.gov/policy/
cooperation-agreements/commodity-futurestrading-commission-federal-trade-commission.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 Mar 01, 2021

Jkt 253001

ESUS also asserts that rescinding the Rule eliminates the risk market participants will incur penalties from both the Commission and the CFTC for the same act of market manipulation.8
This risk has never materialized.
ESUS also asserts the Rule imposes compliance costs on market participants and diverts Commission resources away from enforcement of consumer protection and antitrust laws.9 With respect to compliance costs on market participants, the Commission notes the Rule does not require any affirmative compliance efforts such as recordkeeping or disclosure of information; rather, the Rule requires only that market participants refrain from fraudulent and deceptive statements or behavior.10 As ESUS
points out, the CFTCs broader authority to regulate market manipulation includes prohibiting the conduct the Commissions Rule prohibits.11
Maintaining compliance programs to avoid violating these substantially similar requirements does not lead to additive compliance costs. As a result, and given the absence of any additional substantiation of compliance costs associated with the Rule, the Commission concludes the Rule continues to impose minimal costs on businesses.
Finally, after consideration, and given the benefits to consumers relative to the costs associated with Rule enforcement, the Commission declines to adopt ESUS position that rescinding the Rule would allow the FTC to rededicate limited internal resources to its core consumer protection and antitrust missions. 12
After considering the comment and the evidence, the Commission concludes 1 there is a continuing need for the Rule; 2 the Rule benefits consumers and businesses; 3 the Rule does not impose substantial economic burdens; and 4 the benefits outweigh the minimal costs the Rule imposes.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined to retain the current Rule and is terminating this review.
8 Comment of Eversheds Sutherland US LLP at 8 Sep. 3, 2020, available at https
beta.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2020-00470003.
9 Id. at 9.
10 Federal Trade Commission: Prohibitions on Market Manipulation; Final Rule, 74 FR at 40701
Aug. 12, 2009.
11 Comment of Eversheds Sutherland US LLP at 6, 9 Sep. 3, 2020, available at https
beta.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2020-00470003.
12 Id.

Frm 00014

Fmt 4700

FR Doc. 202104196 Filed 3121; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 675001P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
EPAR04OAR20180631; FRL10018
05Region 4

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee;
Nitrogen Oxides SIP Call Plan Environmental Protection Agency EPA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

The Environmental Protection Agency EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan SIP revision concerning nitrogen oxides NOX
emissions submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation TDEC, through a letter dated December 19, 2019, which revises the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Rule TAPCR titled NOX SIP Call Requirements for Stationary Boilers and Combustion Turbines TN 2017 NOX
SIP Call Rule to correct the definition of affected unit and to clarify requirements related to stationary boilers and combustion turbines. EPA is also converting the conditional approval of the TN 2017 NOX SIP Call Rule to a full approval.
DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 2021.
SUMMARY:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPAR04OAR
20180631. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials can either be retrieved electronically via www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 303038960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

ADDRESSES:

IV. Conclusion
PO 00000

By direction of the Commission.
April J. Tabor, Secretary.

Sfmt 4700

E:FRFM02MRR1.SGM

02MRR1