47562 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

5 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2). 

1 Data Collection for Analytics & Surveillance & 

Mkt.-Based Rate Purposes, 86 FR 17823 (Apr. 6, 

2021), 174 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2021) (March Notice). 

2A Seller is defined as any person that has 

authorization to or seeks authorization to engage in 

sales for resale of electric energy, capacity or 

ancillary services at market-based rates under 

section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). 18 CFR 

35.36(a)(1); 16 U.S.C. 824d. 

3 Data Collection for Analytics & Surveillance & 

Mkt.-Based Rate Purposes, Order No. 860, 84 FR 

36390 (July 26, 2019), 168 FERC ¶ 61,039 (2019), 

order on reh’g and clarification, Order No. 860–A, 

85 FR 13012 (Oct. 1, 2020), 170 FERC ¶ 61,129 

(2020). 

4 ‘‘Ultimate upstream affiliate’’ is defined as the 

furthest upstream affiliate(s) in the ownership 

chain—i.e., each of the upstream of affiliate(s) of a 

Seller, who itself does not have 10% or more of its 

outstanding securities owned, held or controlled, 

with power to vote, by any person (including an 

individual or company). Order No. 860, 168 FERC 

¶ 61,039 at P 5 n.10; see also 18 CFR 35.36(a)(10). 

‘‘Upstream affiliate’’ means any entity described in 

§ 35.36(a)(9)(i). 18 CFR 35.36(a)(10). 

5The March Notice defined ‘‘utilities’’ as 

transmitting utilities, electric utility companies, or 

holding company systems containing such entities. 

March Notice, 174 FERC ¶ 61,214 at P 1 n.4. 

6Order No. 860, 168 FERC ¶ 61,039 at P 4. 

7 Id. P 220. 

competition for purposes of section 

23(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934.5

IV. Statutory Authority 

The amendments contained herein 

have been made under the authority set 

forth in 5 U.S.C. 552 and 15 U.S.C. 

78w(a). 

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 200 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Freedom of information. 

Text of Amendments 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Commission amends title 

17, chapter II of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 200—ORGANIZATION; 

CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND 

INFORMATION AND REQUESTS 

Subpart D—Information and Requests 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 200, 

subpart D, continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, 15 

U.S.C. 77f(d), 77s, 77ggg(a), 77sss, 78m(F)(3), 

78w, 80a–37, 80a–44(a), 80a–44(b), 80b– 

10(a), and 80b–11, unless otherwise noted. 

Section 200.80 also issued under Public 

Law 114–185 sec. 3(a), 130 Stat. 538; 5 U.S.C. 

552; 15 U.S.C. 77f(d), 77s, 77ggg(a), 78d–1, 

78w(a), 80a–37(a), 80a–44(b), 80b–10(a), and 

80b–11(a), unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

■ 2. Amend § 200.80 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 200.80 Securities and Exchange 

Commission records and information. 

(a) * * * 

(2)(i) Records that the FOIA requires 

to be made available for public 

inspection in an electronic format 

(pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2)) are 

accessible through the Commission’s 

website, http://www.sec.gov. Each 

division and office of the Commission is 

responsible for determining which of its 

records are required to be made publicly 

available in an electronic format, as well 

as identifying additional records of 

interest to the public that are 

appropriate for public disclosure, and 

for posting and indexing such records. 

Each division and office shall ensure 

that its posted records and indexes are 

reviewed and updated on an ongoing 

basis. 

(ii) Persons who do not have access to 

the internet may obtain these records by 

contacting the Commission’s Office of 

FOIA Services by telephone at 202–551– 

7900 or by email at foiapa@sec.gov. 

* * * * * 

By the Commission. 

Dated: August 23, 2021. 

Vanessa A. Countryman, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18425 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 35 

[Docket No. RM16–17–000] 

Data Collection for Analytics and 

Surveillance and Market-Based Rate 

Purposes 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Adopted revisions to 

information collection. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission adopts a 

proposal to collect additional data from 

certain market-based rate sellers with 

ultimate upstream affiliates that have 

been granted blanket authorization to 

acquire the securities of those sellers or 

those sellers’ upstream affiliates. The 

adopted proposal involves certain 

revisions to the data dictionary and 

XML schema that accompany the 

relational database established in Order 

No. 860. 

DATES: These revisions will become 

effective October 25, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Stertz (Technical Information), 

Office of Energy Market Regulation, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–6473, Ryan.Stertz@ferc.gov. 

Regine Baus (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First St. NE, Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–8757, Regine.Baus@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Order Adopting Revisions to 

Information Collection 

(Issued August 19, 2021) 

1. On March 18, 2021, the 

Commission issued a notice requesting 

comments 1 on a proposal to collect 

additional data from certain marketbased rate (MBR) sellers (Sellers) 2

through revisions to the data dictionary 

and XML schema that accompany the 

relational database established in Order 

No. 860 (MBR Data Dictionary).3

Specifically, the Commission proposed 

revising the MBR Data Dictionary to 

require that Sellers whose ultimate 

upstream affiliate(s) 4 own their voting 

securities pursuant to a section 203(a)(2) 

blanket authorization provide, in the 

relational database, three additional 

data fields: The docket number of the 

section 203(a)(2) blanket authorization, 

the Utility ID Type CD of the utility 

whose securities were acquired under 

the corresponding section 203(a)(2) 

blanket authorization docket number, 

and the Utility ID of that utility.5 In this 

order, we revise the MBR Data 

Dictionary as proposed in the March 

Notice. 

I. Background 

A. Order No. 860 

2. On July 18, 2019, the Commission 

issued Order No. 860, which revised 

certain aspects of the substance and 

format of information Sellers submit to 

the Commission for market-based rate 

purposes. Among other things, the 

Commission adopted the approach to 

collect market-based rate information in 

a relational database.6 The Commission 

also specified that any significant 

changes to the MBR Data Dictionary 

would be proposed in a Commission 

order or rulemaking, which would 

provide an opportunity for comment.7

3. In support, the Commission 

explained that the relational database 

construct provides for a more modern 

and flexible format for the reporting and 

retrieval of information. The 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47563 

8 Id. PP 5–6. ‘‘Once a Seller identifies its own 

assets, the assets of its affiliates without marketbased rate authority, and its ultimate upstream 

affiliate(s), the relational database will contain 

sufficient information to allow the Commission to 

identify all of that Seller’s affiliates (i.e., those with 

a common ultimate upstream affiliate) to create a 

complete asset appendix for the Seller, which 

includes all of its affiliates’ assets.’’ Id. P 40. 

9 Id. P 121. 

10NextEra Energy, Inc., 174 FERC ¶ 61,213, 

granting clarification, 175 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2021) 

(NextEra). 

11Under § 35.36(a)(9)(iv), an affiliate of a 

specified company can mean ‘‘[a]ny person that is 

under common control with the specified 

company.’’ 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9)(iv); see also id. 

35.36(a)(9)(i)–(iii) (providing the other aspects of 

the Commission’s affiliate definition as applied in 

market-based rate proceedings). 

12NextEra, 174 FERC ¶ 61,213 at P 52. 

13 Id. P 53. 

14March Notice, 174 FERC ¶ 61,214 at P 8. 

15 Id. P 9. 

16 Id. PP 10–11. 

17TAPS Comments at 2, 8. 

18 Id. at 2. 

19 174 FERC ¶ 61,213. 

20TAPS Comments at 5–6. 

21 Id. at 6–7. 

Commission noted that Sellers would be 

linked to their market-based rate 

affiliates through common ultimate 

upstream affiliate(s) and that, through 

this linkage, the relational database 

would allow for the automatic 

generation of a complete asset 

appendix.8 Therefore, the Commission 

required that, as part of their marketbased rate applications or baseline 

submissions, Sellers identify, through 

the relational database, their ultimate 

upstream affiliate(s). The Commission 

also specified that Sellers must inform 

the Commission when they have a new 

ultimate upstream affiliate as part of 

their change in status reporting 

obligations, with any changes updated 

in the relational database on a monthly 

basis.9

B. Petition for Declaratory Order 

4. On March 18, 2021, the 

Commission denied a petition for 

declaratory order filed by NextEra 

Energy, Inc., American Electric Power 

Company, Inc., Evergy, Inc., Exelon 

Corporation, and Xcel Energy Services 

Inc. on behalf of Xcel Energy Inc. 

(Petitioners).10 Among other things, 

Petitioners requested that the 

Commission find that no affiliation 

arises under FPA section 205 when 

institutional investors acquire up to 

20% of the voting securities of utilities 

pursuant to a section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization. Although the 

Commission disagreed with Petitioners 

regarding the issue of affiliation, it 

provided guidance that addressed, in 

part, the concerns raised by Petitioners. 

As explained more fully in NextEra, the 

Commission agreed with Petitioners 

that, as a result of the conditions in a 

section 203(a)(2) blanket authorization, 

institutional investors subject to a 

section 203(a)(2) blanket authorization 

lack the ability to control the utilities 

whose voting securities they acquire. 

The Commission concluded that, 

because those conditions prevent 

institutional investors from exercising 

control over those utilities, utilities 

commonly owned by an institutional 

investor are not affiliates of each other 

under 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9)(iv),11 so long 

as their common institutional investor 

owner complies with the conditions 

imposed as part of a section 203(a)(2) 

blanket authorization.12

5. However, the Commission 

recognized in NextEra that the relational 

database, as contemplated in Order Nos. 

860 and 860–A, does not provide for a 

method to distinguish between ultimate 

upstream affiliates that have or have not 

acquired securities of Sellers (or their 

upstream affiliates) through a section 

203(a)(2) blanket authorization.13 As a 

result, in the March Notice, the 

Commission proposed changes to the 

MBR Data Dictionary so that the 

relational database could accurately 

reflect the affiliations, or lack thereof, 

among Sellers if an ultimate upstream 

affiliate has acquired the securities of 

Sellers pursuant to a section 203(a)(2) 

blanket authorization. 

II. Discussion 

A. March Notice 

6. In the March Notice, the 

Commission proposed to collect certain 

data in the relational database for 

purposes of generating accurate asset 

appendices when 10% or more of the 

securities of a Seller (or an upstream 

affiliate) have been acquired pursuant to 

a section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization. The Commission 

explained that this new data 

requirement would only be required for 

Sellers with upstream affiliates 10% or 

more of whose securities have been 

acquired pursuant to a section 203(a)(2) 

blanket authorization and concluded 

there would be no burden on other 

Sellers.14

7. Specifically, the Commission 

proposed to update the MBR Data 

Dictionary and add three new data 

fields to the entities_to_entities table: (1) 

The section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization docket number; (2) the 

Utility_ID_Type_CD of the utility whose 

securities were acquired under the 

corresponding section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization docket number; and (3) 

and the Utility_ID of that utility. That is, 

the appropriate Sellers would be 

required to identify, using these new 

data fields, the upstream affiliate whose 

securities were acquired pursuant to the 

section 203(a)(2) blanket authorization 

as well as the docket number of the 

proceeding in which the Commission 

granted the section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization.15

8. The Commission noted that these 

new data fields would be necessary to 

prevent the connection of unaffiliated 

entities when auto-generating asset 

appendices, consistent with its findings 

in NextEra. The Commission also stated 

that it anticipated that the MBR Data 

Dictionary with appropriate validations 

would be posted on the Commission’s 

website upon issuance of a final order 

in this proceeding.16

B. Comments 

9. Comments were filed by the 

Transmission Access Policy Study 

Group (TAPS), the Global Legal Entity 

Identifier Foundation (GLEIF), XBRL US 

(XBRL), and Edison Electric Institute 

(EEI) and Electric Power Supply 

Association (EPSA), jointly. 

10. TAPS, GLEIF, and XBRL each 

support the Commission’s proposal to 

collect additional data from certain 

Sellers through the inclusion of the 

three proposed data fields in the 

relational database. 

11. TAPS supports the revisions 

proposed in the March Notice and urges 

the Commission to adopt them.17 TAPS 

agrees that the proposed revisions are 

necessary for the relational database to 

properly identify the affiliates of all 

Sellers with market-based rate authority, 

while also maintaining necessary 

transparency into Sellers’ ultimate 

upstream ownership structures.18 In 

particular, TAPS argues that it is 

important that the March Notice 

maintains the requirement established 

in Order Nos. 860 and 860–A, and 

confirmed in NextEra,19 that Sellers 

report their ultimate upstream affiliates, 

even when the ultimate upstream 

affiliates are institutional investors with 

section 203(a) blanket authorizations.20

TAPS argues that transparent access to 

this information is essential to the 

Commission’s ability to monitor market 

power and fulfill its statutory obligation 

to ensure just and reasonable rates.21


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
47564 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

22See GLEIF Comments at 1; XBRL Comments at 

1. 

23 Id. 

24 GLEIF Comments at 2. 

25 Id. 

26 XBRL Comments at 2. 

27EEI and EPSA Comments at 10. 

28 Id. at 3. 

29 Id. at 4. 

30 Id. at 5. 

31 Id. at 5–6. 

32 Id. at 8–9. 

33 Id. at 6, 9. 

34 Id. at 8. 

35See, e.g., NextEra, 174 FERC ¶ 61,213 at P 56; 

Order No. 860–A, 170 FERC ¶ 61,129 at P 11. 

36Notably, there is no dispute that entities that 

own greater than 10% of the voting securities of a 

market-based rate seller pursuant to a section 

203(a)(2) blanket authorization are affiliated with 

that seller. 

12. GLEIF and XBRL support adding 

the proposed new data fields to the 

relational database and also support 

usage of the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 

in the Utility_ID_Type_CD attribute 

(proposed field 11 in the entities_

to_entities table).22 However, both 

GLEIF and XBRL suggest that the 

Commission incorporate the LEI more 

broadly by requiring the reporting of an 

LEI in all cases.23 GLEIF argues that 

partial inclusion of the LEI results in 

partial coverage, which limits the 

potential benefits of using the LEI.24

GLEIF further argues that consistent use 

of the LEI among U.S. federal agencies 

could greatly enhance information 

sharing across different government 

entities.25 XBRL urges all U.S. regulators 

to adopt the LEI as a replacement for the 

industry-specific identifiers used today 

and adds that LEIs provide clarity 

regarding organizational provenance, 

and help businesses understand the 

origins of clients, contractors, and 

suppliers.26

13. EEI and EPSA believe there is 

little to no value in reporting ultimate 

upstream affiliates that are institutional 

investors to the relational database and 

express concern that adopting the 

proposed changes will result in another 

delay in implementation. As a result, 

EEI and EPSA urge the Commission not 

to move forward with the proposed 

changes.27 If the Commission moves 

forward with its proposal to collect 

information about institutional investor 

ultimate upstream affiliates in the 

relational database, EEI and EPSA 

suggest several modifications and 

clarifications, which they believe are 

needed to make the proposed changes 

less cumbersome, more understandable, 

and easier to implement.28

14. First, EEI and EPSA explain that 

use of the term ‘‘utility’’ in the proposed 

new data fields Utility_ID_Type_CD and 

Utility_ID to identify the entity whose 

securities were acquired by a Seller’s 

ultimate upstream affiliate(s) pursuant 

to a section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization may confuse the industry 

because, in most cases, such an entity is 

not a public utility, as defined by the 

FPA, but is instead a public utility 

holding company.29

15. Second, EEI and EPSA express 

concern about the workability of the 

Commission’s proposal regarding the 

technical implementation and seek 

clarification on which attribute(s) will 

be used to generate a Seller’s asset 

appendix.30 Specifically, in the case that 

only the Utility_ID attribute will be used 

to link affiliated Sellers for purposes of 

generating the asset appendix, EEI and 

EPSA express concern that the nullable 

Utility_ID attribute will be blank for 

thousands of Sellers (because they do 

not have ultimate upstream affiliate(s) 

that acquired the securities of the Seller 

through a section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization). On the other hand, in the 

case that both the Utility_ID attribute 

and the Reportable_Entity_ID attribute 

will be used to link affiliated Sellers for 

purposes of generating the asset 

appendix, EEI and EPSA argue that this 

would be far more complex than always 

using one attribute (i.e. the Reportable_

Entity_ID). EEI and EPSA argue that an 

additional benefit of always using the 

Reportable_Entity_ID attribute to link 

affiliated Sellers is that the Reportable_

Entity_ID is likely to remain fixed for 

many years for most Sellers, whereas 

the existence of an institutional investor 

ultimate upstream affiliate may vary 

from quarter to quarter.31 EEI and EPSA 

suggest that, should the Commission 

decide to move forward with its 

proposal, the concept of Reportable 

Entity should always be the entity that 

is used to compile the asset appendix 

and suggest that the Commission 

rename this field to be Asset_Appendix_

Reportable_Entity.32

16. Third, EEI and EPSA seek 

clarification on whether the data fields 

relationship_start_date and 

relationship_end_date now refer to the 

relationship between a Seller and the 

Reportable Entity or to the relationship 

between a Seller and the utility, in the 

event that both fields are populated. EEI 

and EPSA suggest that two additional 

fields be added so that the relational 

database captures the start and end date 

of both relationships, when 

applicable.33

17. Finally, EEI and EPSA express 

concern that the Commission has not 

allowed adequate time for its proposed 

changes to be incorporated into software 

that Sellers may be relying on to create 

the XMLs for their database 

submissions, and request that any order 

in this docket include a step-by-step 

example to ensure that Sellers’ software 

developers understand the correct 

approach to updating records.34

C. Commission Determination 

18. We adopt the revisions to the MBR 

Data Dictionary, as proposed in the 

March Notice. In doing so, we provide 

additional clarification to address 

concerns raised by commenters. We 

note that all commenters agree that it is 

important to distinguish upstream 

affiliates that have control over Sellers, 

ultimate upstream affiliates that have 

received section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorizations, and the upstream 

affiliates or Sellers whose securities 

were acquired pursuant to that blanket 

authorization. We find that the 

revisions, with the clarifications 

discussed below, strike the appropriate 

balance between ensuring the accuracy 

of auto-generated asset appendices and 

minimizing the burden on Sellers. 

Below, we respond to commenters’ 

specific suggestions and concerns. 

19. We decline to adopt the proposal 

that the Commission incorporate LEI 

more broadly by requiring the reporting 

of an entity’s LEI broadly across the 

Commission’s work. We appreciate 

XBRL’s and GLEIF’s emphasis on 

consistency and transparency 

throughout the Commission’s 

information collection efforts. However, 

we find that such a proposal is beyond 

the scope of this proceeding, which 

more narrowly addresses the accurate 

identification and reporting of ultimate 

upstream affiliates in the relational 

database. 

20. As to the argument that there is 

little to no value in reporting ultimate 

upstream affiliates where those entities 

have acquired the securities of the 

reporting Seller, or its upstream affiliate, 

pursuant to a section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization order, we note that the 

Commission has repeatedly emphasized 

the importance of both identifying and 

tracking these ultimate upstream 

affiliates in the relational database.35 We 

believe that continuing to require 

Sellers to report all of their ultimate 

upstream affiliates and the information 

discussed herein will preserve the 

accuracy and integrity of the relational 

database, as contemplated in Order Nos. 

860 and 860–A. These additional data 

fields will account for instances where 

certain ultimate upstream affiliates lack 

control over those Sellers, or their 

upstream affiliates, whose securities are 

acquired pursuant to a section 203(a)(2) 

blanket authorization.36 Thus, these 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47565 

37 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9)(iv). 

38NextEra, 174 FERC ¶ 61,213 at P 52. 

39 Id. P 56; Order No. 860–A, 170 FERC ¶ 61,129 

at P 11; Order No. 860, 168 FERC ¶ 61,039 at PP 

121, 126–127, 129. 

40We note that Commissioner Danly’s dissent 

also raises concerns regarding the value of reporting 

ultimate upstream affiliates where those entities 

have received section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization. 

41 18 CFR 35.36(a)(10). 

42See supra note 5. 

43We note that, in many section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization orders, the Commission has used the 

term ‘‘U.S. Traded Utility’’ to mean transmitting 

utilities, electric utility companies, or holding 

company systems containing such entities being 

acquired pursuant to section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization orders. ‘‘Utility,’’ as used here, has 

the same meaning as ‘‘U.S. Traded Utility’’ used in 

section 203(a)(2) blanket authorization orders. 

44See appendix A. 

45Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Market-Based Rate Quick Start Guide (August 

2021), https://mbrwebsat.ferc.gov/MbrHelpLinks/ 

DownLoadFiles/Quick%20Start%20Guide. 

46 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 47 5 CFR 1320. 

data fields will ensure that the relational 

database does not automatically make 

these Sellers affiliates of each other 

under § 35.36(a)(9)(iv),37 consistent with 

NextEra.38

21. Furthermore, this order does not 

make any new determinations regarding 

affiliation; rather, it implements the 

technical components necessary to 

ensure the relational database functions 

as contemplated in NextEra and Order 

Nos. 860 and 860–A.39 Requests for the 

Commission to not move forward with 

these proposals are collateral attacks on 

those orders.40 As such, we decline to 

reconsider the Commission’s 

determination to require Sellers to 

report certain ultimate upstream 

affiliates. 

22. In addition, we decline to adopt 

a number of the suggestions proposed 

by EEI and EPSA, as well as their 

proposed edits to MBR Data Dictionary. 

EEI and EPSA argue that a single field, 

Asset_Appendix_Reportable_Entity, 

should link affiliated Sellers for 

purposes of generating the asset 

appendix to simplify submittals in the 

relational database. However, we find 

that EEI and EPSA misunderstand the 

purpose of the Reportable_Entity_ID 

field in this respect. The Reportable_

Entity_ID field is intended for Sellers to 

report their ultimate upstream 

affiliates.41 We believe that shifting this 

reporting obligation to a different field 

would, in certain circumstances, change 

the information submitted and obfuscate 

a Seller’s ultimate upstream affiliate. 

The three additional data fields we are 

adopting in this order minimize the 

burden on all Sellers because these 

fields apply to only Sellers whose 

securities have been acquired (or whose 

upstream affiliate’s securities have been 

acquired) by an ultimate upstream 

affiliate pursuant to a section 203(a)(2) 

blanket authorization. As EEI and EPSA 

note, thousands of Sellers will not have 

to change how they submit information 

into the relational database with the 

Commission’s changes adopted herein. 

Because the Reportable_Entity_ID field 

is where all Sellers must report their 

ultimate upstream affiliates, we find 

that it is less burdensome to keep the 

field limited to reporting only ultimate 

upstream affiliates under § 35.36(a)(10). 

23. As to the use of the term ‘‘utility’’ 

in the data fields, we note that the 

Commission has defined ‘‘utility’’ to 

mean transmitting utilities, electric 

utility companies, or holding company 

systems containing such entities, as 

those terms have been used in section 

203(a)(2) blanket authorization orders.42

We find that continuing to use ‘‘utility’’ 

in this manner is consistent with how 

that term has also been used in section 

203(a)(2) blanket authorization orders.43

24. In addition, we appreciate EEI’s 

and EPSA’s concerns that the relational 

database is a complex system and that 

potential confusion may exist about 

how the adopted fields will be used 

when auto-generating asset appendices. 

Based on these concerns, we agree that 

certain clarifications to the MBR Data 

Dictionary will help to alleviate 

confusion regarding the relational 

database. Specifically, we have updated 

the descriptions of the Reportable_

Entity_ID, Blanket_Auth_Docket_

Number, Utility_ID_Type_CD, and 

Utility_ID fields to clarify how the 

system constructs relationships for the 

auto-generated asset appendices.44 We 

have also added clarifying descriptions 

for the relationship_start_date and 

relationship_end_date fields. 

25. Finally, we also appreciate EEI’s 

and EPSA’s concerns that the software 

that Sellers rely on for their XML 

submissions will need to be updated to 

incorporate these revisions. For a stepby-step example of how to comply with 

these revisions, we direct Sellers to the 

MBR Quick Start Guide, which can be 

found on the Commission’s website.45

III. Information Collection Statement 

26. The information collection 

requirements contained in this order are 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995.46 OMB’s 

regulations require approval of certain 

information collection requirements 

imposed by agency rules (including 

reporting, record keeping, and public 

disclosure requirements).47 Upon 

approval of a collection of information, 

OMB will assign an OMB control 

number and expiration date. 

Respondents subject to the filing 

requirements of this rule will not be 

penalized for failing to respond to the 

collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

valid OMB control number. The 

following discussion describes and 

analyzes the collection of information to 

be revised by this order. 

27. All burden estimates for the 

proposed information collection are 

discussed in this order. These 

provisions would affect the following 

information: FERC–919A, Refinements 

to Policies and Procedures for Market 

Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of 

Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary 

Services by Public Utilities (OMB 

Control No. 1902–0317). 

28. Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting Ellen 

Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 

20426 (via email DataClearance@

ferc.gov or telephone (202) 502–8663). 

29. Send written comments on FERC– 

919A to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) through 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, 

Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission Desk Officer. Please 

identify the OMB control number 

(1902–0317) in the subject line. Your 

comments should be sent within 30 

days of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. OMB submissions 

must be formatted and filed in 

accordance with submission guidelines 

at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Using the search function under the 

‘‘Currently Under Review field,’’ select 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 

click ‘‘submit’’ and select ‘‘comment’’ to 

the right of the subject collection. 

30. These revisions affect Sellers that 

have ultimate upstream affiliates that 

own their voting securities pursuant to 

section 203(a)(2) blanket authorizations. 

Sellers continue to be required to report 

institutional investors who own 10% or 

more of their voting shares pursuant to 

section 203(a)(2) blanket authorizations 

as their reportable ultimate upstream 

affiliate in the relational database. 

However, these revisions also require 

these Sellers to identify their upstream 

affiliate(s) whose securities have been 

acquired, 10% or more, pursuant to a 

section 203(a)(2) blanket authorization. 

This requirement includes submitting, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
47566 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

48The estimated hourly cost burden for 

respondents—$88.54—is the average of mean 

hourly wages from May 2020 Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) data at http://www.bls.gov/oes/ 

current/oes_nat.htm, and BLS benefits data at 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm for 

the following occupations: Legal Occupations (23– 

0000) $142.25, Computer and Information Systems 

Managers (11–3021) $103.61, Computer and 

Mathematical Occupations (15–0000) $65.73, and 

Information and Record Clerks (43–4199) $42.57. 

49The following table displays BLS cost 

calculations from 2020 which updated the March 

Notice’s estimates from the initial 2019 data. 

50The two hours represents the additional time 

required to address the three new fields. 

51Order No. 860, 168 FERC ¶ 61,039 at P 323. 

52We estimate that the additional burden (440 

hours) due to these revisions of reporting this 

information will not have a net change in overall 

burden because sellers will no longer be affiliated 

through common ultimate upstream affiliates with 

blanket authorizations, as contemplated in Order 

Nos. 860 and 860–A. We conservatively estimate 

that the net change on the impacted sellers 

reporting this information will be zero. The net 

additional cost calculations were determined by 

subtracting the total burden for impacted sellers for 

these revisions from the estimated burden in Order 

No. 860 which results in no change in burden. 

53Reguls. Implementing the Nat’l Envt’l Pol’y Act, 

Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41 

FERC ¶ 61,284). 

54 Id. 

55 18 CFR 380.4. 

56 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

57 13 CFR 121.101. 

58 Id. 

into the relational database, the docket 

number of the order granting the 

ultimate upstream affiliate a section 

203(a)(2) blanket authorization, the 

identifier of the upstream affiliate(s) 

whose securities were acquired 

pursuant to the section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorization, and the type of identifier 

reported. These revisions would not 

impose any additional reporting 

requirements for Sellers whose ultimate 

upstream affiliates do not hold their 

voting securities pursuant to section 

203(a)(2) blanket authorizations. 

31. There are approximately 2,647 

Sellers that will submit information into 

the relational database. Six institutional 

investors currently have section 

203(a)(2) blanket authorizations, which 

collectively own approximately 110 

upstream affiliates that themselves own 

Sellers. In the March Notice, the 

Commission estimated an average of 

four Sellers affected for every upstream 

affiliate, equaling 440 total sellers. This 

order reaffirms the estimate of the 

number of Sellers impacted by the 

revisions herein. 

Burden Estimate: The estimated 

burden and cost 48 for the requirements 

in this order are as follows. Information 

on estimated burden from Order No. 860 

is displayed for background only. 

32. The following table summarizes 

the average estimated annual burden 

and cost 49 changes due to March Notice 

(and includes, for background only, the 

estimate from Order No. 860): 

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 

Respondent/incremental 

burden category 

Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Number of 

responses 

(B * C) 

Burden hours per 

response 

Hourly cost 

($) per 

response 

Total annual burden 

hours 

(D * E) 

Total cost 

($) (F * G) 

First Year, proposed incremental cost associated with the collection of reporting connections to an entity whose securities were acquired pursuant to a blanket 

authorization (Increase due to the March Notice) 

Impacted Sellers, as implemented in this Order.440 1 440 50 2 ............................ 88.54 880 ........................... 77,915.20. 

Ongoing (beginning in Year 2) collection of reporting connections to an entity whose securities were acquired pursuant to a blanket authorization 

Impacted Sellers, as implemented in this Order.440 1 440 68 ............................. 88.54 29,920 ...................... 2,649,116.80. 

Total Burden for Impacted Sellers in 

this Order.

440 1 440 70 ............................. 88.54 30,800 ...................... 2,727,032.00. 

Impacted Sellers have an offsetting decrease in reporting requirements compared to those required to be reported in Order 860 

Reduction in Burden of 

Order 860 Reporting Requirements for Impacted 

Sellers 51.

440 1 ¥440 70 [former estimate, 

being replaced].

88.54 ¥30,800 [former estimate, being replaced].¥2,727,032.00 [former estimate, being replaced]. 

Therefore, there is no net change for impacted Sellers in burden due to these revisions.52

IV. Environmental Analysis 

33. The Commission is required to 

prepare an Environmental Assessment 

or an Environmental Impact Statement 

for any action that may have a 

significant adverse effect on the human 

environment.53 The Commission has 

categorically excluded certain actions 

from these requirements as not having a 

significant effect on the human 

environment.54 The actions proposed 

here fall within a categorical exclusion 

in the Commission’s regulations, i.e., 

they involve information gathering, 

analysis, and dissemination.55

Therefore, environmental analysis is 

unnecessary and has not been 

performed. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

34. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 56 generally requires a 

description and analysis of rules that 

will have significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The RFA mandates 

consideration of regulatory alternatives 

that accomplish the stated objectives of 

a proposed rule and minimize any 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

lieu of preparing a regulatory flexibility 

analysis, an agency may certify that a 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

35. The Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Office of Size 

Standards develops the numerical 

definition of a small business.57 The 

SBA size standard for electric utilities is 

based on the number of employees, 

including affiliates.58 Under SBA’s 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 47567 

59The North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) is an industry classification system 

that Federal statistical agencies use to categorize 

businesses for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, 

and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. 

economy. United States Census Bureau, North 

American Industry Classification System, https://

www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. 

60 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22—Utilities). To be 

conservative, we are using a small business 

threshold of 1,000 employees. 

current size standards, an electric utility 

(one that falls under NAICS codes 

221122 [electric power distribution, 

with a small business threshold of 1,000 

employees], 221121 [electric bulk power 

transmission and control, with a small 

business threshold of 500 employees], 

or 221118 [other electric power 

generation, with a small business 

threshold of 250 employees]) 59 are 

small if it, including its affiliates, 

employs 1,000 or fewer people.60

36. Of the 440 affected entities 

discussed above, we estimate that none 

of these will be small entities. 

Accordingly, we certify that this order 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

VI. Document Availability 

37. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov). At this time, the 

Commission has suspended access to 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room due to the President’s March 13, 

2020 proclamation declaring a National 

Emergency concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19). 

38. From the Commission’s Home 

Page on the internet, this information is 

available on eLibrary. The full text of 

this document is available on eLibrary 

in PDF and Microsoft Word format for 

viewing, printing, and/or downloading. 

To access this document in eLibrary, 

type the docket number excluding the 

last three digits of this document in the 

docket number field. 

39. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s website 

during normal business hours from 

FERC Online Support at (202) 502–6652 

(toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371, TTY (202)502–8659. Email the 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

VII. Effective Date and Congressional 

Notification 

40. These revisions are effective 

October 25, 2021. The Commission has 

determined, with the concurrence of the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB, that this order is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined in section 351 of the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. 

By the Commission. Commissioner 

Chatterjee is not participating. 

Commissioner Danly is dissenting with a 

separate statement attached. 

Issued: August 19, 2021 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

ER26AU21.061</GPH>jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulatio

Appendix A (Clean) 

7 I record_ type_ cd I Indicates whether this is a new Options List: N CHARACTER NA 

submission or a submission to • New (6) 

update an existing record. • Update 

8 I reference id Identifier of existing record y INTEGER 

being updated. 

9 I reportable_ entity_ User selects one of the three Options List: N CHARACTER 

ID_type_CD identifier types it will provide • CID (3) 

for these 2 fields: • LEI 

-Company Identifier/CID of • GID 

the Reportable Entity. 

(Required if available.) 

-Legal Entity Identifier/LEI of 

the Reportable Entity. 

(Required if available and CID 

is not available.) 

-FERC generated ID/GID of 

the Reportable Entity. 

(Required if CID and LEI are 

not available. 

ER26AU21.062</GPH>jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

101 reportable_ entity_ I CID, LEI, or GID for the I Foreign Key N CHARACTER 

ID entity being reported. (CID) (7) 

Foreign Key CHARACTER 

Note: this field is used to (LEI) (20) 

identify affiliate relationships Foreign Key CHARACTER 

to generate the Asset (GID) (10) 

Appendix, other than when a 

Utility_ ID is submitted. When 

provided, the Utility_ ID field 

is used to establish the 

downstream affiliate 

relationships for Asset 

Appendix generation and the 

reportable_ entity _ID is used to 

identify the Ultimate 

Upstream Affiliate. 

111 Blanket_Auth_ I Docket number wherein the y CHARACTER XXXX

Docket Number Reportable Entity received a VARYING X-XX

of the section 203(a)(2) (15) XXXX

blanket authorization. This XX- 

field should be left blank if XXX· ' 

this does not apply. XXXX

XXX- 

XXX; 

XXXXXXXXXXX 

ER26AU21.063</GPH>jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

121 Utility_ID_ I User selects one of the three Options List y CHARACTER 

Type_CD identifier types it will provide • CID (3) 

for these 2 fields: -Company • LEI 

Identifier/CID of the • GID 

Reportable Entity. (Required if 

available.) -Legal Entity 

Identifier/LEI of the 

Reportable Entity. (Required if 

available and CID is not 

available.) -FERC generated 

ID/GID of the Reportable 

Entity. (Required if CID and 

LEI are not available. 

131 Utility_ID I CID, LEI, or GID for the Foreign Key y CHARACTER 

entity whose securities were (CID) Foreign (7) 

acquired pursuant to the Key (LEI) CHARACTER 

blanket authorization. This Foreign Key (20) 

field should be left blank if (GID) CHARACTER 

this does not apply. (10) 

Note: when provided, this 

field is used to establish 

downstream affiliate 

relationships to generate the 

Asset Appendix. The reportable_entity _ID is used to 

identify the Ultimate 

Upstream Affiliate. 

141 relationship_ I Date relationship to the N DATE YYYY

start date Reportable Entity (field 10) MM-D

started. (ANSI 

151 relationship_ I Date relationship to the y DATE YYYY

end date Reportable Entity (field 10) MM-D

ended. (ANSI

ER26AU21.064</GPH>jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Appendix B (Redline) 

7 I record_ type_ cd I Indicates whether this is a new Options List: N CHARACTER NA 

submission or a submission to • New (6) 

update an existing record. • Update 

8 I reference id Identifier of existing record y INTEGER 

being updated. 

9 I reportable_entity _ User selects one of the three Options List: N CHARACTER 

ID_type_CD identifier types it will provide • CID (3) 

for these 2 fields: • LEI 

-Company Identifier/CID of • GID 

the Reportable Entity. 

(Required if available.) 

-Legal Entity Identifier/LEI of 

the Reportable Entity. 

(Required if available and CID 

is not available.) 

-FERC generated ID/GID of 

the Reportable Entity. 

(Required if CID and LEI are 

not available. 

ER26AU21.065</GPH>jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

101 reportable_ entity_ I CID, LEI, or GID for the I Foreign Key N CHARACTER 

ID entity being reported. (CID) (7) 

Foreign Key CHARACTER 

Note: this field is used to (LEI) (20) 

identify affiliate relationships Foreign Key CHARACTER 

to generate the Asset (GID) (10) 

Appendix, other than when a 

Utility_ ID is submitted. When 

provided, the Utility_ ID field 

is used to establish the 

downstream affiliate 

relationships for Asset 

Appendix generation and the 

reportable_ entity _ID is used to 

identify the Ultimate 

Upstream Affiliate. 

111 Blanket_Auth_ I Docket number wherein the y CHARACTER XXXX

Docket Number Reportable Entity received a VARYING X-XX

of the section 203(a)(2) (15) XXXX

blanket authorization. This XX- 

field should be left blank if XXX· ' 

this does not apply. XXXX

XXX- 

XXX; 

XXXXXXXXXXX 

ER26AU21.066</GPH>jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

121 Utility_ID_ I User selects one of the three Options List y CHARACTER 

Type_CD identifier types it will provide • CID (3) 

for these 2 fields: -Company • LEI 

Identifier/CID of the • GID 

Reportable Entity. (Required if 

available.) -Legal Entity 

Identifier/LEI of the 

Reportable Entity. (Required if 

available and CID is not 

available.) -FERC generated 

ID/GID of the Reportable 

Entity. (Required if CID and 

LEI are not available. 

131 Utility_ID I CID, LEI, or GID for the Foreign Key y CHARACTER 

entity whose securities were (CID) Foreign (7) 

acquired pursuant to the Key (LEI) CHARACTER 

blanket authorization. This Foreign Key (20) 

field should be left blank if (GID) CHARACTER 

this does not apply. (10) 

Note: when provided, this 

field is used to establish 

downstream affiliate 

relationships to generate the 

Asset Appendix. The reportable_ entity _ID is used to 

identify the Ultimate 

Upstream Affiliate. 

141 relationship_ I Date relationship to the N DATE YYYY

start date Reportable Entity (field 10) MM-D

started. (ANSI 

151 relationship_ I Date relationship to the y DATE YYYY

end date Reportable Entity (field 10) MM-D

ended. (ANSI
47574 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

59The North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) is an industry classification system 

that Federal statistical agencies use to categorize 

businesses for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, 

and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. 

economy. United States Census Bureau, North 

American Industry Classification System, https://

www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. 

60 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22—Utilities). To be 

conservative, we are using a small business 

threshold of 1,000 employees. 

1 Data Collection for Analytics & Surveillance & 

Mkt.-Based Rate Purposes, 176 FERC ¶ 61,109 

(2021) (August 2021 Order); see also Data 

Collection for Analytics & Surveillance & Mkt.- 

Based Rate Purposes, 174 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2021); 

Data Collection for Analytics & Surveillance & Mkt.- 

Based Rate Purposes, Order No. 860, 168 FERC 

¶ 61,039 (2019), order on reh’g and clarification, 

Order No. 860–A, 170 FERC ¶ 61,129 (2020). 

5August 2021 Order, 176 FERC ¶ 61,109 at P 4 

(citations omitted). 

6See, e.g., Legg Mason, Inc., 121 FERC ¶ 61,061, 

at P 26 (2007). 

7See, e.g., id. P 30. 8 18 CFR 35.36(b) (emphasis added). 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–C 

United States of America 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Data Collection for Analytics and 

Surveillance and Market-Based Rate 

Purposes 

Docket No. RM16–17–000 

(August 19, 2021) 

DANLY, Commissioner, dissenting: 

1. I dissent from today’s order 

adopting the proposal to collect 

additional information for the relational 

database.1 With this issuance, the 

Commission now requires further 

submissions from market-based rate 

sellers with upstream affiliates holding 

blanket authorizations under Federal 

Power Act (FPA) section 203(a)(2).2 This 

additional administrative burden which 

we now foist upon these entities is 

unnecessary (and therefore 

unjustifiable) because the information 

we will glean simply cannot aid us as 

the majority supposes. 

2. Earlier this year, in a separate 

proceeding, Commissioner Chatterjee 

and I concurred in an order denying a 

petition for declaratory order filed by 

NextEra Energy, Inc. and a number of 

other utilities. In that order, the 

Commission seized upon the 

opportunity to reiterate public utilities’ 

reporting obligations regarding the 

informational database.3 Although we 

concurred in the result of that order, we 

objected to inclusion of institutional 

investors in the relational database as a 

pointless regulatory burden with little to 

no value.4 Many of the objections we 

offered in that concurrence are equally 

applicable to this order. I recite those 

objections in large measure here. 

3. As today’s order recognizes, in 

NextEra, the Commission found that as 

a result of the conditions in a section 

203(a)(2) blanket authorization, 

institutional investors subject to a 

section 203(a)(2) blanket authorization 

lack the ability to control the utilities 

whose voting securities they acquire. 

The Commission concluded that, 

because those conditions prevent 

institutional investors from exercising 

control over those utilities, utilities 

commonly owned by an institutional 

investor are not affiliates of each other 

under 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9)(iv), so long as 

their common institutional investor 

owner complies with the conditions 

imposed as part of a section 203(a)(2) 

blanket authorization.5

The Commission thus acknowledged 

that, in conditioning those blanket 

authorizations, institutional investors 

were prevented from exercising control 

over utilities by acquiring their 

securities. 

4. That determination remains true. 

Under our current regime, there is little 

to no value in listing institutional 

investors as the ultimate upstream 

affiliate of market-based rate sellers in 

the relational database. The Commission 

grants blanket authorizations premised 

on the finding that the institutional 

investors can exercise no control over 

the utilities whose securities they have 

purchased and that the acquisition 

would not adversely affect 

competition.6 The conclusion that the 

institutional investors cannot exercise 

control or influence sellers so as to 

affect market power is confirmed by our 

holding that sellers under common 

control of an institutional investor are 

not affiliates. Indeed, it could not be 

otherwise. 

5. Given those predicate 

determinations, I cannot understand 

why the Commission believes it 

important to include institutional 

investors in a database that is designed 

to enable the Commission to monitor 

the opportunity for market-based rate 

sellers to exercise market power. For the 

same reason, I do not understand why 

the Commission should require change 

in status filings to be made whenever an 

institutional investor’s ownership of the 

seller’s voting securities crosses the 

10% threshold. To the extent that a 

particular institutional investor’s 

ownership of voting securities ever 

becomes relevant to the Commission 

because it may have violated the 

conditions of its authorization, that 

information is easily ascertainable from 

the quarterly informational filings we 

require as a condition of granting the 

blanket authorizations.7

6. There is a simple solution that 

would allow the Commission to 

eliminate the requirement to include 

institutional investors in the relational 

database and in change of status filings 

without waiving the applicability of 

section 35.36(a)(9)(i) of our regulations. 

Section 35.36(b) provides: ‘‘The 

provisions of this subpart apply to all 

Sellers authorized, or seeking 

authorization, to make sales for resale of 

electric energy, capacity or ancillary 

services at market-based rates unless 

otherwise ordered by the 

Commission.’’ 8 Here the Commission 

could have—and in my opinion should 

have—used this authority to order that 

sellers are not obligated to report 

institutional investors in the relational 

database or to make change in status 

filings when institutional investor 

holdings cross the 10% voting security 

threshold. The Commission would also 

need to make a minor amendment to its 

relational database regulations to 

provide that when an institutional 

investor is the ultimate upstream 

affiliate, sellers should instead list the 

next highest upstream affiliate in the 

database. For example, subsidiaries of 

NextEra should list NextEra as the 

ultimate upstream affiliate in the 

database if any institutional investor 

owns 10% or more of NextEra pursuant 

to a blanket authorization. 

7. I appreciate that the Commission 

has acted to reduce the burden on 

sellers resulting from the requirement to 

include institutional investors in the 

relational database and in change-instatus filings. But a pointless regulatory 

burden is a pointless regulatory burden, 

no matter how small. 

For these reasons, I respectfully 

dissent. 

llllllllllllllllll

James P. Danly, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18283 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2021–0208] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zones; Lewes and Rehoboth 

Canal and Atlantic Ocean, Rehoboth, 

DE 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES