EPA grouped industries into three fee categories ( industry groups): 1) Light Duty, consisting of light duty vehicles and highway motorcycles; 2) Engines, consisting of heavy duty highway and nonroad compression ignition engines; and 3) " Other", which contains other vehicles and engines. We proposed a fee schedule based upon the recoverable costs for each certificate type under each fee category and the number of known and projected certificates issued annually for that certificate type. We then divided our recoverable costs by the number of certificates expected to be issued to manufacturers within that certification request type. Thus, for example, we determined the recoverable costs for the nonroad CI industry as $ 1,300,155 and the number of certificates issued as 603 and the resulting fee is $ 2,156. ( Revised worksheet # 2 of the revised Cost Analysis shows updated cost for the NR CI industry to be $ 2,205,895, the updated number of engine families to be 662 resulting in a new fee of $ 1,822.)

We determined the number of certificates expected to be issued by examining EPA's certification database. For currently active certification programs, we listed the DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 53 number of certificates based on the latest information at the time of the proposal which was for the 2001 model year ( 67 FR at 51406). For other newly regulated industries for which certificates have not yet been issued, we projected the number of certificates based on discussions with manufacturers and information presented to EPA during the emission standards rulemakings for such industries. Id.

What Commenters Said:

EMA states that EPA significantly understated the number of HDE on highway and nonroad CI engine certificates that are issued annually which resulted in an overstatement of the fees that should be allocated to each certificate. EMA stated that in 2001, we issued 159 HDE HW and 661 nonroad CI certificates. EMA also asked for an explanation as to why more current years and certification data should not be used since that would be more reflective of the increase in engine families.

The Alliance/ AIAM stated that the Agency did not provide an explanation for the estimated number of certification requests used in calculating the fees. The Alliance/ AIAM expresses concern that the number of light duty certificates appears to be based on CAP 2000 assumptions; assumptions that they maintain have not materialized. In addition, they contended that EPA's Tier 2 and heavy duty regulations, as well as CARB's low emission vehicle ( LEV II) regulation, will likely result in creation of more certification requests than projected and lead to collection of more fees by EPA. As a result, EPA may collect more fees than it is entitled to if it receives more certification requests than projected.

The Alliance/ AIAM submitted further comment that they expected 35 additional certificates to be issued for light duty vehicles for model year ( MY) 2004 and that the number of certificates would either remain the same or increase as a result of Tier 2. The Alliance/ AIAM was hesitant to predict the effect of the CAP 2000 rule on the number of certificate requests.

The Alliance/ AIAM suggests that EPA should base its fee calculation on the most current number of issued certificates. Because this number may fluctuate and because it may be difficult to project future certification trends, they suggest that EPA keep track of the trends and assess a fee based on the average taken from several years. Lastly, they suggest that this process be done by rulemaking to prevent EPA collecting more fees than appropriate. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 54 Our Response:

EPA's intention throughout this rulemaking process is to determine with a reasonable level of certainty the recoverable costs of implementing its MVECP and assessing fees per certificate to cover such costs. Thus, we agree with the comment that we should use the most current and accurate number of issued certificates. However, EPA does not agree with the comments of EMA that the number of certificates used in the cost determination should remain the same regardless of the impact on fees collected. Simply put, EPA believes it should only recover what it anticipates to be its actual costs and should devise a reasonable system in order to charge a fee that most closely matches its final actual costs and final number of certificates to be issued in a given year. As explained below, EPA is including a " rolling average" formula to be applied in 2006 and thereafter in order to more accurately reflect the number of certificates issued each year and the corresponding fee that is owed per certificate.

In light of the comments that we received, EPA gathered information regarding the number of certificates for HDE HW, nonroad CI, and light duty vehicles and trucks, motorcycles and ICIs from several databases, and reexamined its certification numbers for the last three years, 2000, 2001 and 2002 which comprise EPA's most recent and complete information.

Using an average of the past two years of the most recent complete certification information ( 2001 and 2002) we determined the average number of certificates for HDE HW, nonroad CI, and light duty vehicles and trucks certification request types. For the other types EPA saw no need to reexamine its projected number of certificates nor did EPA receive any comment. For the light duty vehicles and truck category we have chosen to keep the number 405 as used in the proposal. Although the actual average is 382 for the 2001 and 2002 model years, we believe it is likely that there will be at least a modest increase in the number of light duty vehicle and truck certificates given the complexity of Tier 2 standards. In addition, information submitted by the Alliance/ AIAM states that the number of additional certificates for 2004 may be as high as 35. This would bring our projection to 417 for 2004. However, this is a projection and we do not have complete confidence in this number. Therefore, we have decided to retain the proposed 405 certificates in the final rule.

For the HDE HW category we have determined, based on a re examination of our database and discussions with representatives from EMA, that 148 certificates is a more accurate projection, rather than the 130 in the proposal. This will result in a slight reduction of fees for such certificates. For NR CI we have also revised the number DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 55 slightly upward to reflect a more accurate projection of 662 rather than the proposed. We have re calculated the fees amount for each of these categories and this is reflected in the new fees table ( a new revised worksheet # 2 of the Revised Cost Analysis available in Docket A 2001 09) and at 40 CFR § 85.2405( a).

D. Automatic Adjustment of Fees What We Proposed:

We considered the effect of inflation on the MVECP and explained that inflation may have an impact on our recovery of the full costs associated with the program. Thus, we proposed, beginning with the 2005 model year, an annual automatic adjustment of fees based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index ( CPI). We also proposed a formula to enable manufacturers to calculate the increase. We also solicited comments on alternate ways of adjusting fees on account of inflationary factors. ( See 67 FR at 51410)

We explained that we intended to issue annual letters, again beginning with the 2005 model year, informing manufacturers of the adjusted applicable fees. The proposed formula included an ability to project future fees due to the CPI adjustment based on two model years before the adjusted fee model year. Thus, for model year 2005 EPA proposed a formula whereby the CPI for MY2003 ( as determined by July 2003 CPI number) is compared to the CPI from 2002. We also solicited comments regarding notification procedures of the new fee amounts. Id.

What Commenters Said:

One commenter urged the Agency not to include an annual automatic adjustment and maintained that an " automatic" increase in fees based on the CPI for " all items" should not be implemented as the actual costs of MVECP will be impacted by many factors more significant than the CPI and such factors are not significantly correlated with the general rate of inflation. This commenter also suggested that the Agency's formula for annual adjustment is improper because many of the underlying costs are actually one time capital expenditures that will not fluctuate at all in response to any changes in the CPI.

Our Response: DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 56 In order to comply with both section 217 and the IOAA, and to timely collect fees based on actual costs and to collect fees for such costs at time of certification, EPA believes that it is most practical and appropriate to collect fees based on what it reasonably believes will be its actual costs at the time new certification applications are received. Thus EPA continues to believe it most appropriate to determine its current costs and how such costs may be affected by future events, including events such as inflation or the addition of new compliance programs. Although EPA does recognize that several variables exist which may influence the actual future costs that EPA incurs to provide MVECP services, including changes to its budget ( and resulting changes to EPA's expenditures on certain compliance programs such as contract costs for testing and procurement of testing vehicles, etc), EPA believes that such general historical budget variability ( appropriations for most of EPA's costs don't change dramatically from year to year and general contract costs remain relatively unchanged) has not in fact significantly affected EPA's actual costs as compared to increases associated with annual inflation costs. However, by today's rule we are narrowing the budget items that will be affected by the inflation adjustment to further limit those items that may indeed be affected by general budget variability.

We believe it is reasonable to consider the effect of inflation on the costs of conducting our various certification and compliance programs. However, at this time, EPA chooses to only implement a fee schedule that will include some adjustment by calendar year for labor costs as these costs can be reasonably determined as explained below.

We also agree with comments that fees should not be adjusted for one time capital expenditures or for other fixed costs. Because several components of the MVECP reflects items that have a " fixed cost" ( for example, the costs associated with the Lab Modernization), EPA has changed the inflation formula to address concerns regarding " one time costs" and that such cost not be adjusted by the CPI. At this time, EPA will only adjust labor costs each calendar year because, as explained below, we can reasonable determine the effect of inflation on these costs.

EPA also believes that to some extent it may not be appropriate to automatically adjust fees for the costs of some compliance programs, including current direct program costs ( e. g. contract costs) despite the general history of such costs increasing by some amount each year. Because EPA is not only continuing to implement its many current compliance activities but is also implementing several new compliance programs that may not have a predictable cost increase each year that tracks the inflation rate, EPA is not adjusting such direct program costs. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 14 EPA normally uses Federal payroll and non payroll inflators for budget projections issued by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) when OMB submits the President's Budget to Congress and the assumptions used for the " inflators" are higher than the CPI inflation adjuster that EPA is choosing to use to account for increases in labor costs in today's rulemaking. For example, in the fiscal year 2004 ( FY 04) President's Budget to Congress, for FY 04 EPA used a payroll ( or labor) inflator of 1.048 and for FY 05 through FY 13 EPA used an inflator of 1.040.

57 EPA believes that the determination of the labor requirements to cover the numerous compliance activities was accurate and that such labor requirements will remain constant or perhaps slightly increase within the next few years. Such labor costs ( as expressed in annual salary increases or decreases) for EPA historically track a rate of increase ( or decrease) that is at least as high as that of the CPI14. Thus, we are finalizing our regulations with a provision for automatic adjustment of labor costs for each fee category based on the changes in the CPI. The fee formula and the table with labor and fixed cost values are discussed in detail in section II. B. above.

EPA notes that manufacturers may have some concern regarding the proper budgeting for its costs for future certification applications and thus the regulations note that EPA will provide notification to manufacturers at least 15 months in advance of the calendar year in which new fees are due. If an event such as a rulemaking occurs that causes a significant change in the number of certificate applications received, the Agency will reexamine the formula to determine whether adjusting the fees based upon the number of certificate applications is still applicable.

E. Effective Date and Application of New Fees What We Proposed:

We proposed the " effective date" of our new fees schedule as 60 days from the date of publication of the final rule. ( 67 FR at 51411). We also proposed applying the new fees to 2003 and later model year vehicles and engines. Id. In addition, we proposed excluding " complete" certification applications received prior to the effective date of the new fees regulation ( including any remaining 2003 certification applications). Id.

What Commenters Said: DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 58 One commenter suggested that the new fee schedule should take effect for certification applications for the model year following the model year in which the final rule is published, in this way the manufacturers will have certainty regarding the appropriate amount of the certification fee to be submitted and thus will not have to guess the date that EPA will deem their certification application complete.

The Alliance/ AIAM stated that EPA's proposal to increase fees ( for light duty vehicle manufacturers) for manufacturers that submit 2003 and later model year certification requests received on or after 60 days from publication of the final rule creates uncertainty regarding the appropriate fee to submit with each application. The commenter notes that it cannot project when EPA will issue the rule and thus for it to perform its necessary budgeting to assure that it has necessary funds to cover the increase.

Our Response:

EPA understands that it would be helpful to manufacturers to have a date before which they are assured that they will be paying the old fees so that they can budget with certainty up to that date. For this reason EPA is finalizing the implementation date as March 1, 2004 or 60 days from the publication of the final rule, whichever is later. We believe that at least a 60 day lead time between when the rule is published and when applicants will be required to pay new fees is adequate and appropriate. EPA is again guided by the principle that its compliance programs ought to be self sustaining to the extent possible and that because we are incurring costs at this point in time that new fees should commence. Although we anticipated that the final fees rule would become final in fiscal year 2003 ( FY03), and based our projections of costs to be incurred during that time, we believe it even more appropriate that we collect fees in FY04 ( during which this rule becomes effective) as our compliance programs based on new requirements such as Tier 2 and the 2004 HDE regulations will be in place and our anticipated budget increases will be more likely in place.

In addition, manufacturers have been informed of the new fees rulemaking and commencement of new fees in FY03 for over 2 years. An advance fees rulemaking briefing was held for regulated industries on August 29, 2001 in Ann Arbor, MI. At that time EPA provided a draft of the fees schedule and cost study. The purpose of the briefing was to give businesses enough time to plan for fees in their 2003 FY budgets. Furthermore, the proposed rule was published in August 2002 giving manufacturers notice of the fees rulemaking and implementation time periods. Therefore, the new fees will be applicable to any new certification applications ( for MY 2004, or 2005) submitted and received on or after March 1, 2004, or more than 60 days after publication of this rule in DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 59 the Federal Register. The new fees will not apply to any certification applications received by EPA prior to the effective date of the regulations, providing that they are complete and include all required data.

F. Reduced Fees 1. Reduced Fee of One Percent Aggregate Retail Price What We Proposed:

EPA proposed to continue the current two part test which, if met, would qualify an applicant for a reduction of a portion of the certification fee.

A reduced fee is available when:

( 1) The certificate is to be used for the sale of vehicles or engines within the U. S.; and ( 2) The full fee for the certification request exceeds one percent of the projected aggregate retail price of all vehicles or engines covered by that certificate.

Manufacturers that qualify for a reduced fee pay one percent of the aggregate retail price of the vehicles and engines covered by a certificate. Under the reduced fee provision, we proposed to retain this requirement to ensure proper balance between recovering the MVECP costs and mitigate economic burden. EPA invited comment on the continued use of the one percent multiplier, 67 FR 51412.

The Agency proposed two separate pathways by which a manufacturer may request and pay a reduced fee amount. Under the first pathway, manufacturers seeking a reduced fee would include in their certification application a calculation of the reduced fee and a statement that they meet the reduced fee criteria.

Under the second pathway, manufacturers who, due to the nature of their business, are unable to make accurate estimates of the aggregate projected retail price of all the vehicles or engines to be covered by the requested certificate, would pay one percent of the retail selling price of five vehicles, engines or conversions when applying for a certificate or a minimum fee of $ 300. Id. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 60 What Commenters Said:

VSC contended that the proposed minimum " 5 car up front deposit" was unreasonable and that the Agency had failed to provide a rationale for its proposal. VSC also stated that it is just as common, if not more common, for an ICI's certificate to cover a total of one ( 1) car as opposed to 5. VSC noted that EPA had previously acknowledged that it is difficult for ICIs to work with a system that requires them to predict the number of cars they will import. VSC stated that the same associated problem would arise under the Agency's proposal.

VSC suggested that the one percent low volume fee should allow the ICI to pay one percent of the value of the cars to be covered by the certificate for which the ICI has a contract when making a certification request. VSC further suggested that for additional cars imported under the certificate, ICIs should pay one percent of the value of each car as each car is imported, until payment of the standard $ 8,394 fee. VSC noted that under a pay as you go system, EPA would receive fees at the time of certification or importation and ICIs would only pay for cars they are actually working on and importing.

Our Response:

In response to comments received EPA has modified its reduced fee provisions to respond to many of the issues raised. The revised reduced fees provisions also include two pathways that are discussed in detail in section II. F. above.

The first pathway will be available for engine families having less than six vehicles, none of which have a retail price of more than $ 75,000 each. Manufacturers seeking a reduced fee shall include in their certification application a statement that the reduced fee is appropriate under the criteria. If one percent of the aggregate retail price of the vehicles or engines is greater than $ 750, the manufacturer must submit a calculation of the reduced fee and the fee. If one percent aggregate retail price of the vehicles or engines is less than $ 750 the manufacturer will submit a calculation of the reduced fee and an initial payment of $ 750. In the event that the manufacturer does not know the value of all of the vehicles to be imported under the certificate, it may use the values of the vehicles or engines that are available to determine the initial payment.

As suggested by VSC, after the initial payment has been submitted, the above reduced fee provisions will allow manufacturers to pay one percent of the retail price of each vehicle or engine as needed. This pay as you go provision will give ICIs and other DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 61 manufacturers the advantage of only paying a $ 750 ( equivalent to the average fee for two imported vehicles) or one percent of the value of the vehicles initial payment and then paying for additional vehicles as needed. If the initial payment is greater than the final fee, the manufacturer may request and receive a refund for the difference.

Under the provisions we are finalizing today, the difference between the initial payment and the final reduced fee will not be required until after the end of the year. Furthermore, there is no $ 300 minimum fee as was proposed. Therefore, EPA believes that the reduced fee provides flexibility and mitigates any unreasonable economic burden that a full fee may present to manufacturers with small engine families.

2. Retroactive Payment Under Reduced Fee Program What Commenters Said:

EMA submitted an additional alternative to the reduced fee pathways. EMA suggested that manufacturers who pay the full fee at the time of certification should also have the ability to seek refunds at the end of the model year if the fee paid exceeds one percent of the retail sales. According to EMA, this would enable EPA to receive the fees up front and avoid any unnecessary delays while not adding too much year end burden for manufacturers already required to produce year end production volume reports.

EPA Response:

Currently, the retroactive reduced fee option is available for those engine families/ test groups that meet the one percent reduced fee provision. Our response is just to clarify the process. A manufacturer that pays the standard fee for an engine family or test group and later determines that it meets the criteria for a reduced fee may qualify for a retroactive reduced fee. Under today's provision, the manufacturer may be required to submit a report card and a refund request at the end of the calender year for the amount of the difference between the fee paid and one percent of the aggregate retail sales price of the vehicles or engines covered by the certificate.

G. ICI Issues 1. ICIs and SBREFA DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 62 What We Proposed:

In section VIII. B. of the proposed rule we concluded that certified our proposed fees will have no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, we also stated that our reduced fee provisions would limit the impacts of this rule on small entities. ( Section VIII. B., Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. ( 67 FR 51414).

What Commenters Said:

VSC stated that the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U. S. C. 601 612 was amended by SBREFA, Public Law 104 121, to ensure that concerns regarding small entities are adequately considered during the development of new regulations that affect them. VSC further quoted the SBREFA amendments in which Congress stated that " uniform Federal regulatory * * * requirements have in numerous instances imposed unnecessary and disproportionately burdensome demands including legal, accounting, and consulting costs upon small businesses * * * with limited resources[,]" and directed agencies to consider the impacts of certain actions on small entities.

VSC suggested that EPA consider two points: ( 1) " the significant economic impact the proposed rule has on small entities; and ( 2) any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which would ensure that the objectives of the proposal were accomplished while minimizing the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities and providing relief to small certifiers of vehicles."

Our Response:

We are committed to minimizing the burden of the fees regulations on small entities or entities with small engine families to the extent feasible while still meeting the statutory requirements to charge fees. The Agency did consider the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, however, we believe this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We reviewed the rulemakings that set emission standards for the industries affected by the fees rule, including those manufacturers affected by the recreational vehicle rule. The review showed that approximately 108 small businesses will be paying fees. The Agency examined the cost of the fees and determined that the average cost for manufacturers of all sizes, across industry sectors, is approximately $. 41 per vehicle or engine. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 63 Nevertheless, to mitigate possible economic hardship EPA is adopting an alternative to the full certification fee requirement including reduced fee provisions to help small volume entities meet the regulations while ensuring the fees rule objectives can be accomplished. The reduced fee provisions limits the impact of this rule on small entities to one percent of the aggregate retail sales price of the vehicles or engines covered by a certification request. Hence, the fee a manufacturer would pay will not exceed one percent of the aggregate retail sales price of the vehicles or engines covered by a certificate. This one percent amount represents a modest cost of doing business. EPA also believes enough notification of this fees rule was provided to allow manufacturers enough time to plan for fees in their budgets.

What Commenters Said:

VSC suggested that EPA should recognize that ICIs are not OEMs. VSC further stated that SBREFA requires this distinction and also compels EPA to adopt a fee system that carefully considers ICIs and how they differ from OEMs. VSC requested that we consider and include the fact that ICIs are small businesses that, on the average, import fewer than 100 vehicles annually.

Our Response:

EPA believes that although ICI manufacturers are often small businesses and in some instances may differ from OEMs, both ICIs and OEMs are certificate holders. As certificate holders, ICIs are required to meet certain certification and compliance requirements. These requirements include meeting emission standards, and also include undergoing recall, maintenance instruction, warranty, running changes, emissions testing and labeling, and fuel economy testing and labeling which are the same requirements with which light duty OEMs must comply. EPA incurs costs for conducting these types of services.

Under the ICI category of the cost study, we have calculated fees only for the services applicable to ICIs and thus, ICI certificates cost considerably less than certificates for other vehicle manufacturers. EPA also believes that the reduced fees provision, while enabling the objectives of both section 217 and the IOAA to be met, minimizes the economic impact of this rule on small entities or entities with small engine families.

H. Other Topics DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 64 1. Fee Payment Timing What We Proposed:

EPA proposed that fees must be paid in advance of receiving a certificate ( 67 FR 51410). We also emphasized that the Agency would not process applications until the appropriate fees had been fully paid. ( 67 FR 51411).

What Commenters Said:

Three commenters suggested that the Agency should not require fees payment prior to issuing certificates.

Our Response:

In most instances, we begin reviewing certification applications and, in some cases, complete our review, prior to receiving fees payment. Thus, we do not necessarily suspend application review because of non payment of fees. However, because we cannot issue a certificate of conformity before receipt of fees, we are maintaining the requirement that fees be paid in advance of submitting an application for certification. We believe this will ensure that we do not delay the issuance of certificates.

2. Refunds Less than $ 500 and Final Fee Payments Less than $ 500 What We Proposed:

For applicants who fail to obtain certificates and who subsequently request refunds, we proposed full fee refunds of amounts exceeding $ 500. This was a change from the existing requirement that allowed for partial refunds when applicants fail to obtain a signed certificate ( see 40 CFR § 86.908 93( b)( 1), as amended by § 86.908 01( b)( 1)). We also proposed the option of applying the refund to another certification request.

Further, we proposed the continuation of the existing requirement of providing partial refunds resulting from decreases in the aggregate projected retail sales price of vehicles or engines covered by the certification request. ( See, 40 CFR § § 86.908 93( b)( 2) DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 65 and 86.908 01( b)( 2)). We also invited comments on whether to limit refund requests to $ 500. ( 67 FR 51412).

As discussed in section II. F. above, we proposed a reduced fee provision that includes calculating a final reduced fee within 30 days of the end of the model year and " true up" of any additional fees owed within 45 days of the end of the model year. Under the 1992 fees rule reduced fee applicants pay an additional waiver fee any time the aggregate projected retail sales price of the vehicles or engines to be covered by a certification request changes. Also, there was no minimum amount due before payment was required. ( See, 40 CFR § 86.908 93( a)( 5)).

What Commenters Said:

EMA supported our proposal to allow manufacturers request a full refund in cases where a certificate is not issued. EMA suggested that 40 CFR § 85.2407( a) should read " may," instead of " shall." EMA suggested that we clarify that manufacturers are entitled to a full refund regardless of the reason for non issuance of a certificate.

EMA suggested that 40 CFR § 85.2407( b) should read " shall" instead of " may." EMA also suggested that refunds should be predicated upon a decrease in " actual" rather than " projected" sales prices.

EMA further objected to proposed 40 CFR § 85.2407( b)( 3) and ( b)( 4)( vi) and argued that manufacturers should be entitled to any and all refunds regardless of the amount.

Our Response:

EPA agrees with EMA's comment regarding refund language. Regulatory language has been amended to reflect these changes in 40 CFR § 85.2405( a) and ( b). Upon request from a manufacturer EPA will refund fees. This includes instances of overpayment, when the manufacturer withdraws an application or when EPA denies a certificate as well as any other circumstances that would lead to a certificate not being issued.

However, we disagree with the comment that refunds should be predicated on the decrease in the aggregate " actual" price rather than the aggregate " projected" price. This is because not all of the vehicles or engines would have been sold and the actual price may DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 66 not be available at the time of the refund request therefore we have revised the regulatory language to indicate projected or actual price. The manufacturer should use whichever is more accurate.

EPA agrees that it should not limit refunds to $ 500 minimum. Therefore EPA is not adopting proposed § 85.2407( b)( 3) and ( b)( 4)( vi). However, the rationale behind EPA's proposal that manufacturers should not be required to pay a " true up" payment of less than $ 500 was balanced out by the proposal that refunds would be limited to amounts of $ 500 or more. We believed that the amounts not paid in refunds would equal the payments not received for " true up." Therefore, since EPA will be paying full refunds, EPA is setting forth in today's rule that full payment must be submitted at true up to avoid an overall deficit in its recovery of MVECP costs and to continue to abide by the intent of the IOAA and CAA.

3. Reduced Costs for California only What We Proposed:

EPA proposed a separate California only fee for only the light duty and heavyduty fee categories. No California only fee was proposed for the motorcycle, ICI, Nonroad CI and Other categories because EPA's responsibilities for vehicles and engines are not decreased even though certification is only requested for the State of California.

What Commenters Said:

One commenter argued that our proposed fees for California only certificates was inappropriate since the Agency did not provide any benefits to manufacturers.

Echo stated that the " Other" category should have reduced fees for California only families because other categories have reduced fees for California only. Echo stated that the full fees for these families cannot be justified and that EPA should not charge for service not provided. Echo also observed that CARB may decided to add its own fees further raising the cost to manufacturers.

OPEI commented that EPA should not impose certification fees on California only engine families that are not sold outside of California. OPEI questioned the utility of requiring this dual certification burden. The commenter further argued that the proposed DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 67 fees should be waived since California only engine families are sold only in California, and as a result, do not generate national sales revenue. OPEI, further requested that the certification fee be waived with respect to California only engine families.

Our Response:

The Clean Air Act requires that vehicles sold in the United States to be covered by a federal certificate of conformity including those sold in California. The EPA receives applications and certifies all vehicles and engines sold in the US. The EPA review and testing required for California only certification, and therefore the benefits received, are no less than that required for other certificates. Test results generated by EPA from certification tests of these vehicles and engines are shared with the CARB to assist in its certification process. However, the California only fee is less than the standard fee because EPA does not incur the cost of the in use program. The CARB conducts an inuse program for these categories, but at this time EPA does not. Thus the fee for California only certificates for light duty and heavy duty vehicles and engines reflects the EPA costs in the certification component of the MVECP.

In the case of engines and vehicles in the " Other" category, EPA is assessing the costs of the certification and minimal testing services that it provides. A lower Californiaonly fee is not offered as EPA's work is not decreased by compliance work done by the CARB.

OPEI stated that no national sales revenue is generated to absorb the cost of the fee, however, because EPA reviews the certificate applications and the manufacturer receives benefit from receiving a certificate, EPA should recover the costs of providing this service as directed by the CAA and the IOAA.

VI. What Is the Economic Impact of this Rule?

This rule will not have a significant impact on the majority of vehicle and engine manufacturers. The cost to industry will be a relatively small value per unit manufactured for most engine system combinations.

EPA expects to collect about 18 million dollars annually, an increase of 7 million dollars from the 11 million that is currently collected. This averages out to approximately 50 cents per vehicle or engine sold annually. However, for engine families or test groups DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 68 with low annual sales volume, the cost per unit will be higher. To remove the possibility of serious financial harm to companies producing only low sales volume designs, the regulations adopted today include reduced fee provisions for small volume engine families to reduce the burden of fees. These provisions should alleviate concerns about undue economic hardship to small volume manufacturers. Refer to the Regulatory Flexibility Act section, section VII. B, below, for more discussion on this topic.

VII. What are the Administrative Requirements for this Rule?

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether this regulatory action is " significant" and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines a " significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or communities;

( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is a " significant regulatory action" because this rulemaking materially alters user fees. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this final rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request ( ICR) document has been prepared by EPA ( ICR No. 2080.02) DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 69 EPA estimates that 1600 certifications will be requested annually of which 180 will qualify for a reduced fee. In addition, approximately 50 fee refunds will be processed each year. The total burden of these projected responses per year is 500 hours; an average of 18 minutes per response. There are no capital, start up, operation, maintenance or other costs associated with this collection.

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.3 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0111, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA)

EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: ( 1) a small business that meets the definition for business based on SBA size standards; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 70 ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Table VII. B 1 provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially affected by this regulation. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action.

Table VII. B 1 Primary SBA Small Business Categories Potentially Affected by this Regulation Industry NAICS a Codes Defined by SBA as a Small Business If: b Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 333111 < 500 employees Lawn and Garden Tractor and Home Lawn and Garden Equipment Manufacturing 333112 < 500 employees Construction Machinery Manufacturing 333120 < 750 employees Mining Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 333131 < 500 employees Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Unit Manufacturing 333611 < 1,000 employees Speed Changer, Industrial High speed Drive and Gear Manufacturing 333612 < 500 employees Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing 333613 < 500 employees Other Engine Equipment Manufacturing 333618 < 1,000 employees Nonroad SI engines 333618 < 1,000 employees DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 71 Internal Combustion Engines 333618 < 1,000 employees Industrial Truck, Tractor, Trailer, and Stacker Machinery Manufacturing 333924 < 750 employees Power Driven Handtool Manufacturing 333991 < 500 employees Automobile Manufacturing 336111 < 1000 employees Light Truck and Utility Vehicle Manufacturing 336112 < 1000 employees Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing 336120 < 1000 employees Fuel Tank Manufacturers 336211 < 1000 employees Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 336312 < 750 employees Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 336412 < 1000 employees Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing 336510 < 1000 employees Boat Building and Repairing 336612 < 500 employees Motorcycles and Motorcycle Parts Manufacturers 336991 < 500 employees Snowmobile and ATV manufacturers 336999 < 500 employees Independent Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Parts 421110 < 100 employees Engine Repair and Maintenance 811310 <$ 5 million annual receipts NOTES:

( a) North American Industry Classification System ( b) According to SBA's regulations ( 13 CFR Part 121), businesses with no more than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are considered " small entities" for purposes of a regulatory flexibility analysis. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 72 After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the reduced fee provisions described above in section II. F, the fee paid by any manufacturer will not exceed 1.0 percent of the aggregate retail sales price of the vehicles or engines covered by a certificate request. The reduced fee provision limits the impact of this rule on small entities, and other manufacturers, to 1.0 percent of the aggregate retail sales price. Therefore, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on any manufacturers, including small entities. A review of rulemakings that set emissions standards for the industries affected by today's rule, including those manufacturers affected by the recreational vehicle rule, showed that approximately 108 small businesses will be paying fees.

The cost per vehicle or engine will vary because the cost per unit depends upon the cost of the certificate and the number of vehicles or engines that are manufactured and sold under one certificate. The cost per vehicle will be highest if a manufacturer pays a fee for a light duty vehicle certificate but only makes and sells a single vehicles that, because of the value of the vehicle, does not qualify for a reduced fee. The fee cost per vehicle or engine will be least for a manufacturer that pays an " Other" category fee and receives a certificate that will cover thousands of vehicles or engines. In this case the fee cost per vehicle may be a fraction of a penny. Because of the difference between highest and lowest possible cost of fees per vehicle, EPA determined that the average fee cost for manufacturers, which, across industry sectors, is approximately $. 41 per vehicle or engine.

The following is an example of a final reduced fee calculation: If a light duty vehicle manufacturer has an engine family of 2 vehicles that are sold for $ 35,000 per vehicle, under today's fee schedule the full fee would be $ 33,883, or $ 16,944 per engine family ($ 16,942 or $ 8,472 per vehicle, respectively), depending upon whether the engine family is certified as a Federal vehicle or California only engine family. Under the rule, the reduced fee would be 1.0 percent of the aggregate retail sales price of the vehicles ($ 70,000), or $ 700 ( or $ 350 per vehicle) as shown below:

2 * $ 35,000 * 0.01 = $ 700 In today's rule EPA established an initial fee payment of $ 750. If, at the end of a model year the final reduced fee is less than the initial fee payment, the manufacturer may request a refund of the difference. EPA has eliminated the minimum refund provision DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 73 proposed in the NPRM so the manufacturer will be entitled to the entire refund. In the above example the manufacturer would be refunded the sum of $ 50.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory action on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with " Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgation of an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.

Before we establish any regulatory requirement that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we must develop, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of our regulations with significant federal intergovernmental mandates. The plan must also provide for informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's rule contains no Federal mandates for state, local, or tribal governments. Nor does this rule have Federal mandates that may result in the expenditures of $ 100 million or more in any year by the private sector as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA as the total cost of the fee program is estimated to be about 20 million dollars. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 74 Executive Order 13132, entitled " Federalism" ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." " Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have " substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government."

This rule will not have federalism implications. It will not have direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule will impose no direct compliance costs on states. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled " Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." This rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The requirements finalized by this action impact private sector businesses, particularly the vehicle and engine manufacturing industries. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection Executive Order 13045: " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 75 children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

EPA believes this rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. In addition, this rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it does not involve decisions based on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. Today's rule seeks to implement a fees program and is expected to have no impact on environmental health or safety risks that would affect the public or disproportionately affect children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects This rule is not a " significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001) because it will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have determined that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104 113, 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to Congress and the comptroller General of the United States. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 76 We will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a " major rule'" as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). This rule will be effective [ insert date 60 days from publication]

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 85 Environmental protection, Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 86 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air Pollution Control, Confidential business information, Diesel, Gasoline, Fees, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: [ insert date]

Michael O. Leavitt Administrator For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40 chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 77 PART 85 CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES 1. The Authority for part 85 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 42 U. S. C. 7401 7671q.

2. Add a new Subpart Y to Part 85 to read as follows:

Subpart Y  Fees for the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Sec.

85.2401 To whom do these requirements apply?

85.2402 [ Reserved]

85.2403 What definitions apply to this subpart?

85.2404 What abbreviations apply to this subpart?

85.2405 How much are the fees?

85.2406 Can I qualify for reduced fees?

85.2407 Can I get a refund if I don't get a certificate or overpay?

85.2408 How do I make a fee payment?

85.2409 Deficiencies 85.2410 Special provisions applicable to the 2003 model year only Subpart Y  Fees for the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program § 85.2401 To whom do these requirements apply?

( a) This subpart prescribes fees manufacturers must pay for the motor vehicle and engine compliance program ( MVECP) activities performed by the EPA. The prescribed fees and the provisions of this subpart apply to manufacturers of:

( 1) Light duty vehicles ( cars and trucks) ( See 40 CFR Part 86);

( 2) Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles ( See 40 CFR Part 86); DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 78 ( 3) Complete gasoline fueled highway heavy duty vehicles ( See 40 CFR Part 86);

( 4) Heavy duty highway diesel and gasoline engines ( See 40 CFR Part 86);

( 5) On highway motorcycles ( See 40 CFR Part 86);

( 6) Nonroad compression ignition engines ( See 40 CFR Part 89);

( 7) Locomotives ( See 40 CFR Part 92);

( 8) Marine engines, excluding inboard & sterndrive engines ( See 40 CFR Parts 91, 94, and MARPOL Annex VI, as applicable);

( 9) Small nonroad spark ignition engines ( engines

19kW) ( See 40 CFR Part 90);

( 10) Recreational vehicles ( including, but not limited to, snowmobiles, all terrain vehicles and off highway motorcycles) ( See 40 CFR Part 1051);

( 11) Heavy duty highway gasoline vehicles ( evaporative emissions certification only) ( See 40 CFR Part 86); and ( 12) Large nonroad spark ignition engines ( engines > 19 kW) ( See 40 CFR Part 1048).

( b) This subpart applies to manufacturers that submit certification requests received by the agency on or after [ March 1, 2004 or 60 days after the date of publication of the final rule, whichever is later].

( c) Certification requests which are complete, contain all required data, and are received prior to [ March 1, 2004 or 60 days after the date of publication of the final rule, whichever is later] are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart J.

( d) Nothing in this subpart will be construed to limit the Administrator's authority to require manufacturer or confirmatory testing as provided in the Clean Air Act, including authority to require manufacturer in use testing as provided in section 208 of the Clean Air Act.

§ 85.2402 [ Reserved]

§ 85.2403 What definitions apply to this subpart?

( a) The following definitions apply to this subpart:

Agency or EPA means the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 79 Annex IV is a Statement of Voluntary Compliance or Engine International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate issued by EPA under MARPOL Annex VI.

Body Builder means a manufacturer, other than the OEM, who installs certified onhighway HDE engines into equipment such as trucks, busses or other highway vehicles.

California only certificate is a Certificate of Conformity issued by EPA which only signifies compliance with the emission standards established by California.

Certification request means a manufacturer's request for certification evidenced by the submission of an application for certification, ESI data sheet, or ICI Carryover data sheet. A single certification request covers one test group, engine family, or engine system combination as applicable. For HDV evaporative certification, the certification request covers one evaporative family.

Consumer Price Index means the consumer price index for all U. S. cities using the " U. S. city average" area , " all items" and " not seasonally adjusted" numbers calculated by the Department of Labor.

Federal certificate is a Certificate of Conformity issued by EPA which signifies compliance with emission requirements in 40 CFR part 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 1048, and/ or 1051 as applicable.

Fuel economy basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer, engine displacement, number of cylinders, fuel system, catalyst usage, and other characteristics specified by the Administrator.

Filing form means the MVECP Fee Filing Form to be sent with payment of the MVECP fee.

MARPOL Annex VI is an annex to the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the protocol of 1978 relating thereto; the international treaty regulating disposal of wastes generated by normal operation of vessels.

Recreational means the engines subject to 40 CFR 1051 which includes off road motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 80 Total Number of Certificates Issued means the number of certificates for which fees are paid or waivers are issued. This term is not intended to represent multiple certificates which are issued within a single family or test group.

( b) The definitions contained in the following parts also apply to this subpart. If the term is defined in paragraph ( a) of this section then that definition will take precedence.

( 1) 40 CFR Part 85;

( 2) 40 CFR Part 86;

( 3) 40 CFR Part 89;

( 4) 40 CFR Part 90;

( 5) 40 CFR Part 91;

( 6) 40 CFR Part 92;

( 7) 40 CFR Part 94;

( 8) 40 CFR Part 1048; and ( 9) 40 CFR Part 1051.

§ 85.2404 What abbreviations apply to this subpart?

The abbreviations in this section apply to this subpart and have the following meanings:

Annex IV a Statement of Voluntary Compliance or Engine International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate issued by EPA under MARPOL Annex VI.

Cal California;

CI   Compression ignition ( Diesel) cycle engine;

CPI Consumer Price Index;

ESI Engine System Information;

EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency;

Evap   Evaporative Emissions;

Fed Federal;

HD Heavy duty HDE Heavy duty motor vehicle engine;

HDV Heavy duty motor vehicle; DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 81 HW   On Highway versions of a vehicle or engine;

ICI Independent Commercial Importer;

LD Light Duty motor vehicle including both LDT and LDV;

LDT Light duty truck;

LDV Light duty vehicle;

MARPOL   An International Maritime Organization treaty for the control of marine pollution;

MC Motorcycle;

MDPV   Medium Duty Passenger Vehicle;

MVECP Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program;

MY Model Year;

NR Nonroad version of a vehicle or engine;

OEM Original equipment manufacturer;

SI Spark ignition ( Otto) cycle engine.

§ 85.2405 How much are the fees?

( a) Fees for the 2004 and 2005 calendar years. For certification applications received for these calendar years that qualify for today's fees under the provisions of § 85.2401 ( b), the fee for each certification request is in the following table: DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 82 Category Certificate Type Fee 1) LD, excluding ICIs Fed Certificate $ 33,883 2) LD, excluding ICIs Cal only Certificate $ 16,944 3) MDPV, excluding ICIs Fed Certificate $ 33,883 4) MDPV, excluding ICIs Cal only Certificate $ 16,944 5) Complete SI HDVs, excluding ICIs Fed Certificate $ 33,883 6) Complete SI HDVs, excluding ICIs Cal only Certificate $ 16,944 7) ICIs for the following industries:

LD, MDPV, or Complete SI HDVs All Types $ 8,387 8) MC ( HW), including ICIs All Types $ 2,414 9) HDE ( HW), including ICIs Fed Certificate $ 21,578 10) HDE ( HW), including ICIs Cal only Certificate $ 826 11) HDV ( evap), including ICIs Evap Certificate $ 826 12) NR CI engines, including ICIs, but excluding Locomotives, Marine and Recreational engines. All Types $ 1,822 13) NR SI engines, including ICIs All Types $ 826 14) Marine engines, excluding inboard & sterndrive engines, including ICIs All Types and AnnexVI $ 826 15) All NR Recreational, including ICIs, but excluding marine engines All Types $ 826 16) Locomotives, including ICIs All Types $ 826 ( 1) A manufacturer that requests a federal certificate for a marine engine family and an Annex VI for the same engine family will be charged the fee indicated in § 85.2405 ( a), Table item 14, for only the federal certificate.

( 2) Reserved DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 83 ( b) Fees for 2006 calendar year and beyond.

( 1) This subpart applies to manufacturers that submit certification requests received by the agency on or after January 1 of each calendar year beginning in 2006. The fees due for each certification request will be calculated using an equation which adjusts the fees in paragraph ( a) of this section for the change in the consumer price index and the change in the total number of certificates issued for each fee category.

( 2) Certification requests which are complete, contain all required data, and are received prior to January 1 of each calendar year are subject to the fees provisions of the year that they are received by the Agency.

( 3) Fees for the 2006 and later calendar year certification requests will be calculated using the following equation.

Feecy= [ F + ( L * ( CPICY 2/ CPI2002))] * 1.169 / [( cert# MY 3 + cert# MY 4) * .5]

Where:

FeeCY = the applicable fee for the calendar year of the certification request. EPA will determine the fees for each calendar year beginning in 2006.

F = the fixed costs, not to be adjusted by the CPI L = the labor costs from the table below, to be adjusted by the CPI CPICY 2 = the consumer price index for all U. S. cities using the " U. S. city average" area , " all items" and " not seasonally adjusted" numbers calculated by the Department of Labor listed for the month of July of the year two years before the calendar year. ( e. g., for the 2006 CY use the CPI based on the date of July, 2004).

CPI2002 = the consumer price index for all U. S. cities using the " U. S. city average" area , " all items" and " not seasonally adjusted" numbers calculated by the Department of Labor for December, 2002. The actual value for CPI 2002 is 180.9.

1.169 = Overall EPA overhead applied to all costs cert# MY 3 = the total number of certificates issued for a fee category, for which fees are paid or waivers are issued, three model years prior to the calendar year for applicable fees ( Feecy)

cert# MY 4 = the total number of certificates issued for a fee category, for which fees are paid or waivers are issued, four model years prior to the calendar year for the applicable fees ( Feecy) DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 84 ICI LD MC ( HW) HDE ( HW) NR CI Other 1) F $ 344,824 $ 6,180,261 $ 225,726 $ 1,106,224 $ 486,401 $ 177,425 2) L $ 264,980 $ 4,732,440 $ 172,829 $ 1,625,680 $ 545,160 $ 548,081 EPA will notify manufacturers within 15 months of the calendar year in which fees are adjusted by this section, with the new fees for each category, the number of certificates for the appropriate model years and the applicable CPI values after the July CPI values for each year are made available by the U. S. Department of Labor.

( c) A single fee will be charged when a manufacturer seeks to certify multiple evaporative families within a single engine family or test group. Manufacturers that seek to certify HDE evaporative families will be charged a fee for each evaporative family.

( d) A body builder, who exceeds the maximum fuel tank size for a HDV that has been certified by an OEM and consequently makes a request for HDV certification, must pay a separate fee for each certification request. The fee will be that listed in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section, paragraph ( c) does not apply.

§ 85.2406 Can I qualify for reduced fees?

( a) Eligibility Requirements. To be eligible for a reduced fee, the following conditions must be satisfied:

( 1) The certificate is to be used for sale of vehicles or engines within the United States; and ( 2) The full fee for a certification request for a MY exceeds 1.0% of the aggregate projected retail sales price of all vehicles or engines covered by that certificate.

( b) Determination of Certificate Type ( 1) If the number of vehicles or engines to be covered by the certificate is less than six and the retail sales price of all of the vehicles or engines is less than $ 75,000 each, a reduced fee request shall be made for a certificate covering 5 vehicles or engines. The final DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 85 reduced fee calculation and adjustment provisions of § 85.2406 ( e) are applicable to certificates issued under this provision.

( 2) If the number of vehicles or engines to be covered by the certificate is greater than five and/ or the retail sales price of at least one of the vehicles or engines is greater than $ 75,000 each, a reduced fee request shall be made for a certificate covering the estimated number of vehicles or engines.

( c) Initial Reduced Fee Calculation.

( 1) If the requirements of paragraph ( a) of this section are satisfied, the initial fee payment to be paid by the applicant ( the " initial fee payment") will be the greater of:

( i) 1.0% of the aggregate projected retail sales price of all the vehicles or engines to be covered by the certification request; or ( ii) A minimum initial fee payment of $ 750.

( 2) For vehicles or engines that are converted to operate on an alternative fuel using as the basis for the conversion a vehicle or engine which is covered by an existing OEM certificate of conformity, the cost basis used in this section must be the aggregate projected retail value added to the vehicle or engine by the conversion rather than the full cost of the vehicle or engine. To qualify for this provision, the applicable OEM certificate must cover the same sales area and model year as the requested certificate for the converted vehicle or engine.

( 3) For ICI certification requests, the cost basis of this section must be the aggregate projected retail cost of the entire vehicle( s) or engine( s), not just the value added by the conversion. If the vehicles/ engines covered by an ICI certificate are not being offered for sale, the manufacturer shall use the fair retail market value of the vehicles/ engines as the retail sale price required in this section. For an ICI certification request, the retail sales price ( or fair retail market value) must be based on the applicable National Automobile Dealer's Association ( NADA) appraisal guide and/ or other evidence of the actual market value.

( 4) The aggregate cost used in this section must be based on the total projected sales of all vehicles and engines under a certificate, including vehicles and engines modified under the DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 86 modification and test option in 40 CFR 85.1509 and 89.609. The projection of the number of vehicles or engines to be covered by the certificate and their projected retail selling price must be based on the latest information available at the time of the fee payment.

( 5) A manufacturer may submit a reduced fee as described in paragraphs ( a), ( b) and ( c)( 1) through ( c)( 4) of this section if it is accompanied by a statement from the manufacturer that the reduced fee is appropriate under this section. The reduced fee shall be deemed approved unless EPA determines that the criteria of this section has not been met. The Agency may make such a determination either before or after EPA issues a certificate of conformity. If the Agency determines that the requirements of this section have not been met, EPA may deny future reduced fee requests and require submission of the full fee payment until such time as the manufacturer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that its reduced fee submissions are based on accurate data and that final fee payments are made within 45 days of the end of the model year.

( 6) If the reduced fee is denied by the Administrator, the applicant will have 30 days from the date of notification of the denial to submit the appropriate fee to EPA or appeal the denial.

( d) Revision of the Number of Vehicles or Engines Covered by the Certificate ( 1) If after the original certificate is issued, the number of vehicles or engines to be produced or imported under the certificate exceeds the number indicated on the certificate, the manufacturer or importer shall:

( i) Request that EPA revise the certificate with a number that indicates the new projection of the vehicles or engines to be covered by the certificate. The revised certificate must be requested, revised and issued before the vehicles or engines are sold or imported into the United States.

( ii) Submit payment of 1.0% of the aggregate projected retail sales price of all the vehicles or engines over and above the number of vehicles or engines listed on the original certificate to be covered by the certification request;

( iii) Submit a final reduced fee calculation and adjustment at the end of the model year as set forth in the provisions of § 85.2406 ( e), below, if the original certificate was issued under the provisions of paragraph § 85.2406 ( b)( 1) above. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 87 ( 2) A manufacturer must receive a revised certificate prior to the sale or importation of any vehicles or engines that are not originally included in the certificate issued under 85.2406( b)( 1) or 85.2406( b)( 2), or as indicated in a revised certificate issued under 85.2406( d)( 1). In the event that a certificate is not timely revised such additional vehicles or engines are not covered by a certificate of conformity.

( e) Final Reduced Fee Calculation and Adjustment.

( 1) For certificates issued under the provisions of § 85.2406 ( b)( 1) above, within 30 days of the end of the model year, the manufacturer shall submit a model year reduced fee payment report covering all certificates issued under the provisions of § 85.2406 ( b)( 1) in the model year for which the manufacturer has paid a reduced fee. This report will include for each certificate issued:

( i) The fees paid prior to the time of issuance of the certificate;

( ii) The total actual number of vehicles covered by the certificate;

( iii) The calculation of the actual final reduced fee due for each certificate; and ( iv) The difference between the total fees paid and the total final fees due from the manufacturer.

( 2) The final reduced fee shall be calculated using the procedures of paragraph ( c) of this section but using actual production figures rather than projections.

( 3) If the initial fee payment does not exceed the final reduced fee, then the manufacturer shall pay the difference between the initial reduced fee and the final reduced fee using the provisions of § 85.2408. This payment shall be paid within 45 days of the end of the model year. The total fees paid for a certificate shall not exceed the applicable full fee of § 85.2405. If a manufacturer fails to make complete payment with 45 days or to submit the report under paragraph ( e)( 1) of this section then the Agency may void ab initio the applicable certificate. EPA may also refuse to grant reduced fee requests submitted under paragraph ( c)( 5) of this section. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 88 ( 4) If the initial fee payment exceeds the final reduced fee then the manufacturer may request a refund using the procedures of § 85.2407.

( 5) Manufacturers must retain in their records the basis used to calculate the projected sales and fair retail market value and the actual sales and retail price for the vehicles and engines covered by each certificate that is issued under the reduced fee provisions of this section. This information must be retained for a period of at least three years after the issuance of the certificate and must be provided to the Agency within 30 days of request. Manufacturers are also subject to the applicable maintenance of records requirements of Part 86, Subpart A. If a manufacturer fails to maintain the records or provide such records to EPA as required by this paragraph then EPA may void ab initio the certificate for which such records shall be kept.

§ 85.2407 Can I get a refund if I don't get a certificate or overpay?

( a) Full Refund. The Administrator shall refund the total fee imposed by § 85.2405 if the applicant fails to obtain a certificate, for any reason, and requests a refund.

( b) Partial Refund. The Administrator shall refund a portion of a reduced fee, paid under 85.2406, due to a decrease in the aggregate projected or actual retail sales price of the vehicles or engines covered by the certificate request. The Administrator shall also refund a portion of the initial payment when the initial payment exceeded the final fee for the vehicles or engines covered by the certificate request.

( 1) Partial refunds are only available for certificates which were used for the sale of vehicles or engines within the United States.

( 2) Requests for a partial refund may only be made once the model year for the applicable certificate has ended. Requests for a partial refund must be submitted no later than six months after the model year has ended.

( 3) Requests for a partial refund must include all the following:

( i) A statement that the applicable certificate was used for the sale of vehicles or engines within the United States. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 89 ( ii) A statement of the initial fee amount paid ( the reduced fee) under the applicable certificate.

( iii) The actual number of vehicles or engines produced or imported under the certificate ( whether or not the vehicles/ engines have been actually sold).

( iv) The actual retail selling or asking price for the vehicles or engines produced or imported under the certificate.

( v) The calculation of the reduced fee amount using actual production figures and retail prices.

( vi) The calculated amount of the refund.

( c) Refunds due to errors in submission. The Agency will approve requests from manufacturers to correct errors in the amount or application of fees if the manufacturer provides satisfactory evidence that the change is due to an accidental error rather than a change in plans. Requests to correct errors must be made to the Administrator as soon as possible after identifying the error. The Agency will not consider requests to reduce fee amounts due to errors that are reported more than 90 days after the issuance of the applicable certificate of conformity.

( d) In lieu of a refund, the manufacturer may apply the refund amount to the amount due on another certification request.

( e) A request for a full or partial refund of a fee or a report of an error in the fee payment or its application must be submitted in writing to: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Vehicle Programs and Compliance Division, Fee Program Specialist, National Vehicle and Fuel Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

§ 85.2408 How do I make a fee payment?

( a) All fees required by this subpart shall be paid by money order, bank draft, certified check, corporate check, or electronic funds transfer payable in U. S. dollars to the order of the Environmental Protection Agency. DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 90 ( b) A completed fee filing form must be sent to the address designated on the form for each fee payment made.

( c) Fees must be paid prior to submission of an application for certification. The Agency will not process applications for which the appropriate fee ( or reduced fee amount) has not been fully paid.

( d) If EPA denies a reduced fee, the proper fee must be submitted within 30 days after the notice of denial, unless the decision is appealed. If the appeal is denied, then the proper fee must be submitted within 30 days after the notice of the appeal denial.

§ 85.2409 Deficiencies.

( a) Any filing pursuant to this subpart that is not accompanied by a completed fee filing form and full payment of the appropriate fee is deemed to be deficient.

( b) A deficient filing will be rejected and the amount paid refunded, unless the full appropriate fee is submitted within a time limit specified by the Administrator.

( c) EPA will not process a request for certification associated with any filing that is deficient under this section.

( d) The date of filing will be deemed the date on which EPA receives the full appropriate fee and the completed fee filing form.

PART 86   CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES AND ENGINES 3. The Authority for Part 86 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 42 U. S. C. 7401 7671q.

Subpart J[ Amended]

4. Section 86.903 93 is revised to read as follows: DRAFT 4/ 8/ 04 DRAFT 91 § 86.903 93 Applicability.

( a) This subpart prescribes fees to be charged for the MVECP for the 1993 through 2003 model year. The fees charged will apply to all manufacturers and ICIs of LDVs, LDTs, HDVs, HDEs, and MCs. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to limit the Administrator's authority to require manufacturer or confirmatory testing as provided in the Clean Air Act, including authority to require manufacturer in use testing as provided in section 208 of the Clean Air Act.

( b) The fees prescribed in this subpart are replaced by the requirements of 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart Y for 2004 and later certification requests received on or after [ March 1, 2004 or 60 days after the date of publication of the final rule, whichever date is later].

( c) The fees prescribed in this subpart will only apply to those 2004 model year certification requests which are complete, include all data required by this title, and are received by the Agency prior to [ March 1, 2004 or 60 days after the date of publication of the final rule, whichever is later].


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 56699]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-14-000]

Darby Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Darby Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 25, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    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) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 5, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22128 Filed 10-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13362-13364]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-552-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TGP 2021 Fuel Tracker Filing
to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-553-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts
(Atlanta Gas 8438 releases eff 3-1-2021) to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-554-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various
Releases eff 3-1-2021 to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-555-000.
    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Destin Pipeline--Negotiated
Rate Agreement Filing to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-556-000.
    Applicants: BBT Midla, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing BBT Midla, LLC Annual Fuel Filing.

    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-557-000.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 3-1-21 to be
effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-558-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 3-1-21 to be
effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-559-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 3-1-21 to be
effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-560-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 3-1-21 to be
effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-561-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: EPCA 2021 to be effective 4/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-562-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Capacity
Release Agreements--3/1/2021 to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-563-000.
    Applicants: MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Quarterly Fuel Adjustment
Filing to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-564-000.
    Applicants: High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Implement Storm Damage
Surcharge to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-565-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TCRA 2021 to be effective 4/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-566-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Annual Report on Operational
Transactions 2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-567-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Annual Report on Operational
Transactions 2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-568-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TRA 2021 to be effective 4/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-569-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2021 Annual Transco Fuel
Tracker to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-570-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Updates to Priority of Service
to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-571-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts
(Marathon 51753, 51754 to Spire 53687, 53689) to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-572-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt
(Constellation 53637 to Exelon 53691) to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-573-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TRA 2021 to be effective 4/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-574-000.
    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2021 Annual Fuel & Electric
Power Reimbursement to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-575-000.
    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2021 Non-Conforming and
Negotiated Rate Service Agreement--ONEOK FT-1664 to be effective 4/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-577-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Venture Global NC/NR Agreement
to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-578-000.
    Applicants: KPC Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Reimbursement Adjustment
to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-579-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Annual Electric Power Tracker
Filing effective April 1, 2021 to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-580-000.
    Applicants: High Point Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Hight Point Gas Transmission Annual
LAUF Filing.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5223.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-581-000.
    Applicants: Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Transportation Retainage
Adjustment & Tariff Waiver Req Effective April 1, 2021 to be effective
4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-582-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: RAM 2021 to be effective 4/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5231.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-583-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20210301 Negotiated Rate to be
effective 3/2/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5239.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-584-000.
    Applicants: ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing--
Chesapeake to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5241.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-585-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing REX 2021-03-01 Fuel and L&U
Reimbursement Percentages and Power Cost Charges.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5367.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-586-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 3-1-21 to be
effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5355.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-587-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: AVC Storage Loss Retainage
Factor Update--2021 to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5345.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-588-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: ANR Fuel Filing 2021 to be
effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5362.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-589-000.
    Applicants: KO Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2021 Transportation Retainage
Adjustment to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5359.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-590-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Releases eff
3-1-2021 to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5334.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-591-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Update Initial Retainage Rate
4-1-2021 to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5369.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-592-000.
    Applicants: UGI Sunbury, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Annual Retainage Adjustment
2021 to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5336.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-593-000.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various
Releases 3-1-2021 to be effective 3/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5340.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-594-000.
    Applicants: UGI Mt. Bethel Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Annual Retainage Adjustment of UGI Mt. Bethel Pipeline
Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5415.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-595-000.
    Applicants: Adelphia Gateway, LLC.
    Description: Annual Transporter?s Use and System Balancing
Adjustment of Adelphia Gateway, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/1/21.
    Accession Number: 20210301-5416.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 2, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04753 Filed 3-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P