Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 2003 / Notices 19811

permits (permits that cover a category or 

categories of similar discharges). States 

with existing NPDES programs must 

submit requests for program 

modifications to add Federal facilities, 

or general permit authority. In addition, 

as federal statutes and regulations are 

modified, States must submit program 

modifications to ensure that their 

program continues to meet Federal 

requirements. 

States have the option of obtaining a 

sludge management program. This 

program may be a component of a State 

NPDES Program, or it may be 

administered as a separate program. To 

obtain a NPDES or sludge program, a 

State must submit an application that 

includes a program description, an 

Attorney General’s Statement, draft 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

with the EPA Region, and copies of the 

State’s statutes and regulations. 

Once a State obtains authority for an 

NPDES or sludge program, it becomes 

responsible for implementing the 

program in that jurisdiction. 

The State must retain records on the 

permittees and perform inspections. In 

addition, when a State obtains NPDES 

or sludge authority, EPA must oversee 

the program. Thus, States must submit 

permit information and compliance 

reports to the EPA. 

When EPA issues a permit in an 

unauthorized State, that State must 

certify that the permit requirements 

comply with State water laws. 

According to the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) (section 510), States may adopt 

discharge requirements that are equal to 

or more stringent than requirements in 

the CWA or Federal regulations.

There are three categories of reporting 

requirements that are covered by this 

ICR. The first category, ‘‘State Program 

Requests,’’ includes the activities States 

must complete to request a new NPDES 

or sludge program, or to modify an 

existing program. The second category, 

‘‘State Program Implementation,’’

includes the activities that approved 

States must complete to implement an 

existing program, such as certification of 

EPA-issued permits by non-NPDES 

States. The third category, ‘‘State 

Program Oversight,’’ includes activities 

required of NPDES States so that EPA 

may satisfy its statutory requirements 

for state program oversight. 

The information collected by EPA is 

used to evaluate the adequacy of a 

State’s NPDES or sludge program and to 

provide EPA with the information 

necessary to fulfill its statutory 

oversight functions over State program 

performance and individual permit 

actions. EPA will use this information to 

evaluate State requests for full or partial 

program approval and program 

modifications. In order to evaluate the 

adequacy of a State’s proposed program, 

appropriate information must be 

provided to ensure that proper 

procedures, regulations, and statutes are 

in place and consistent with the CWA 

requirements. 

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, 

and are identified on the form and/or 

instrument, if applicable. 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to average 50.3 hours per 

response for each state activity. 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. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: States, 

Territories, and American Indian Tribal 

Entities. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

613. 

Frequency of Response: Semiannually, quarterly, on occasion, every 

5 years, on-going. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:

966,966 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost:

$30,169,349, includes $0 annualized 

capital or O&M costs. 

Changes in the Estimates: There is a 

decrease of 173,828 hours in the total 

estimated burden currently identified in 

the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR 

Burdens. This decrease in the applicant 

respondent and NPDES-authorized state 

burden is due primarily to a significant 

cleanup of the database used to track 

NPDES permittees.

Dated: April 10, 2003. 

Oscar Morales, 

Director, Collection Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. 03–9912 Filed 4–21–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[AMS–FRL–7485–4] 

California State Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of 

Federal Preemption—Notice of 

Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA today, pursuant to 

section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act 

(Act), 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), is granting 

California its request for a waiver of 

federal preemption for its Low-Emission 

Vehicle amendments (LEV II 

Amendments) to its Low-Emission 

Vehicle (LEV) program. By letter dated 

May 30, 2001, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) requested that 

EPA grant California a waiver of federal 

preemption for its LEV II Amendments 

and its 1999 zero-emission vehicle 

amendments (1999 ZEV Amendments), 

which primarily: Impose more stringent 

passenger car exhaust emission 

standards on most sport utility vehicles, 

pick-up trucks, and mini-vans; create 

lower tailpipe standards for all lightand medium-duty vehicles; establish 

more stringent requirements for phasing 

in cleaner vehicles; establish more 

stringent evaporative emission 

standards; and include new 

mechanisms for the generation of ZEV 

credits. CARB submitted subsequent 

letters to EPA which initially requested 

EPA to confirm CARB’s determination 

that its 1999 and 2001 ZEV amendments 

are within the scope of waivers EPA had 

previously granted; ultimately CARB 

withdrew its requests regarding the 

1999 and 2001 ZEV amendments. 

Today’s decision does not address 

CARB’s 1999 or 2001 ZEV amendments.

ADDRESSES: The Agency’s Decision 

Document, containing an explanation of 

the Assistant Administrator’s decision, 

as well as all documents relied upon in 

making that decision, including those 

submitted to EPA by CARB, are 

available at the EPA’s Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center (Air 

Docket). Materials relevant to this 

rulemaking are contained in Docket No. 

A–2002–11. The docket is located at 

The Air Docket, room B–108, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

19812 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 2003 / Notices 

1As set forth in the August 5, 1999 adoption of 

or amendments to Title 13, California Code of 

Regulations (CCR), section 1961, the incorporated 

‘‘California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Year 

Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and MediumDuty Vehicles,’’ and, with respect to HEVs (hybridelectric vehicles), the incorporated ‘‘California 

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures 

for 2003 and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission 

Vehicles and 2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid 

Electric Vehicles in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty 

Truck and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes’’ (all 

portions of this incorporated document that may 

pertain to ZEVs only are not considered by EPA in 

this determination and all portions of this 

incorporated document that pertain to both ZEVs 

and HEVs or to other types of vehicles are only 

considered to the extent they do not pertain to 

ZEVs); section 1900; section 1960.1 (with the 

exceptions noted in CARB’s letter to David 

Dickinson, EPA, dated August 16, 2002), the 

incorporated ‘‘California Non-Methane Organic Gas 

Test Procedures,’’ ‘‘California Exhaust Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for 1988 through 

2000 Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty 

Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles’’ and 

‘‘California Non-Methane Organic Gas Test 

Procedures’’ (with the exceptions noted in CARB’s 

letter to David Dickinson, EPA, dated August 16, 

2002), and, with respect to HEVs, ‘‘California 

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures 

for 2003 and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission 

Vehicles and 2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid 

Electric Vehicles in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty 

Truck and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes’’ (all 

portions of this incorporated document that may 

pertain to ZEVs only are not considered by EPA in 

this determination and all portions of this 

incorporated document that pertain to both ZEVs 

and HEVs or to other types of vehicles are only 

considered to the extent they do not pertain to 

ZEVs); section 1965 and the incorporated 

‘‘California Motor Vehicle Emission Control and 

Smog Index Label Specifications’’; section 1968.1; 

1976 and the incorporated ‘‘California Evaporative 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1978 

through 2000 Model Motor Vehicles’’ and the new 

‘‘California Evaporative Emission Standards and 

Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model 

Motor Vehicles’’ (EPA’s decision applies to CARB’s 

evaporative emission standards and test procedures 

only for 2004 and later model years); sections 2037, 

2038, 2062 and the incorporated ‘‘California 

Assembly-Line Test Procedures for 1998 through 

2000 Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and 

Medium-Duty Vehicles’’ and ‘‘California AssemblyLine Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent 

Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and MediumDuty Vehicles’’; section 2101 and the incorporated 

‘‘California New Vehicle Compliance Test 

Procedures’’; and sections 2106, 2107, 2110, 2112, 

2114, 2119, 2130, 2137–2140, and 2143–2148. EPA 

also includes CARB’s ‘‘LEV II follow-up 

amendments’’ in today’s waiver determination. 

These amendments, adopted December 27, 2000, 

were to section 1961 and the ‘‘California Exhaust 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 

and Subsequent Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty 

Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles’’ and as 

explained below, have the effect of not allowing a 

manufacturer to certify a ‘‘California-only’’ vehicle 

family to California exhaust emission standards that 

are less stringent than the federal standards to 

which an equivalent federal model is certified—in 

such case the model sold in California must meet 

the federal exhaust emission standards to which the 

federal model is certified. CARB’s waiver request 

did not include nor does today’s waiver 

determination include other provisions of the LEV 

II follow-up amendments such as the California 

emission standards for heavy-duty Otto-Cycle 

engines that were harmonized with standards 

adopted by EPA and are found at section 1956.8.

DC 20460, and may be viewed between 

8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday. The telephone number is (202) 

566–1742. A reasonable fee may be 

charged by EPA for copying docket 

material. 

Electronic copies of this Notice and 

the accompanying Decision Document 

are available via the Internet on the 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

(OTAQ) Web site (http://www.epa.gov/

OTAQ). Users can find these documents 

by accessing the OTAQ website and 

looking at the path entitled, 

‘‘Regulations.’’ This service is free of 

charge, except for any cost you already 

incur for Internet connectivity. The 

electronic Federal Register version of 

the Notice is made available on the day 

of publication on the primary Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA–

AIR). 

Please note that due to differences 

between the software used to develop 

the documents and the software into 

which the documents may be 

downloaded, changes in format, page 

length, etc., may occur.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Dickinson, Certification and 

Compliance Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel 

Rios Building (6405J), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 

(202) 564–9256. Fax: (202) 565–2057. EMail address: Dickinson.David@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I have 

decided to grant California a waiver of 

federal preemption pursuant to section 

209(b) of the Act for the LEV II 

Amendments 1 to its LEV program. As 

explained further in EPA’s Decision 

Document for today’s decision, CARB 

had originally submitted a request for a 

waiver of federal preemption for 

amendments made to its ZEV program 

(1999 ZEV Amendments). CARB 

subsequently sought a ‘‘within the scope 

of previous waivers’’ confirmation from 

EPA for its 1999 ZEV Amendments. 

Subsequently, CARB also initially 

sought a within the scope of previous 

waivers confirmation for its 2001 ZEV 

Amendments when they were adopted. 

As explained in EPA’s notice dated 

September 26, 2002 (67 FR 60680), 

CARB withdrew its requests for any 

EPA consideration of its 1999 and 2001 

ZEV Amendments. By today’s decision 

EPA makes no findings regarding such 

Amendments.

Section 209(b) of the Act provides 

that, if certain criteria are met, the 

Administrator shall waive federal 

preemption for California to enforce 

new motor vehicle emission standards 

and accompanying enforcement 

procedures. The criteria include 

consideration of whether California 

arbitrarily and capriciously determined 

that its standards are, in the aggregate, 

at least as protective of public health 

and welfare as the applicable Federal 

standards; whether California needs 

State standards to meet compelling and 

extraordinary conditions; and whether 

California’s amendments are consistent 

with section 202(a) of the Act. 

CARB determined that its LEV II 

Amendments do not cause California’s 

standards, in the aggregate, to be less 

protective of public health and welfare 

than the applicable Federal standards. 

No information has been submitted to 

demonstrate that California’s standards, 

in the aggregate, are less protective of 

public health and welfare than the 

applicable Federal standards. Thus, EPA 

cannot make a finding that CARB’s 

determination, that its LEV II 

Amendments are, in the aggregate, at 

least as protective of public health and 

welfare, is arbitrary and capricious. 

CARB has continually demonstrated 

the existence of compelling and 

extraordinary conditions justifying the 

need for its own motor vehicle pollution 

control program, which includes the 

subject LEV II Amendments. No 

information has been submitted to 

demonstrate that California no longer 

has a compelling and extraordinary 

need for its own program. Therefore, I 

agree that California continues to have 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions which require its own 

program, and, thus, I cannot deny the 

waiver on the basis of the lack of 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions. 

CARB has submitted information that 

the requirements of its LEV II 

Amendments are technologically 

feasible and present no inconsistency 

with federal requirements and are, 

therefore, consistent with section 202(a) 

of the Act. No information has been 

presented to demonstrate that CARB’s 

requirements are inconsistent with 

section 202(a) of the Act, nor does EPA 

have any other reason to believe that 

CARB’s requirements are inconsistent 

with section 202(a). Thus, I cannot find 

that California’s LEV II Amendments are 

inconsistent with section 202(a) of the 

Act. Accordingly, I hereby grant the 

waiver requested by California. 

This decision will affect not only 

persons in California but also the 

manufacturers outside the State who 

must comply with California’s 

requirements in order to produce motor 

vehicles for sale in California. For this 

reason, I hereby determine and find that 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 2003 / Notices 19813

this is a final action of national 

applicability. 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 

judicial review of this final action may 

be sought only in the United States 

Court of Appeal for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review 

must be filed by June 23, 2003. Under 

section 307(b)(2) of the Act, judicial 

review of this final action may not be 

obtained in subsequent enforcement 

proceedings. 

As with past waiver decisions, this 

action is not a rule as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is 

exempt from review by the Office of 

Management and Budget as required for 

rules and regulations by Executive 

Order 12866. 

In addition, this action is not a rule 

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 601(2). Therefore, EPA 

has not prepared a supporting 

regulatory flexibility analysis addressing 

the impact of this action on small 

business entities. 

Finally, the Administrator has 

delegated the authority to make 

determinations regarding waivers of 

Federal preemption under section 

209(b) of the Act to the Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation.

Dated: April 11, 2003. 

Robert Brenner, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 03–9910 Filed 4–21–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7486–5] 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) or Superfund, Section 

311(c); Request for Applications 

(RFA)—Grants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On April 22, 2003, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

will begin to accept proposals from nonprofit organizations and educational 

institutions for grants to support 

research on improving meaningful nonFederal stakeholder involvement in 

decisions concerning the cleanup of 

hazardous waste at Federal facilities. 

EPA believes meaningful stakeholder 

involvement in the cleanup decision 

making process has resulted in 

significantly reducing costs, increasing 

effectiveness, and promoting decisions 

which reflect the diverse interests of 

those responsible for or affected by 

Federal facilities.

DATES: Please submit applications on or 

before June 23, 2003.

ADDRESSES: U.S. EPA, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460 (mailing 

address); Crystal Gateway (1st Floor), 

1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Arlington, VA 22202 (building address); 

http://epa.gov/swerffrr/index.htm (Web 

site address).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean M. Flynn with EPA’s Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 

Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse 

Office: (703) 603–0080 or 

flynn.sean@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Instructions for Submitting a Proposal

(See http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/

how_to_apply.htm.) 

EPA will accept proposals either 

postmarked or received by EPA via 

registered or tracked mail by 12 PM 

(Eastern) on (60 days after date of 

publication). Copies of Standard Form 

424 (SF 424), Application for Federal 

Assistance may be obtained by 

following the links to standard forms on 

the following Web site: http://

www.gsa.gov/forms. Applicants should 

send one (1) original (clearly labeled as 

such) and five (5) copies of their 

proposal to Sean M. Flynn, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (5106G), 

Washington, DC 20460, RE: RFA #03–

OSWER–001. 

Applicants must clearly mark any 

information in their proposal that they 

consider confidential. EPA will make 

final confidentiality decisions in 

accordance with Agency regulations 

found at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

Authority: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) section 311(c) 

authorizes EPA to use appropriated 

Superfund money to fund research projects 

for the conduct and dissemination of 

scientific, socioeconomic, institutional, and 

public policy related to the effects, risks, and 

detection of hazardous substances in the 

environment, including that found on current 

or former Federal facilities.

As required by statute, all research 

must relate to hazardous substances. 

Furthermore, available funding is 

restricted to ‘‘research’’ as defined at 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

30.2(dd). EPA has interpreted 

‘‘research’’ under CERCLA section 

311(c) to include study that extends to 

socioeconomic, institutional, and public 

policy issues, as well as the ‘‘natural’’

sciences. 

Background: This solicitation is 

targeted at non-profit organizations and 

educational institutions interested in 

researching ways to improve meaningful 

non-Federal stakeholder participation in 

the discussion and resolution of issues 

concerning hazardous waste 

contamination caused, generated, or 

managed by Federal agencies and 

departments. Historically, most of EPA’s 

work in the Federal facilities program 

has been focused on addressing 

hazardous waste contamination at DoD 

and DOE sites on the National Priorities 

List (NPL) and at Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC) properties. Greater 

attention, however, is increasingly being 

given to contamination at other Federal 

agency/department sites, including 

properties formerly owned or operated 

by the Federal government. 

In order to promote citizen 

involvement, EPA’s Federal Facilities 

Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) 

collaborates with States and tribes, local 

governments, environmental and 

community groups, labor organizations, 

and universities to provide the 

maximum possible level of stakeholder 

involvement in decision making and 

priority setting for the cleanup of 

Federal facilities. This collaboration is 

often accomplished via the award of 

grants and cooperative agreements to 

outside parties. Such is the purpose of 

this solicitation. 

The research grants resulting from 

this solicitation will directly benefit 

non-Federal stakeholders in the Federal 

facility cleanup process. The research is 

not meant to directly benefit EPA or 

other Federal agencies, although EPA 

and other Federal agencies may derive 

indirect benefits. Grants, unlike 

cooperative agreements, provide for 

little or no involvement on the part of 

the Federal government. By awarding a 

grant, EPA does not expect to have any 

substantial involvement in the research 

process. Nevertheless, EPA will be in 

contact with the grant recipients 

periodically via phone, e-mail, and, as 

appropriate, site visits. 

For Federal fiscal year ‘04, EPA 

anticipates awarding between one and 

three grants and will consider funding 

requests up to a maximum of $150,000 

per grant. Furthermore, the anticipated 

project period is September 2003—

August 2004. 

Eligibility for Funding: Interested nonprofit organizations and educational 

institutions must structure their 

research in a way that generates 

recommendations for use by nonFederal stakeholders, rather than by 

EPA, DoD, DOE, or another Federal 

agency or department. Projects which 

provide services for the direct use or