5540 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

s. Filing and Service of Responsive 

Documents—Any filings must bear in 

all capital letters the title 

‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘NOTICE OF INTENT 

TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION’’, 

‘‘COMPETING APPLICATION’’, 

‘‘PROTEST’’, or ‘‘MOTION TO 

INTERVENE’’, as applicable, and the 

Project Number of the particular 

application to which the filing refers. 

Any of the above-named documents 

must be filed by providing the original 

and the number of copies provided by 

the Commission’s regulations to: The 

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. An additional 

copy must be sent to Director, Division 

of Hydropower Administration and 

Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, at the above-mentioned 

address. A copy of any notice of intent, 

competing application or motion to 

intervene must also be served upon each 

representative of the Applicant 

specified in the particular application. 

Comments, protests and interventions 

may be filed electronically via the 

Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 

on the Commission’s Web site under the 

‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filings. 

t. Agency Comments—Federal, State, 

and local agencies are invited to file 

comments on the described application. 

A copy of the application may be 

obtained by agencies directly from the 

Applicant. If an agency does not file 

comments within the time specified for 

filing comments, it will be presumed to 

have no comments. One copy of an 

agency’s comments must also be sent to 

the Applicant’s representatives.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–215 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. ER03–1345–000] 

Midwest Independent Transmission 

System Operator, Inc.; Supplemental 

Notice of Technical Conference 

January 30, 2004. 

The January 22, 2004, Notice of 

Technical Conference in this proceeding 

indicated that a technical conference 

regarding the Midwest Independent 

Transmission System Operator, Inc.’s 

(Midwest ISO) proposed revision to 

Attachment C of its Open Access 

Transmission Tariff, relating to the 

calculation of Available Flowgate 

Capacity (AFC), will be held on 

Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 9 a.m. 

This conference will be held in Room 

3M–1 at the offices of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

All interested persons may attend the 

conference, and registration is not 

required. However, attendees are asked 

to contact Nat Davis at (202) 502–6171 

or nathaniel.davis@ferc.gov so that 

name tags for attendees can be created. 

The agenda for the technical 

conference is attached. The topics will 

commence with a presentation by the 

Midwest ISO followed by a discussion. 

The conference will focus on the 

questions identified in the agenda. After 

the conference, Commission Staff will 

set a schedule for Comments and Reply 

Comments to be filed.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

Technical Conference Agenda 

9–9:30 a.m.: Introductions—Commission 

Staff and Midwest ISO. 

9:30–12 p.m.: Questions and responses to 

Midwest ISO proposed AFC calculation for 

transmission requests that source and/or sink 

within the AmericanTransmission Company, 

LLC (ATCo) footprint (Staff’s questions are 

set forth below). 

• Is the technology available to the 

Midwest ISO system operator to evaluate all 

affected flowgates for firm and non-firm 

transmission requests (a) for the individual 

ATCo control areas and (b) for the combined 

ATCo control areas? 

• The proposed interim treatment of nonfirm transactions sourcing and sinking within 

the ATCo footprint would reduce granularity, 

as compared with the ongoing work of 

Midwest ISO in increasing the level of 

specificity and detail (granularity) employed 

in its flow-based analysis of transmission 

service requests for all other Midwest ISO 

transactions, both firm and non-firm. How 

does Midwest ISO plan to (a) ensure that 

non-firm transactions are approved on a firstcome, first-served basis and (b) ensure that 

transactions that cause congestion are not 

approved and not scheduled? 

• Midwest ISO refers to the combining of 

the ATCo control areas into one as a ‘‘Virtual 

ATC area.’’ What is a ‘‘Virtual ATC area’’? 

Are there any other examples within 

Midwest ISO or in other system of a ‘‘Virtual 

ATC area’’? 

• Does Midwest ISO have a procedure to 

identify and provide transparency of nonfirm transactions that take place within the 

‘‘Virtual ATC area’’? 

• If congestion occurs within the ‘‘Virtual 

ATC area,’’ how does Midwest ISO plan to 

relieve such congestion; (a) by curtailing 

specific non-firm transactions within ATCo, 

(b) curtailing all non-firm transactions within 

ATCo, (c) curtailing non-firm transactions 

sourcing and sinking outside ATCo, but with 

flowgate impacts within ATCo, or (d) other? 

• Are all non-firm transactions within the 

ATCo footprint required to be ‘‘tagged’’ in the 

E-tag system, and input into the NERC 

Interchange Distribution Calculator (IDC)? By 

what process is Midwest ISO informed that 

such transactions have received the proper 

tag? 

• Given that Midwest ISO has the 

capability of analyzing the flowgate impact of 

all firm and non-firm transactions within the 

Midwest ISO footprint, under what 

circumstances would transactions be 

approved without such analysis, and what 

would be the justification? 

• Are all non-firm transactions sourcing 

and sinking in ATCo assumed to have the 

same impact on congestion, regardless of 

what a flowgate analysis, if actually 

performed, would indicate? 

• How is congestion to be relieved for nonfirm transactions that source and sink within 

ATCo, but impact flowgates outside ATCo? 

• How is congestion to be relieved for nonfirm transactions that source and sink outside 

ATCo, but impact flowgates within ATCo? 

• What has been the recent experience of 

congestion within ATCo? Have there been 

instances when Transmission Load Relief 

(TLR) has been initiated? To what extent has 

the congestion been relieved by curtailing 

transactions sourcing and sinking within 

ATCo? outside ATCo? 

• Does Midwest ISO anticipate that 

‘‘Virtual ATC area’’ procedures will increase 

or decrease ATCo system congestion?

[FR Doc. E4–216 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[OECA–2003–0027; FRL–7618–5] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB Review 

and Approval; Comment Request; 

NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate 

Fertilizers Production Plants, EPA ICR 

Number 1790.03, OMB Number 2060–

0361

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.), this document announces 

that an Information Collection Request 

(ICR) has been forwarded to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval. This is a request 

to renew an existing approved 

collection. This ICR is scheduled to 

expire on January 31, 2004. Under OMB 

regulations, the Agency may continue to 

conduct or sponsor the collection of 

information while this submission is 

pending at OMB. This ICR describes the 

nature of the information collection and 

its estimated burden and cost.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5541

DATES: Additional comments may be 

submitted on or before March 8, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

referencing docket ID number OECA–

2003–0027, to (1) EPA online using 

EDOCKET (our preferred method), by 

email to docket.oeca@epa.gov, or by 

mail to: EPA Docket Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Enforcement and Compliance Docket 

and Information Center (EPA/DC), EPA 

West, Mail Code 2201T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 

725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Learia Williams, Compliance 

Assessment and Media Programs 

Division, Office of Compliance, Mail 

Code 2223A, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–4113; fax number: 

(202) 564–0050; e-mail address: 

williams.learia@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has 

submitted the following ICR to OMB for 

review and approval according to the 

procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. 

On May 19, 2003 (68 FR 27059), EPA 

sought comments on this ICR pursuant 

to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no 

comments. 

EPA has established a public docket 

for this ICR under Docket ID Number 

OECA–2003–0027, which is available 

for public viewing at the Enforcement 

and Compliance Docket and Information 

Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/

DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 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 Enforcement and 

Compliance Docket and Information 

Center Docket is: (202) 566–1752. An 

electronic version of the public docket 

is available through EPA Dockets 

(EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/

edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or to 

view public comments, to access the 

index listing of the contents of the 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. When in the 

system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the 

docket ID number identified above. 

Any comments related to this ICR 

should be submitted to EPA and OMB 

within 30 days of this notice. EPA’s 

policy is that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or on paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives 

them and without change, unless the 

comment contains copyrighted material, 

Confidential Business Information (CBI), 

or other information whose public 

disclosure is restricted by statute. When 

EPA identifies a comment containing 

copyrighted material, EPA will provide 

a reference to that material in the 

version of the comment that is placed in 

EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, 

including the copyrighted material, will 

be available in the public docket. 

Although identified as an item in the 

official docket, information claimed as 

CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise 

restricted by statute, is not included in 

the official public docket, and will not 

be available for public viewing in 

EDOCKET. For further information 

about the electronic docket, see EPA’s 

Federal Register notice describing the 

electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 

31, 2002), or go to www.epa.gov/

edocket.

Title: NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate 

Fertilizers Production Plants (40 CFR 

part 63, subparts AA & BB). 

Abstract: Owners/operators of 

affected phosphoric acid manufacturing 

and phosphate fertilizer production 

must submit one-time notifications 

(where applicable) and annual reports 

on performance test results. Semiannual 

reports are required. In addition, a 

quarterly report is required when excess 

emissions occur. 

Subparts AA and BB require 

respondents to install monitoring 

devices to measure the pressure drop 

and liquid flow rate for wet scrubbers. 

These operating parameters are 

permitted to vary within ranges 

determined concurrently with 

performance tests. Exceedances of the 

operating ranges are considered 

violations of the site-specific operating 

limits. 

The standards require sources to 

determine and record the amount of 

phosphatic feed material processed or 

stored on a daily basis. Respondents 

also maintain records of specific 

information needed to determine that 

the standards are being achieved and 

maintained. 

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 18 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. 

Respondents/Affected Entities:

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

12. 

Frequency of Response: Initially, 

quarterly, semiannually and annually. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:

1,542 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Costs:

$109,908 which includes $0 annualized 

capital/startup costs, $11,000 annual 

O&M costs, and $98,908 in respondent 

labor costs. 

Changes in the Estimates: There is a 

decrease of 2,601 hours in the total 

estimated burden currently identified in 

the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR 

Burdens. The decrease in burden from 

the most recently approved ICR is due 

in part to a decrease in the number of 

sources. Since there were no new 

sources, the burden was drastically 

reduced. The decrease was also due to 

a math error in the tables from the active 

ICR that increased the number of hours 

and the burden.

Dated: January 27, 2004. 

Doreen Sterling, 

Acting Director, Collection Strategies 

Division.

[FR Doc. 04–2419 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P