Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51713 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, 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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1, which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–

4370f), and have concluded that there 

are no factors in this case that would 

limit the use of a categorical exclusion 

under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. 

Therefore, this rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. A final 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

and a final ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 

Determination’’ will be available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T05–085 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T05–085 Safety Zone; Chesapeake 

Bay, Susquehanna River, Havre de Grace, 

MD. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters located in the 

Susquehanna River, within a 50-yard 

radius of pier number 5 of the old US40 Highway bridge (bridge number 

1206000), located at approximate 

position latitude 39°33′11′′ N, longitude 

076°05′09′′ W (North American Datum 

1983). 

(b) Regulations. All persons are 

required to comply with the general 

regulations governing safety zones in 33 

CFR 165.23 of this part. 

(1) All vessels and persons are 

prohibited from entering this zone, 

except as authorized by the Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port, Baltimore, 

Maryland. 

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into or passage within the zone must 

request authorization from the Captain 

of the Port or his designated 

representative by telephone at (410) 

576–2693 or on marine band radio 

channel 16 VHF–FM. 

(3) All Coast Guard assets enforcing 

this safety zone can be contacted on 

marine band radio channels 13 and 16 

VHF–FM. 

(4) The operator of any vessel within 

or in the immediate vicinity of this 

safety zone shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a Coast 

Guard Ensign, and 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a Coast 

Guard Ensign. 

(c) Definitions. The Captain of the 

Port means the Commander, Coast 

Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been authorized by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zones by Federal, 

State and local agencies. 

(e) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 12 p.m. on August 

27, 2007, until 12 p.m. on September 24, 

2007. In the event removal operations 

are completed prior to 12 p.m. on 

September 24, 2007, the Captain of the 

Port may cease enforcement of this 

regulation at that time. 

Dated: August 27 2007. 

Brian D. Kelley, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Baltimore, Maryland. 

[FR Doc. E7–17816 Filed 9–10–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–1023; FRL–8464–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a sitespecific revision to the Minnesota State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

particulate matter less than 10 microns 

(PM–10) for Lafarge North America 

Corporation (Lafarge), Childs Road 

Terminal located in Saint Paul, Ramsey 

County, Minnesota. In its December 18, 

2006, submittal, the Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

requested that EPA approve certain 

conditions contained in Lafarge’s 

federally enforceable state operating 

permit (FESOP) into the Minnesota PM 

SIP. The request is approvable because 

it satisfies the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (Act). We are also taking action 

on Minnesota’s request to revoke the 

Administrative Order for Lafarge that 

EPA had previously approved into the 

Minnesota SIP. The rationale for the 

approval and other information are 

provided in this rulemaking action. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective November 13, 2007, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
51714 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

October 11, 2007. If adverse comments 

are received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–

OAR–2006–1023, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2006–

1023. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This Facility is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. We recommend that you 

telephone Christos Panos, 

Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353–

8328 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christos Panos, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8328, 

panos.christos@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. General Information 

1. What Is the Background for This Action? 

2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? 

3. What Is a ‘‘Title I Condition?’’

II. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

1. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

The Lafarge Childs Road Terminal is 

located at 2145 Childs Road in Saint 

Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 

Minnesota originally submitted 

Administrative Orders for the Lafarge 

Childs Road Terminal as part of the 

PM–10 SIP for Ramsey County in 1991 

and 1992. These Administrative Orders 

contain the PM–10 emission limits and 

operating restrictions imposed on the 

facility to provide for attainment and 

maintenance of the PM–10 NAAQS. 

Subsequent revisions to the 

Administrative Orders were submitted 

in 1994 and 1997. The following Lafarge 

Childs Road Terminal Administrative 

Order revisions have been approved 

into the Minnesota PM–10 SIP: (1) 

Second Amended Findings and Order, 

dated and effective November 30, 1992, 

approved into the SIP February 15, 1994 

(60 FR 7218); (2) Amendment One to 

Second Amended Findings and Order, 

dated and effective December 21, 1994, 

approved into the SIP June 13, 1995 (60 

FR 31088); and, (3) Amendment Two to 

Second Amended Findings and Order, 

dated and effective September 23, 1997, 

approved into the SIP February 8, 1999 

(64 FR 5936). 

The SIP revision submitted by MPCA 

on December 18, 2006, consists of a 

FESOP issued to the Lafarge Childs 

Road Terminal, which serves as a joint 

Title I/FESOP document. The PM–10 

control measures, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements contained in the 

Administrative Orders previously 

approved in the PM–10 SIP are now 

identified as ‘‘Title I condition: SIP for 

PM–10 NAAQS’’ in the joint Title I/ 

FESOP document. The state has 

requested that EPA approve the 

following: (1) The inclusion into the 

Minnesota PM SIP only the portions of 

Minnesota Air Emission Permit No. 

12300391–002, issued to Lafarge North 

America Corporation—Childs Road 

Terminal on November 17, 2006, cited 

as ‘‘Title I condition: SIP for PM–10 

NAAQS’’; and, (2) that the 

Administrative Orders for Lafarge—

Childs Road Terminal currently 

included in Minnesota’s PM–10 SIP be 

subsequently revoked. 

Minnesota held a public hearing 

regarding the SIP revision and the joint 

Title I/FESOP document on November 

16, 2006. No comments were received at 

the public meeting and only EPA 

provided comments during the 30 day 

public comment period. 

2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? 

EPA is taking this action because: (1) 

Lafarge has proposed changes to the 

allowable methods for delivery of 

cementitious products which require 

changes to certain SIP conditions; and 

(2) EPA and the state have agreed to the 

transfer of SIP requirements from 

Administrative Orders into joint Title I/ 

Title V–FESOP documents. Further, the 

state’s request provides for attainment 

and maintenance of the PM–10 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and satisfies the applicable 

PM–10 requirements of the Act. 

Lafarge receives, transfers, stores, and 

ships cementitious products. The PM–

10 emission sources contained in the 

SIP for Lafarge include a Barge Aeration 

Unit, the Vacuum Pump Exhaust and 

the Silo Storage System. The barge-tosilo operations and related equipment 

have been removed since the issuance of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51715 

the original Administrative Order. Six 

storage silos remain in operation at 

Childs Road Terminal for storing 

cementitious material, with delivery 

and transport of the material by truck. 

Proposed changes to Childs Road 

Terminal include the installation of a 

new rail siding for rail delivery of 

material to the silos, the installation of 

a related railcar-to-silo pneumatic 

conveyance, the redesign of the 

pneumatic conveyance system to allow 

dedicated use of Silos Nos. 1 and 2, and 

the installation of new pollution control 

devices (a low temperature fabric filter) 

on each of the two dedicated silos. 

Operation of the remaining Silos Nos. 

3–6, also equipped with a fabric filter, 

remain unchanged with truck 

unloading. 

The original air quality dispersion 

modeling for the SIP and the initial 

Administrative Order were based on 

Lafarge’s 1995 annual throughput of 

material of 120,000 tons per year (tpy). 

The 2004 annual throughput was 11,280 

tons with a 2005 reported annual 

throughput of 24,454 tons. Annual 

throughput is expected to increase to 

26,600 tpy in 2009 after installation of 

the proposed changes. Revised air 

dispersion modeling was conducted 

using the AERMOD model to ensure 

continued attainment of the PM–10 

NAAQS in the area. Based on the 

modeling results, the FESOP limits 

Lafarge to a maximum daily throughput 

of 1,100 tons per day using a 24-hour 

rolling average and an annual 

throughput of 100,000 tpy, using a 12- 

month rolling average. The modeling 

analysis also included PM–10 emissions 

from the nearby Metropolitan Council 

Environmental Services wastewater 

treatment plant, in combination with a 

conservative background concentration, 

and predicted a 24-hour concentration 

of 146.2 micrograms per cubic meter 

(μg/m3) and an annual concentration of 

41.3 μg/m3, therefore demonstrating 

attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS. 

3. What Is a ‘‘Title I Condition?’’

SIP control measures were contained 

in permits issued to culpable sources in 

Minnesota until 1990 when EPA 

determined that limits in state-issued 

permits are not federally enforceable 

because the permits expire. The state 

then issued permanent Administrative 

Orders to culpable sources in 

nonattainment areas from 1991 to 

February of 1996. 

Minnesota’s consolidated permitting 

regulations, approved into the state SIP 

on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), includes 

the term ‘‘Title I condition’’ which was 

written, in part, to satisfy EPA 

requirements that SIP control measures 

remain permanent. A ‘‘Title I condition’’

is defined as ‘‘any condition based on 

source-specific determination of 

ambient impacts imposed for the 

purposes of achieving or maintaining 

attainment with the national ambient air 

quality standard and which was part of 

the state implementation plan approved 

by EPA or submitted to the EPA 

pending approval under section 110 of 

the act * * *.’’ The rule also states that 

‘‘Title I conditions and the permittee’s 

obligation to comply with them, shall 

not expire, regardless of the expiration 

of the other conditions of the permit.’’

Further, ‘‘any title I condition shall 

remain in effect without regard to 

permit expiration or reissuance, and 

shall be restated in the reissued permit.’’

Minnesota has also initiated using 

joint Title I/Title V–FESOP documents 

as the enforceable document for 

imposing emission limitations and 

compliance requirements in SIPs. The 

SIP requirements in joint Title I/Title V–

FESOP documents submitted by MPCA 

are cited as ‘‘Title I conditions,’’

therefore ensuring that SIP requirements 

remain permanent and enforceable. EPA 

reviewed the state’s procedure for using 

joint Title I/Title V–FESOP documents 

to implement site-specific SIP 

requirements and found it to be 

acceptable under both titles I and V of 

the Act (July 3, 1997 letter from David 

Kee, EPA, to Michael J. Sandusky, 

MPCA). Further, a June 15, 2006, letter 

from EPA to MPCA clarifies procedures 

to transfer requirements from 

Administrative Orders to joint Title I/ 

Title V–FESOP documents. 

II. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is approving into the Minnesota 

PM–10 SIP a joint Title I/FESOP 

document which contains certain 

portions of Minnesota Air Emission 

Permit No. 12300391–002, issued to 

Lafarge North America—Childs Road 

Terminal on November 17, 2006. 

Specifically, EPA is only approving into 

the SIP those portions of the joint Title 

I/FESOP document cited as ‘‘Title I 

condition: SIP for PM–10 NAAQS.’’ In 

addition, EPA is withdrawing from the 

Minnesota PM–10 SIP the November 30, 

1992, Administrative Order and the 

December 21, 1994, and September 23, 

1997, revisions to the Administrative 

Order for Lafarge Childs Road Terminal. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective November 13, 2007 without 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by October 

11, 2007. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

November 13, 2007. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
51716 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added 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 each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA 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 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 13, 

2007. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 29, 2007. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart Y—Minnesota 

■ 2. In § 52.1220 the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Lafarge Corp., Childs Road facility’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS

Name of Source Permit No. State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date Comments 

* * * * * * * 

Lafarge North America Corporation, Childs 

Road Terminal.

12300391–002 11/17/07 9/11/07 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Only conditions cited as ‘‘Title I condition: 

SIP for PM–10 NAAQS.’’

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 07–4380 Filed 9–10–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 070213032–7032–01] 

RIN 0648–XC48 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch 

for Catcher Processors Participating in 

the Rockfish Limited Access Fishery in 

the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf 

of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific ocean perch by 

catcher processors participating in the 

rockfish limited access fishery in the 

Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary 

to prevent exceeding the 2007 total 

allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean 

perch allocated to catcher processors 

participating in the rockfish limited 

access fishery in the Central Regulatory 

Area of the GOA. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), September 8, 2007, through 

2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2007. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES