44950 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Notices

computer systems. All sessions will be

open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

September 16, 17, and 18, 1997, from

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place

at the National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Gaithersburg,

Maryland in the Administration

Building, in Lecture Room A on

September 16 and 17 and in Lecture

Room B on September 18.

Agenda

—Welcome and Overview

—Issues Update and Briefings

—Federal Security Impacts—Pending

Legislation

—Update on Computer Security Act of

1987 Revision

—Federal Computer Incident Response

Capability (FedCIRC) Update

—CIO Council Briefings

—Discussion

—Pending Business

—Public Participation

—Agenda Development for December

Meeting and Planning for 1998

—Wrap-Up

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The Board agenda

will include a period of time, not to

exceed thirty minutes, for oral

comments and questions from the

public. Each speaker will be limited to

five minutes. Members of the public

who are interested in speaking are asked

to contact the Board Secretariat at the

telephone number indicated below. In

addition, written statements are invited

and may be submitted to the Board at

any time. Written statements should be

directed to the Information Technology

Laboratory, Building 820, Room 426,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–

0001. It would be appreciated if fifteen

copies of written material were

submitted for distribution to the Board

by September 9. Approximately 20 seats

will be available for the public and

media.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Edward Roback, Board Secretariat,

Information Technology Laboratory,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Building 820, Room 426,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899–0001,

telephone: (301) 975–3696.

Dated: August 19, 1997.

Elaine Bunten-Mines,

Director, Program Office.

[FR Doc. 97–22483 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

August 1993 Tampa Bay Oil Spill:

Notice of Availability of a Final Damage

Assessment and Restoration Plan and

the Environmental Assessment of That

Plan

AGENCIES: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce, United States Department of

the Interior (DOI), and Department of

Environmental Protection, State of

Florida (Florida DEP).

ACTION: Notice of availability of a final

damage assessment and restoration plan

and of an environmental assessment of

that plan.

SUMMARY: Notice is given that the

document entitled Final Damage

Assessment and Restoration Plan for the

1993 Tampa Bay Oil Spill, Volume I—

Ecological Injuries (Final DARP,

Volume I) has been approved by the

NOAA, DOI, and Florida DEP and is

available to the public. This document

is the first part of the damage

assessment and restoration plan to be

completed by the State and Federal

natural resource trustees to assess

natural resource damages for the injury,

loss, destruction and lost use of natural

resources which resulted from the

August 1993 oil spill in Tampa Bay,

Florida. The Final DARP, Volume I,

identifies the methods that will be used

to restore and compensate for natural

resources injuries and losses of an

ecological nature.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the

Final DARP, Volume I, should be sent

to Jim Jeansonne of NOAA Damage

Assessment Center, 9721 Executive

Center Drive N., Suite 134, St.

Petersburg, FL 33702, or Jane UrquhartDonnelly of the Florida DEP, Bureau of

Emergency Response, 8407 Laurel Fair

Circle, Rm. 214, Tampa, FL 33610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Jeansonne of the NOAA Damage

Assessment Center, (813) 570–5391 or

Jane Urquhart-Donnelly of the Florida

DEP, (813) 744–6462.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

10, 1993, at approximately 5:45 a.m., the

tank barge ‘‘OCEAN 255’’ and the tank

barge ‘‘B–155’’ collided with the

freighter ‘‘BALSA 37’’ just south of

Mullet Key in lower Tampa Bay,

Florida. The collision resulted in

damage to the vessels and the discharge

of approximately 32,000 gallons of Jet A

fuel, diesel, and gasoline, and 330,000

gallons of #6 fuel oil, into Tampa Bay.

A number of different natural resources

were eventually exposed to oil as a

result of these discharges, including

mangroves, seagrasses, salt marshes,

birds, sea turtles, shellfish beds, bottom

sediments, sandy shorelines and the

estuarine water column, with a variety

of direct injuries and lost uses of natural

resources documented to have resulted

from such exposure.

The incident is subject to the

authority of the Oil Pollution Act of

1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701–2761 (OPA), the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33

U.S.C. 1321 et seq. (FWPCA) and the

Florida Pollutant Discharge and Control

Act, Fla. Stat. 376.121. NOAA, DOI, and

Florida DEP are trustees for natural

resources pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601

et seq., OPA, the FWPCA, subpart G of

the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,

40 CFR 300.600–300.615, and, in the

case of the Florida DEP, the Florida

Pollutant Discharge and Control Act, Fla

Stat. 376.121 (1994), and in the case of

the Federal trustees, Executive Order

12777.

The Final DARP, Volume I, is the

assessment and restoration plan

developed by the trustees to address the

direct injuries to natural resources and

the interim losses of ecological resource

services caused by the spill. This final

document also includes the Federal

trustees’ Environmental Assessment

(EA) of the restoration plan pursuant to

the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). The EA, which is fully

integrated into the Final DARP, Volume

I, represents the Federal trustees’

evaluation of the likely impacts of

alternatives proposed for resource

recovery and compensation on the

human environment. The EA was

considered by the federal trustees in

making determinations required by

NEPA and decisions on the restoration

plan for ecological injuries.

In developing the assessment and

restoration plan for ecological injuries,

the trustees prepared and publicly

released a proposed plan, the Draft

DARP, Volume I, dated December 1995

(Draft DARP). Notices published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1996

(61 Fed. Reg. 1357) and in the St.

Petersburg Times, a newspaper of

general circulation among communities

in the Tampa Bay area, on January 7,

1996 announced the availability of the

Draft DARP and a 45 day period for

public comment on the proposed plan.

Copies of the Draft DARP were also

available for public review at the St.

Petersburg Public Library, Main Library

Reference Dept., in St. Petersburg, FL,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Notices 44951

during the public review period. The

period for public review of the

document ended on March 4, 1996.

Comments and Responses

The trustees received two letters

commenting on the Draft DARP. Both

letters presented comments on the

assessment and restoration plan

proposed for bird injuries at Section 4.4

of the Draft DARP. The comments

presented in these letters were

considered by the trustees in making

decisions on the final plan. Principal

comments and responses are

summarized in Section 7.0 of the Final

DARP, Volume I. The comments

received and the trustees responses

thereto are also discussed in this notice.

Procedure To Assess Bird Injuries

Comment: One commenter criticized

the procedure proposed to assess

injuries to birds (number of oiled/

injured birds treated at rehabilitation

centers times correction factor of two)

on several grounds. The commenter

considered rehabilitation center records

inadequate alone to assess the bird

injuries. To properly account for all bird

losses, the commenter felt a

determination of carcass stranding and

recovery rates based upon systematic

surveys would be required. The

commenter questioned the Draft DARP’s

view that the recovery rate for oiled

birds was likely high for the Tampa Bay

spill, particularly for brown pelicans.

Further, the correction factor approach

was characterized as unscientific and its

use in the DARP was questioned where,

in the commenter’s view, more reliable

methods were available at reasonable

cost.

Response: The trustees realize that

more birds were likely affected by the

spill than were documented or

accounted for in the rehabilitation

center records. Sublethal effects to

individual birds exposed to oil do occur

and some birds may fail to rejoin wild

populations and breed after release. The

inability of assessment activities to

comprehensively account for all birds

injuries following an oil spill is a

common problem, particularly where

seabirds are affected. The correction

factor approach addresses these

uncertainties and is based, in part, on

experience gained in the Exxon Valdez

oil spill. It also reflects circumstances or

facts associated with the Tampa Bay

spill which indicate the effects of this

spill on birds, including brown

pelicans, may have been more limited

than in other oil spill situations. The

intense response efforts, the density and

use patterns of humans in the impact

areas, the bird species involved, and

timing of the spill relative to the nesting

and fledging of young are among the

factors which increased the likelihood

that oiled birds would be detected, with

subsequent documentation of their

species and condition and opportunity

for their rehabilitation. For the Tampa

Bay oil spill, the trustees consider the

correction factor approach to represent

a reasonable and valid adjustment to

account for oiled birds that would not

have been detected.

The trustees are aware that there are

other ways to approach an assessment of

bird injuries, and that other procedures

can provide information for use in such

an assessment, including models or

systematic surveys. The trustees

considered some of these other options

early in the assessment process,

however, given the particular

circumstances of this spill and facts

suggesting that its impact on birds was

relatively small vis-a-vis local

populations, the simplified procedure is

preferable to more complex and costly

procedures.

Comment: The same commenter

noted that the Draft DARP did not

specifically address the survival rates of

oiled birds following rehabilitation.

Response: This was an oversight by

the trustees and has been corrected in

the Final DARP by including return

rates and other information on injured

brown pelicans which were banded and

released following their rehabilitation.

Restoration Plan for Birds

Comment: The same commenter

challenged the proposed selection of the

‘no action’ alternative to achieve

primary restoration of bird injuries. The

commenter noted alternatives were

available to the trustees which could

positively affect or benefit the recovery

of affected bird populations. The

commenter also questioned whether the

restoration planned for mangroves and

beaches, as presented in the Draft

DARP, would really assist with natural

recovery from direct injuries to birds.

Response: These comments were

appropriate. Upon further review of the

Draft DARP, the trustees realized that

the restoration plan for birds did not

make the appropriate distinction

between restoration actions to address

primary injuries versus restoration

actions to compensate for interim losses.

This problem was reflected throughout

Section 4.4.6 in the Draft DARP,

including in the statement of restoration

objectives, the presentation of

restoration alternatives and the

identification of preferred actions in the

restoration plan for birds. In the Final

DARP, Volume I, the restoration plan for

birds at Section 4.4.6 has been revised

and reorganized to correctly present and

consider primary restoration actions

rather than compensatory alternatives in

addressing the direct injuries to birds.

As a result, primary restoration actions

now consist of alternatives that can

achieve direct restoration of birds.

Restoration of birds to the environment

is to be accomplished by actions which

will either increase the number of birds

in the Tampa Bay area, or decrease the

number of injuries to birds that might

remove them from the environment.

In the Final DARP, the ‘‘no action’’

alternative is selected for compensatory

restoration because the interim losses

associated with bird injuries are

considered to be of short duration and

adequately addressed in the Final DARP

by restoration actions selected to

address injuries to mangroves, salt

marshes, oyster reefs and seagrasses.

The changes to Section 4.4.6 are

consistent with the injury and damage

assessment for birds. Appendix F to the

Final DARP contains a more detailed

description of the revisions made to

Section 4.4.6.

Comment: The same commenter felt it

inappropriate to include the operation

of wildlife rehabilitation centers as a

possible restoration action for birds, for

several reasons. The commenter noted

rehabilitated birds, particularly those

rehabilitated following oiling, are not

‘‘healthy’’ birds and are not

replacements for healthy birds injured

due to an oil spill. He questioned the

degree to which funding of

rehabilitation actions would directly

benefit the recovery of bird populations

in the future, including during future

spills, and the ability of the trustees to

scale or determine those benefits in

defining restoration actions. The

commenter believes these actions are

more appropriate for consideration in

the context of oil spill response

preparation and planning, rather than as

restoration actions for birds.

Response: The trustees are aware that

rehabilitation of injured birds, either

after being oiled by a spill or from injury

due to other causes, does not always

restore a bird to a fully functional

condition. However, when properly

permitted and operated, bird

rehabilitation centers are currently

considered by both federal and Florida

natural resource management agencies

to be reasonably effective in returning

birds to a condition where they are fit

to survive in the wild. The trustees are

using the estimated costs of

rehabilitating 732 birds for release into

the wild to replace the same number of

birds injured by this spill.

Comment: This commenter addressed

specific restoration alternatives
44952 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Notices

considered in the Draft DARP. He

observed that endangered bird species

recovery projects have the potential to

benefit bird populations. He noted that

predator control actions can be an

effective tool in bird management

programs. He also felt the Draft DARP’s

characterization of captive breeding

programs as costly, ineffective, and of

questionable success was overbroad and

should be clarified as related to this

spill situation.

Response: The trustees agree that

endangered bird species recovery

projects have the potential to benefit

bird populations. However, this spill

had no apparent direct or indirect effect

on any endangered bird species in the

Tampa Bay area. This alternative was

eliminated from further consideration

on that basis. With respect to predator

control, the trustees are aware that some

predator control is practiced in the

Tampa Bay area but there are complex

issues involved in the control of one

species for the benefit of another. Such

actions risk changes to ecological

dynamics in target areas and can lead to

unforseen ecosystem disruptions.

Further, in this instance, it is not clear

to the trustees that such actions would,

in fact, enhance long-term recruitment

of relevant bird populations. The

trustees are also concerned about the

cost of implementing such actions. In

the Final DARP, this option is not

selected. Finally, the trustees’ views on

captive breeding programs have been

clarified in the Final DARP.

Comment: The second commenter

expressed strong support for training of

rehabilitation facility personnel and

volunteers in oiled wildlife management

as a restoration option for birds. The

commenter advocated training of Tampa

and Boca Ciega Bay wildlife

rehabilitators and their volunteers in the

proper operation of an emergency

facility and in the latest techniques in

rehabilitating oiled wildlife of various

species, noting that such actions would

provide a larger pool of state permitted

rehabilitators trained to implement

emergency oil spill response operations.

Response: The trustees agree that

training of rehabilitation facility

personnel and volunteers, such as the

commenter described, can enhance bird

rescue and rehabilitation capabilities in

the community and prevent bird

mortalities in the future. Accordingly,

training activities of this nature are

within the scope of restoration actions

that may be implemented in accordance

with the Final DARP, Volume I, to

restore or facilitate the recovery of birds

injured by the spill. Selected restoration

options, identified at Section 4.4.6.A,

include using funds recovered to

augment the operations of existing bird

rehabilitation organizations and

network in the Tampa Bay area

(Alternative 5), to ensure existing bird

and wildlife rescue equipment is

maintained (Alternative 6), to acquire

equipment for small spill response

support (Alternative 7), and/or to

support removal of monofilament

fishing line from bird habitats in Boca

Ciega Bay (Alternative 8). In

implementing the restoration plan for

birds, final funding decisions will be

based primarily on the relative ability of

candidate projects to meet the primary

restoration objective identified for birds

and the funds available to implement

restoration actions for birds.

Comment: The second commenter

also requested that the National

Audubon Society of Tampa be eligible

for funding to continue collecting

baseline data on bird species

distribution in the area noting that this

data could be used to calculate future

damages.

Response: As outlined in the Final

DARP, Volume I, the restoration plan to

be implemented for birds will apply

recovered funds to augment existing

bird rescue or rehabilitation capabilities

and/or support removal of fishing line

from bird habitats in the area impacted

by the spill. These activities address the

injuries to birds caused by the spill by

ensuring that, in the future, more birds

will be restored to the environment and/

or fewer birds will be lost by reducing

a source of bird mortalities. While the

trustees’ recognize the importance of

baseline data on bird populations, the

restoration plan is focused on actions to

restore or replace injured birds.

Dated: August 15, 1997.

Nancy Foster,

Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services

and Coastal Zone Management, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–22335; Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–ES–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Technology Administration

Technology Administration

Performance Review Board

Membership, September 1997

The Technology Administration

Performance Review Board reviews

performance appraisals, agreements,

and recommended actions pertaining to

employees in the Senior Executive

Service and reviews performancerelated pay increases for ST–3104

employees. The Board makes

recommendations to the appropriate

Appointing Authority concerning such

matters so as to ensure the fair and

equitable treatment of these individuals.

The following is the full membership

of the Board:

Kelly H. Carnes (NC), Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Technology Policy,

Technology Administration,

Washington, DC 20230, Appointment

Expires: 12/31/98

Karl E. Bell (C), Deputy Director of

Administration, Office of the Director

of Administration, National Institute

of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899,

Appointment Expires: 12/31/99

Elaine Bunten-Mines (C), Director,

Program Office, Office of the Director,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899,

Appointment Expires: 12/31/99

Andrew J. Fowell (C), Associate Director

for Construction and Building,

Building and Fire Research

Laboratory, National Institute of

Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899,

Appointment Expires: 12/31/97

Rosalie T. Ruegg (C), Director, Economic

Assessment Office, Advanced

Technology Program, National

Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899,

Appointment Expires: 12/31/99

Stephen W. Freiman (C), Chief,

Ceramics Division, Materials Science

and Engineering Laboratory, National

Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899,

Appointment Expires: 12/31/99

Kent Hughes, Associate Deputy

Secretary of Commerce, U.S.

Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC 20230, Appointment

Expires: 12/31/99

Richard F. Kayser, (C), Chief, Physical

and Chemical Properties Division,

Chemical Science and Technology

Laboratory, National Institute of

Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899,

Appointment Expires: 12/31/98

Ronald E. Lawson (C), Associate

Director for Financial and

Administrative Management, National

Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161, Appointment

Expires: 12/31/99

Robert I. Scace, Chair (C), Director,

Office of Microelectronics Programs,

Electronics and Electrical Engineering

Laboratory, National Institute of

Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899,

Appointment Expires: 12/31/97

Donald B. Sullivan (C), Chief, Time and

Frequency Division, Physics

Laboratory, National Institute of