64208 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Notices

Standards and Technology, Industrial

Partnerships Program, Building 820,

Room 213, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ernest Graf, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, Industrial

Partnerships Program, Building 820,

Room 213, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

prospective co-exclusive and exclusive

licenses will be royalty-bearing and will

comply with the terms and conditions

of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The

prospective co-exclusive and exclusive

licenses may be granted unless, within

sixty days from the date of this

published Notice, NIST receives written

evidence and argument which establish

that the grant of the licenses would not

be consistent with the requirements of

35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

(1) US Patent No. 5,634,718 describes

the use of a normal metal absorber in a

microcalorimeter, which gives

significant advantages in increased

detector speed and uniformity. Claims

in the patent include use of a normal

metal absorber in measuring energy

events with particles or photons other

than x-rays, construction using a

thermally insulating membrane, normal

metal superconductor (NS) contacts for

thermal isolation, normal metal

insulator superconductor (NIS) tunnel

junctions, superconducting quantum

interference device (SQUID) readout,

ridge structures for fast heat diffusion,

multiple temperature sensors for

position readout and greater uniformity,

and electronic heat pulses for

calibration.

(2) US Patent Application 08/702,133

describes a reliable and manufacturable

method of producing a superconducting

film with a transition temperature that

is tunable and in the range of interest

(from approximately 50 to 300 mK). The

superconducting components to the

bilayers are Al and Ti. Al-based bilayers

are readily manufacturable, produce

reproducible transition temperatures,

and can be readily incorporated with

microfabrication technology.

(3) U.S. Patent Application No. 08/

811,939 describes the combined use of

polycapillary optics with

microcalorimeter detectors. The

invention enables present-day

microcalorimeter spectrometers with

areas under 0.1 mm2 to have collection

solid angles that are large enough for

many practical applications. Although

the construction of larger area detectors

without capillary optics may be possible

in the future, the use of x-ray optics has

fundamental advantages because they

enable the use of small detectors, which

consequently have faster count rates and

higher resolution.

(4) U.S. Patent Application No. 08/

900,982 describes a practical

implementation of dual Kevlar TM string

mechanical supports that are needed in

a two pill refrigerator. The invention

makes the supports easier to

manufacture, assemble, and maintain in

the field.

NIST may enter into a Cooperative

Research and Development Agreement

(‘‘CRADA’’) to perform further research

on the inventions for purposes of

commercialization. NIST anticipates

that such a CRADA will be conducted

on a cost recovery basis. NIST may grant

the licensee an option to negotiate for

royalty-free exclusive licenses to any

jointly owned inventions which arise

from the CRADA as well as an option to

negotiate for exclusive royalty-bearing

licenses for NIST employee inventions

which arise from the CRADA.

Copies of the patent and patent

applications may be obtained from NIST

at the foregoing address.

Dated: November 25, 1997.

Elaine Bunten-Mines,

Director, Program Office.

[FR Doc. 97–31781 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Notice of Availability of Draft Proposed

Comprehensive, Long Range

Preservation Plan for the MONITOR

National Marine Sanctuary

AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves

Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and

Coastal Resource Management (OCRM),

National Ocean Service (NOS), National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), Department of

Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In section 4 of Public Law

104–238 (The National Marine

Sanctuaries Preservation Act (Act);

October 11, 1996), Congress directed the

Secretary of Commerce to prepare a

long-range, comprehensive plan for the

management stabilization, preservation,

and recovery of artifacts and materials

of the USS MONITOR. NOAA, on behalf

of the Secretary of Commerce,

developed a draft plan, entitled

‘‘Charting a New Course for the

MONITOR: Comprehensive, Long Range

Preservation Plan with Options for

Management, Stabilization,

Preservation, Recovery, Conservation

and Exhibition of Materials and

Artifacts from the MONITOR National

Marine Sanctuary.’’ The draft plan

presents a range of options including a

comprehensive management strategy

that should ensure that, insofar as

possible, the MONITOR will be

preserved and protected for future

generations. The draft plan recommends

the application of state-of-the-art

technology in overcoming the present

rapid deterioration of the MONITOR

through the combined strategies of

stabilization and selective recovery.

DATES: Comments on the draft plan are

invited and will be considered if

submitted in writing by February 2,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft plan may

be obtained from Dana Hill, MONITOR

National Marine Sanctuary, The

Mariners Museum, 100 Museum Drive,

Newport News, VA 23606, tel. (757)

599–3122.

The draft plan is also published on

the World Wide Web at http://www/

nos.gov/nmsp/monitor/

Comments should be submitted to

John Broadwater, Manager, MONITOR

National Marine Sanctuary, The

Mariners Museum, 100 Museum Drive,

Newport News, VA 23606.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana Hill at (757) 599–3122.

SUPPLEMENTRY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The USS MONITOR was a radical

departure from traditional warship

design. The vessel was built almost

entirely of iron; it was fully steam

powered with no masts or sails; the

engineering spaces, crews and officers

quarters, and galley were all below the

waterline; the hull was completely

armored with a 5-foot-high, 32-inchthick armor belt encircling the vessel for

protection during battle. The most novel

feature was the MONITOR’s 22-footdiameter, 9-foot-high iron turret.

Positioned amidships, the armored

turret could be rotated to train its two

11-inch Dahlgren smoothbore cannon in

any direction.

The MONITOR was launched at

Greenpoint, New York, on January 30,

1862. In early March, the MONITOR

was ordered to Hampton Roads,

Virginia, where on March 9 it engaged

the CSS VIRGINIA, a Confederate

ironclad constructed over the modified

hull of the scuttled USS MERRIMACK.

In the ensuing four-hour battle, the two

vessels frequently bombarded each

other at point-blank range with no

substantial damage to either vessel.

Although the battle ended in a draw, the

MONITOR’s performance impressed the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Notices 64209

U.S. Navy and introduced features

including full iron armor, low freeboard

and revolving turret that altered naval

technology forever.

Shortly after midnight on December

31, 1862, while under tow by the USS

RHODE ISLAND to Beaufort, North

Carolina, the MONITOR sank in a storm

off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, with

a loss of sixteen officers and crewmen.

In 1973 the wreck of the USS

MONITOR was located by an

interdisciplinary scientific team

operating from the Duke University

Research Vessel EASTWARD. A second

expedition in April 1974, partly

sponsored by the U.S. Navy and the

National Geographic Society, provided

detailed photographic documentation

from which an assessment of the wreck

was made. A photomosaic produced by

the Naval Intelligence Division revealed

that, with the exception of damage to

the stern section and the collapse of the

lower hull forward of the midships

bulkhead, the wreck was in relatively

good condition.

In recognition of the MONITOR’s

significance in American history and its

profound impact on naval technology,

the MONITOR was designated by the

Secretary of Commerce as the first

National Marine Sanctuary on January

30, 1975, pursuant to Title III of the

Marine Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (renamed the

National Marine Sanctuaries Act or

NMSA), 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.

Regulations implementing the

designation are found at 15 CFR part

922, subpart F. NOAA is responsible for

the management of the Sanctuary. The

Sanctuary encompasses a vertical

column of water one nautical mile in

diameter 16 miles off the coast of Cape

Hatteras, North Carolina. The wreck of

the MONITOR lies upside down in 230

feet of water, with the stern resting on

the displaced turret, which is also

upside down. Since 1977 NOAA has

conducted numerous expeditions to the

MONITOR designed to generate

information on the condition of the

wreck.

Since 1991, a dramatic increase in the

deterioration of the MONITOR’s hull

has been documented, leading NOAA to

conclude that the collapse of the

MONITOR’s hull is imminent. In 1992,

responding to the alarming degradation

of the MONITOR’s hull, NOAA

commenced a broad range of initiatives

including several expeditions to the

Sanctuary, a cooperative effort with the

U.S. Navy to help stabilize the

MONITOR’s hull, and development of a

comprehensive plan for management of

the Sanctuary and possible recovery of

portions of the MONITOR. Because of

the importance of these efforts and the

limitations on funding, NOAA

developed partnerships with several

organizations, including the U.S. Navy,

the National Undersea Research

Program, The Mariners Museum, private

dive groups and organizations, and

others.

In 1993 and 1995, NOAA conducted

major engineering and archaeological

surveys at the Sanctuary in conjunction

with further archival research and

several small-scale site operations.

Private research divers also assisted

NOAA during this period in the

recovery of additional data on the

MONITOR’s condition. This research

concluded that a concerted, wellplanned effort would be required to

preserve the remains of the MONITOR.

Planning efforts were initiated for the

conduct of additional archival,

engineering and on-site research aimed

at identifying viable options for the

preservation of the MONITOR. NOAA

also communicated the situation to

Congress and the public.

In 1996, Congress directed the

Secretary of Commerce to prepare a

long-range, comprehensive plan for the

management, stabilization, preservation,

and recovery of artifacts and materials

of the USS MONITOR. Section 4 of

Public Law 104–238 (The National

Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act

(Act); October 11, 1996. The Secretary

was also directed, to the extent feasible,

to utilize the resources of other Federal

and private entities with expertise and

capabilities that are helpful. NOAA, on

behalf of the Secretary of Commerce,

developed a draft plan, entitled

‘‘Charting a New Course for the

MONITOR: Comprehensive, Long Range

Preservation Plan with Options for

Management, Stabilization,

Preservation, Recovery, Conservation

and Exhibition of Materials and

Artifacts from the MONITOR National

Marine Sanctuary.’’ The draft plan

presents a range of options including a

comprehensive management strategy

that should ensure that, insofar as

possible, the MONITOR will be

preserved and protected for future

generations. The draft plan recommends

the application of state-of-the-art

technology in overcoming the crisis at

the Sanctuary through the combined

strategies of stabilization and selective

recovery.

II. Summary of the Draft Plan

The draft plan includes a wide range

of options for comprehensive

preservation and management of the

MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary.

In developing these options, NOAA

reviewed all previous reports and

proposals for on-site activities,

including papers presented at a

MONITOR conference in Raleigh, North

Carolina, previous engineering and

corrosion reports and the Draft Revised

Management Plan for the MONITOR

National Marine Sanctuary (NOAA

1982), all of which addressed

preliminary recommendations. NOAA

sought and received assistance from the

U.S. Navy, Oceaneering International,

Inc., The Mariners Museum, and others.

In addition, NOAA held informal

discussions with numerous engineers,

archaeologists, and other specialists in

order to identify new technology that

might be applicable for the MONITOR

situation. The draft plan presents all

options for stabilizing and/or preserving

the MONITOR that were identified by

NOAA as viable. The plan contains

sufficient information to permit the

formulation of a comprehensive phased

approach to the problem. Once an

option (or combination of options) has

been selected, it will be necessary to

seek expert assistance from appropriate

disciplines (ocean engineers, nautical

archaeologists, artifact conservators,

etc.) to assist with the development of

a detailed implementation plan.

The draft plan presents several

options along with pertinent

information on advantages,

disadvantages, required action and

estimated costs. Advantages and

disadvantages address potential impacts

on the MONITOR and its contents.

Options are discussed and compared,

and recommendations are presented.

Since the MONITOR is listed on the

National Register of Historic Places, and

in addition, is a National Historic

Landmark, any plan proposing on-site

activities that could disturb the site in

any way must be reviewed by state and

Federal officials, in compliance with

section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act, and other pertinent

laws.

In establishing an archaeology plan,

consideration must be given to the fact

that the MONITOR’s hull and contents

are threatened with damage or loss due

to the rapid deterioration of the hull and

loss of structural integrity. NOAA

considers the MONITOR to be a

threatened site and, therefore, will

develop the archaeology plan

accordingly. Federal law includes

special provisions for threatened sites,

with consideration being given to the

relative impact to a threatened resource

if left undisturbed versus taking positive

action to preserve the resource. In the

MONITOR’s case, an effective argument

can be made that if positive steps are

not taken to stabilize the hull and/or

recover some of the material, the entire
64210 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Notices

site could be irreparably damaged by

continued deterioration in as little as

one to five years. The draft plan is in

keeping with the National Marine

Sanctuaries Program’s Strategic Plan for

the 21st Century. The Program’s primary

goal is to protect sanctuary resources,

making our sanctuaries world-class

models for effective, innovative

management of protected areas

(Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

1997).

III. Summary of Options

The options in the draft plan are

summarized as follows:

A. Non-intervention. With this option,

NOAA would continue to manage the

Sanctuary in accordance with the

current policy but would take no action

to prevent continuing deterioration.

This option would allow nature to take

its course, likely resulting in the

ultimate collapse of the MONITOR’s

hull.

B. In Situ Preservation by

Encapsulation. With this option, the

MONITOR would be entombed in some

acceptable manner (i.e. covering with

sand, grass mats, etc.). Possible impacts

on the MONITOR and its environment

might include additional damage to the

wreck due to the weight of the covering

material and the loss of access to the

wreck.

C. In Situ Preservation by Shoring.

This option would be accomplished

through the use of approved methods

and materials, such as sand bags, grout

bags, or jacks, to support portions of the

hull that are suspended above the

bottom by the position of the turret.

Impact to the MONITOR and its

environment would be negligible and

some portions of the wreck would be

given improved support.

D. In Situ Preservation by Cathodic

Protection. This option would involve

the installation of a passive (sacrificial

anode) or active (impressed current)

cathodic protection system to reduce the

corrosive action from the marine

environment. Impact to the MONITOR

and its environment is uncertain, and

would not prevent inevitable collapse.

E. Selective Recovery. This option

includes a selective approach to

recovering hull components and

artifacts that are of significant historic

value. Objects being considered for

selective recovery include the propeller,

turret, cannons, engine and small

artifacts. Possible impact to the

MONITOR and its environment might

include unavoidable damage to other

portions of the wreck and contents

during recovery operations.

F. Full Recovery. In this option, the

entire hull, turret, cannons and all

contents would be recovered,

conserved, and, eventually displayed.

This could include recovery of the

entire hull as a single unit or a series of

smaller recoveries. Possible impact to

the MONITOR might include damage

during recovery of portions of the hull

and contents; however, if raised, the

MONITOR could be conserved and

reconstructed for display.

G. Selective Recovery Followed by

Encapsulation. This option combines

selective recovery with in situ

preservation by encapsulation.

Following recovery of all selected hull

components and artifacts, the site would

be encapsulated for protection of the

remaining cultural material. Possible

impact to the MONITOR might include

unavoidable damage to other portions of

the wreck and contents during recovery

operations and additional damage to the

wreck due to the weight of the covering

material and the loss of access to the

wreck.

H. Selective Recovery Combined with

Shoring. This option combines selective

recovery with in situ preservation by

shoring of the remaining material,

which would provide improved

support. Possible impact to the

MONITOR and its environment might

include unavoidable damage to other

portions of the wreck and contents

during recovery operations.

I. Expanded Enforcement of

Sanctuary Regulations. This option

addresses evidence of increased illegal

encroachment on the Sanctuary by

increasing enforcement activities at the

site to prevent further damage from

illegal activities. Unless combined with

one or more of the other options, the

only impact might be a reduction of

damage from human causes.

Because of the MONITOR’s

significance in American history and its

status as a National Historic Landmark,

NOAA is making this draft plan

available to the public and invites

comments and other pertinent

information.

Dated: November 28, 1997.

Captain Evelyn J. Fields,

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for

Ocean Services and Coastal Zone

Management.

[FR Doc. 97–31748 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Assessment Governing

Board; Meeting

AGENCY: National Assessment

Governing Board; Education.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the

schedule and proposed agenda of a

forthcoming meeting of the National

Assessment Governing Board’s Special

Committee to Review the Voluntary

National Tests Development Contract.

This notice also describes the functions

of the Board. Notice of this meeting is

required under Section 10(a)(2) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Date: December 16, 1997.

Time: 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Location: St. Louis Airport Marriott;

I–70 at Lambert International Airport;

St. Louis, Missouri, 63134.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Ann Wilmer, Operations Officer,

National Assessment Governing Board,

Suite 825, 800 North Capitol Street, NW,

Washington, DC, 20002–4233,

Telephone: (202) 357–6938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

National Assessment Governing Board

is established under section 412 of the

National Education Statistics Act of

1994 (Title IV of the Improving

Americas Schools Act of 1994) (Pub. L.

103–382).

The Board is established to formulate

policy guidelines for the National

Assessment of Educational Progress.

The Board is responsible for selecting

subject areas to be assessed, developing

assessment objectives, identifying

appropriate achievement goals for each

grade and subject tested, and

establishing standards and procedures

for interstate and national comparisons.

Under Public Law 105–78, the National

Assessment Governing Board is granted

exclusive authority over developing

Voluntary National Tests pursuant to

contract number RJ97153001 and is

required to review within 90 days (i.e.,

by February 11, 1998) and modify the

contract to the extent the Board

determines necessary; if the contract

cannot be modified to the extent the

Board determines necessary, the

contract shall be terminated, and a new

contract negotiated.

On December 16, 1997 the National

Assessment Governing Board’s Special

Committee to Review the Voluntary

National Tests Development Contract

will hold a closed meeting. The purpose

of the meeting is for the NAGB Special

Committee to review the Test

Development Contract, to formulate its

recommendations to the NAGB for

modification or termination and

recompetition of the Development

Contract for the Voluntary National

Tests. This information relates to the

source selection criteria by which

government contracts may be modified