3706 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the 

regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 

400). It was formally filed on January 

13, 2010. 

The Yankee Candle facilities (1,516 

employees, 20,000,000 kg annual candle 

capacity, 3,200,000 unit annual gift set 

capacity) consist of four sites on 95 

acres: Site 1 (44 acres) manufacturing 

and kitting facility located at 102 

Christian Lane, Whately; Site 2 (31 

acres) distribution facility located at 27 

Yankee Candle Way, South Deerfield; 

Site 3 (10.5 acres) distribution and 

kitting facility located at 1 Plain Road, 

South Deerfield; and Site 4 (9.6 acres) 

warehousing facility located at 14 

Industrial Drive West, South Deerfield. 

The facilities are used for the 

manufacturing and kitting of candles 

and gift sets. Components and materials 

sourced from abroad (representing 3– 

5% of the value of the finished candles 

and 25–30% of the value of the finished 

gift sets) include: metal lids, glass 

candle toppers and tart warmers (duty 

rate ranges from 2.6 to 30%). 

FTZ procedures could exempt Yankee 

Candle from customs duty payments on 

the foreign components used in export 

production. The company anticipates 

that some 10 percent of the plant’s 

shipments will be exported. On its 

domestic sales, Yankee Candle would be 

able to choose the duty rates during 

customs entry procedures that apply to 

the finished candles (duty-free) and gift 

sets (duty rate ranges from 6 to 7.2%) for 

the foreign inputs noted above. FTZ 

designation would further allow Yankee 

Candle to realize logistical benefits 

through the use of weekly customs entry 

procedures. Customs duties also could 

possibly be deferred or reduced on 

foreign status production equipment. 

The request indicates that the savings 

from FTZ procedures would help 

improve the plant’s international 

competitiveness. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the 

FTZ Staff is designated examiner to 

evaluate and analyze the facts and 

information presented in the application 

and case record and to report findings 

and recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is March 23, 2010. Rebuttal 

comments in response to material 

submitted during the foregoing period 

may be submitted during the subsequent 

15-day period to April 7, 2010. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading 

Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, 

which is accessible via http:// 

www.trade.gov/ftz. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Whiteman at 

Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202) 

482–0473. 

Dated: January 13, 2010. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1244 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XT64 

Intent to Prepare a Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement on 

the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee 

Council’s Restoration Efforts 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NOAA, as a member of the 

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 

(Council), announces the intent of the 

Council to prepare a supplement to the 

existing environmental impact 

statement (EIS) on the Council’s 

restoration efforts, in accordance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969, (NEPA). This supplemental EIS 

(SEIS) is necessary to respond to 

significant new circumstances bearing 

on the Council’s restoration efforts as 

assessed in the original EIS. 

Specifically, as the restoration funds 

remaining from the Exxon Valdez 

settlement diminish, the Council seeks 

a more discrete and efficient funding 

mechanism by which to direct the 

remaining funds. The SEIS would assess 

the environmental impacts of the 

Council’s proposal to narrow and refine 

the scope of the Council’s restoration 

efforts to five defined restoration 

categories: herring; lingering oil; longterm monitoring of marine conditions; 

harbor protection and marine 

restoration; and habitat acquisition and 

protection. Cooperating agencies are the 

Alaska Departments of Law, 

Environmental Conservation, and Fish 

and Game, and the U.S. Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office 

of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. 

DATES: Written comments on the intent 

to prepare and the scope of a SEIS will 

be accepted on or before April 1, 2010. 

A draft SEIS will be released for public 

comment by spring 2010. Specific dates 

and times for future events will be 

publicized on the EVOSTC website, 

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us, when 

scheduled. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on 

suggested alternatives and potential 

impacts should be sent to Laurel 

Jennings, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

Trustee Council, 441 West 5th Avenue, 

Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501. 

Emailed comments will be received at 

dfg.evos.nepacomments@alaska.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Jennings (888.654.EVOS). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In 1992, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

Trustee Council was formed by six 

trustees, three State of Alaska trustees 

and three federal trustees, to oversee 

restoration of the natural resources and 

ecosystem damaged by the 1989 oil 

spill. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

Trustee Council was funded by 

settlement of civil claims brought 

against Exxon Companies by the State of 

Alaska and the United States. The 

Council initiated an extensive public 

process to begin the work of restoration 

using these joint trust funds and, in 

1994, adopted a Restoration Plan to 

guide restoration through research and 

monitoring, habitat protection and 

general restoration. The Restoration 

Plan also established a Restoration 

Reserve recognizing that recovery from 

the spill would not occur for decades. 

As part of this effort, the Council also 

adopted an official list of resources and 

services injured by the spill. When the 

1994 Plan was drafted, the distinction 

between the effects of the spill and 

those of other natural or human-caused 

stressors on injured resources or 

services was not clearly understood. 

Through the hundreds of studies 

conducted over the last twenty years, 

the Council has come to recognize that 

ecosystem restoration is not easily 

addressed. The interactions between a 

changing environment and the injured 

resources and services are only 

beginning to be understood, and, as time 

passes, the ability to distinguish the 

effects of the oil from other factors 

affecting fish and wildlife populations 

becomes more difficult. These 

complexities and the difficulties in 

measuring the continuing impacts from 

the spill result in some inherent 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices 3707 

uncertainty in defining the status of a 

resource or service through a specific 

list. 

The 1994 Plan also outlined an 

ecosystem approach to restoration, a 

more integrated view that has become 

increasingly recognized as essential. 

Even before the Plan was final, the 

Council began efforts to better 

understand the marine ecosystem. This 

approach has provided and continues to 

provide an abundance of information on 

fish, marine birds, and mammals. 

Meetings Times and Dates 

Preliminary public scoping meetings 

are scheduled as follows; updates or 

changes to the meeting times or dates, 

due to weather or other factors, can be 

found at http://www.evostc.state.ak.us: 

1. February 16, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 

8:00 p.m. at the Alaska Islands and 

Oceans Visitor Center, 95 Sterling 

Highway, Homer, AK 99603. 

2. February 17, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 

8:00 p.m. at Dena ́ina Civic & 

Convention Center, 600 West Seventh 

Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501. 

3. February 18, 2010 from 7:00 p.m. to 

9:00 p.m. at the Cordova Public Library, 

622 First Street, Cordova, AK 99574. 

4. March 16, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 

p.m. at the K.M. Rae Building, 125 

Third Avenue, Seward, AK 99664. 

5. March 17, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 

p.m. at the Valdez City Council 

Chambers, 206 Pioneer Drive, Valdez, 

AK 99686. 

6. March 18, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 

p.m. at the Kodiak Refuge Visitor 

Center, 402 Center Street, Kodiak AK 

99615. 

Proposed Action 

Of the approximately $780 million of 

joint trust funds initially funding the 

Council, over $180 million has been 

used for research, monitoring and 

general restoration and over $375 

million has funded habitat protection. 

Council annual program development, 

implementation and administration 

have cost over $45 million dollars. 

Approximately $76 million remains 

available for research, monitoring and 

general restoration and $24 million 

remains available for habitat acquisition 

and protection. Recognizing that 

funding for future restoration is limited 

and that it is becoming increasingly 

difficult to distinguish between spill 

impacts and other effects in measuring 

recovery, the Council is considering an 

organized and strategic transition to a 

modest program which would focus the 

remaining funds on a few specific 

programs and habitat protection. 

Long-term management of species and 

resources initially injured by the spill 

lies with the agencies and entities that 

have the mandate and resources to 

pursue these long-term goals. To 

support natural restoration and to 

enable management consistent with this 

long-term restoration, the Council has 

increasingly directed funds toward 

research that provides information that 

is critical to monitor and support the 

healthy functioning of the spill 

ecosystem. 

Building on its past efforts, the 

Council has identified five areas of 

focus for its remaining work: (1) herring; 

(2) lingering oil; (3) long-term 

monitoring of marine conditions; (4) 

harbor protection and marine 

restoration; and (5) habitat acquisition 

and protection. The following 

paragraphs elaborate on the details of 

each of these proposed areas of focus. 

1. Herring 

The Council has classified the Prince 

William Sound (PWS) population of 

Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) as a 

resource that has not recovered from the 

effects of the 1989 oil spill. The PWS 

herring population was increasing prior 

to 1989 with record harvests reported 

just before the spill. The 1989 year class 

was one of the smallest cohorts of 

spawning adults recorded and by 1993 

the fishery had collapsed with only 25% 

of the expected adults returning to 

spawn. The PWS fishery was closed 

from 1993 to 1996, but reopened in 1997 

and 1998, based on an increasing 

population. Numbers again declined in 

1999, and the fishery remains closed 

today. The 1993 collapse can be 

explained by several competing 

hypothesis; however, data uncertainty 

makes it unlikely that the reasons will 

be known. 

The Council recognizes the 

uncertainty with regard to the role of the 

1989 spill and the current depressed 

state of the PWS herring population. 

However, herring are considered a 

keystone species in the marine 

ecosystem and play a vital role in the 

food chain of many injured species. 

Thus, rebuilding the herring population 

has the potential to support the 

restoration of these injured species. In 

addition, supporting a healthy herring 

population may compensate for some of 

the losses in fishing opportunities that 

resulted from the spill and its damage 

to salmon and species other than 

herring. In April 2006, prompted by 

public comments about the continuing 

impacts to communities and 

commercial fishermen from herring 

losses, the Council convened scientists 

and researchers, commercial and 

subsistence fishermen, and natural 

resource managers for a herring 

workshop. One of the most important 

outcomes of the workshop was the 

consensus that a long-term strategic 

herring restoration program was needed 

if viable herring recovery activities were 

to be implemented. From 2006 to 2008, 

Council representatives met with 

natural resource managers, commercial 

fishers, scientists, the Public Advisory 

Committee (PAC) and Alaska Native 

residents of spill-area communities to 

gain sufficient input to draft a costefficient, scientifically credible, and 

coordinated program. This effort 

produced the first draft of the Integrated 

Herring Restoration Program (IHRP) in 

December 2008. 

The goal of the IHRP is to determine 

what, if anything, can be done to 

successfully restore PWS herring; to 

determine what steps can be taken to 

examine the reasons for the continued 

decline of herring in the Sound; to 

identify and evaluate potential recovery 

options; and to recommend a course of 

action for restoration. The document is 

currently being reviewed and updated 

with new information and will serve as 

a general road map for the Council’s 

herring-related funding decisions. The 

Council has proposed to fund $20 

million for research in this area over a 

twenty-year period. 

2. Lingering Oil 

One of the most surprising revelations 

from two decades of research and 

restoration efforts since the 1989 spill is 

the persistence of subsurface oil in a 

relatively un-weathered state. This oil, 

estimated to be around 97.2 metric tons 

(or 23,000 gallons), is contained in 

discontinuous patches across beaches 

that were initially impacted by the spill. 

The patches cannot be visually 

identified on the beach surface, but their 

presence may be a source for continued 

exposure to oil of sea otters and birds 

that seek food in sediments where the 

oil persists and remains a concern and 

a perception of contamination by 

subsistence users. The survey work 

completed to date indicates that the oil 

is decreasing at a rate of zero to four 

percent per year, with only a five 

percent chance that the rate is as high 

as four percent. As a result, it may 

persist for decades. 

Passive and subsistence uses were 

significantly impacted by the spill and 

this has affected the overall health of the 

communities in Prince William Sound. 

The lingering oil has also impacted the 

public’s perception of the spill area as 

the pristine environment that was 

present before the spill occurred. This 

perception has continued to preclude 

full recovery for some passive and 

subsistence uses. It may require 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
3708 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices 

additional resources to evaluate, 

monitor, and redress the impact of 

lingering oil on these uses in the spillarea. An important function of this 

information gathering would be to pass 

this information back to the 

communities and the general public. 

In an effort to address the issue of 

lingering oil, the governments 

developed a restoration plan under the 

terms of the Reopener provision in the 

Consent Decree with Exxon (http:// 

www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/ 

reopener.cfm). Efforts to date include 

the development of a spatial probability 

model to identify beach segments with 

a high likelihood of persistent oil, and 

investigations of the reasons for the 

persistence of oil as a means to consider 

options that may accelerate the oil 

degradation. Under the lingering oil 

initiative, the Council envisions 

completion of the studies underway to 

reach a decision point on further efforts 

for active remediation. Upon receiving 

additional lingering oil information 

from these current lingering oil studies 

and the resolution of the Reopener, the 

Council will evaluate the need for 

restoration of related services and thus 

no prospective funding amount has 

been proposed. 

3. Long-term Monitoring of Marine 

Conditions 

In the twenty years since the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill, it has become apparent 

that the ocean ecosystem can undergo 

profound changes and such changes 

likely preclude a return to pre-spill 

conditions. The 1994 Restoration Plan 

(Plan) recognized that recovery from the 

spill would likely take decades. A 

Restoration Reserve was created from 

the Plan in part to provide for long-term 

observation of injured resources and 

services and provide for appropriate 

restoration actions into the future. To 

further this effort, in 1999 the Council 

also supported the development of a 

long-term research and monitoring 

program. 

Long-term monitoring has two 

components: monitoring the recovery of 

resources from the initial injury and 

monitoring how factors other than oil 

may inhibit full recovery or adversely 

impact recovered resources. This second 

type of monitoring collects data on 

environmental factors that drive 

ecosystem-level changes. The 

information that is produced from such 

monitoring may be used to manage 

individual injured species and 

resources. However, such data is 

increasingly valuable in illuminating 

the larger ecosystem shifts that impact 

and influence a broad variety of species 

and resources injured by the spill. 

By monitoring these changes, agencies 

and interested parties may be able to 

adjust their own activities and 

management strategies to adapt to what 

may lie ahead and to further support 

injured resources in these quicklyshifting marine ecosystems. The Council 

has a history of supporting 

oceanographic monitoring by helping to 

establish and fund long-term data 

collections. In this initiative, the 

Council envisions seeking partnerships 

with scientific entities or consortiums 

able to maintain those collections and 

that can demonstrate an ability to 

leverage this support and develop 

science-based products to inform the 

public of changes in the environment 

and the impacts of these changes on 

injured resources and services. The 

Council proposes to fund this effort 

with approximately $25 million, to be 

spent over a twenty-year period. 

4. Harbor Protection and Marine 

Restoration 

a. Storm Water, Wastewater, and Harbor 

Projects 

Many coastal communities in the spill 

area have a limited ability to collect and 

properly dispose of waste, such as oily 

bilge water, used engine oil, paints, 

solvents, and lead-acid batteries. 

Improper disposal of these wastes in 

landfills adversely affects the quality of 

nearby marine waters through runoff 

and leaching. In some cases, these 

wastes are discharged directly into 

marine waters. Chronic marine 

pollution stresses fish and wildlife 

resources, possibly delaying recovery of 

resources injured by the oil spill. For 

example, with regard to the worldwide 

mortality of seabirds, the effects of 

chronic marine pollution are believed to 

be at least as important as those of largescale spills. 

The Council has approved the 

funding of several projects to prepare 

waste management plans and has 

contributed to their implementation. 

These projects resulted in the 

acquisition of waste oil management 

equipment and the construction of 

environmental operating stations for the 

drop-off of used oil, household 

hazardous waste and recyclable solid 

waste in Cordova, Valdez, Chenega Bay, 

Tatitlek and Whittier, Kodiak and lower 

Cook Inlet. The Council seeks to further 

reduce pollution in the marine 

environment to contribute to the 

recovery of injured natural resources or 

services and is considering funding this 

effort with $10 million. 

b. Marine Debris Removal 

Marine debris is an issue in the 

marine and near-shore environment in 

Alaska, where it is likely that thousands 

of tons of marine debris exist within 

three nautical miles of the Alaska 

coastline. Marine fish and wildlife 

become entangled in and ingest debris 

from foreign and domestic sources that 

may be a day or decades old and that 

range from small plastic items to very 

large fishing nets. Approximately 175 

metric tons of debris was collected from 

Alaska coasts by citizen cleanup 

projects in 2007. Marine debris removal 

projects can result in an immediate 

improvement to the coastal habitat. 

Coastal communities are effective in 

marine debris cleanups due to their 

intimate knowledge of the locations of 

debris accumulation. In addition, when 

communities participate in marine 

debris cleanups, they often alter the 

common practices that led to marine 

debris as their awareness of the effects 

of the debris on their coastline and the 

fisheries upon which they depend 

increases. Marine debris removal 

reduces marine pollution affecting 

injured resources and services and thus 

further supports natural restoration. The 

Council proposes to fund marine debris 

removal with approximately $3 million. 

c. Response, Damage Assessment and 

Restoration Implications 

Damage to natural resources occurs 

not only with an initial oil spill, but 

additional damage can also be caused by 

spill response efforts. Damage 

assessment from the 1989 spill has 

yielded information that can assist in 

mitigating damage from spill response 

activities in future spills. Skilled 

damage assessment also quantifies the 

extent of injury and allows for the 

accurate monitoring and measurement 

of restoration after a spill. Organizing, 

preserving, and passing on such 

information will help responders and 

those conducting future damage 

assessments. These efforts ensure that 

restoration efforts are truly effective. 

Outreach efforts could include a 

conference or series of papers sharing 

information to be used by future 

responders, including natural resource 

assessment, the long-term costs of highpressure washing, use of dispersants in 

the near-shore, sub-arctic environment, 

and the effects of potential burning 

scenarios. The Council proposes to fund 

this effort with $1 million. 

5. Habitat Acquisition and Protection 

The protection of habitat is an 

important component of the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill restoration program. The 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices 3709 

acquisition of private lands or partial 

interests in private lands promotes the 

natural recovery of spill-injured 

resources and associated services by 

removing the threat posed by additional 

development impacts. The program is 

implemented by state and federal 

resource agencies, often in partnership 

with non-governmental organizations. 

The habitat program has protected 

approximately 650,000 acres of valuable 

habitat through a variety of purchases of 

various property rights, ranging from fee 

simple acquisition to conservation and 

timber easements. The goals of the 

habitat protection program remain 

viable. Resource and land management 

agencies, such as the Alaska Department 

of Natural Resources, Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, National Park 

Service and U.S. Forest Service, 

continue to receive parcel nominations 

for Council consideration. 

Approximately $24 million remains 

within the habitat subaccount for future 

habitat protection efforts. The Council is 

considering alternatives for allocation of 

these funds. For example, half of the 

funds remaining may be allocated to the 

purchase of large parcels within a 

period of two to three years, and the 

remaining half to a program spanning a 

12-year period focused on the protection 

of small parcels less than 1,000 acres or 

$1 million in price. The Council 

proposes to utilize the approximately 

$24 million remaining to continue the 

habitat program. A variety of 

administrative options, funding 

allocations, time frames, and 

management strategies will be 

considered. 

Public Involvement 

Scoping is an early and open process 

for determining the scope of issues to be 

addressed in a SEIS and for identifying 

if there are significant environmental 

effects or issues related to the proposed 

action. A principal objective of the 

scoping and public involvement process 

is to identify a range of reasonable 

alternatives that will delineate critical 

issues and provide a clear basis for 

distinguishing among those alternatives 

and selecting a preferred alternative. 

Through this Notice, the Council 

notifies the public that a NEPA analysis 

and decision-making process has been 

initiated so that interested or affected 

people may participate and contribute 

to the final decision. 

Through this scoping process, the 

Council is seeking input and feedback 

on the areas, issues and projects 

proposed above, as well as possible 

alternatives to these proposals. The 

Council seeks public involvement in the 

development of the SEIS and 

encourages members of the public to 

submit comments in writing at the 

address shown above (see ADDRESSES). 

Written comments should be as specific 

as possible to be the most helpful. 

Written comments received during the 

scoping process, including the names 

and addresses of those submitting them, 

will be considered part of the public 

record on this proposal and will be 

available for public inspection. 

The Council also invites the public to 

participate in the scoping meetings 

shown above (see DATES). When the lead 

federal agency considers a change to a 

proposed action analyzed in an 

environmental impact statement (EIS), 

or new information relevant to the 

action becomes available, the federal 

agency must determine whether a 

supplement to the EIS (also referred to 

as a ‘‘supplemental EIS’’) or a new EIS 

is appropriate. In this instance, NOAA, 

as the lead agency, has determined that 

a SEIS is appropriate and will be 

prepared under the authority and in 

accordance with the requirements of 

NEPA, Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500– 

1508), other applicable federal laws and 

regulations, and NOAA’s established 

policies and procedures for compliance 

with those regulations. A SEIS must 

consider all reasonable alternatives, 

including the preferred action and the 

no action alternative. Even the most 

straightforward actions may have 

alternatives, often considered and 

rejected in early stages of project 

development that should be discussed. 

Opportunities for public comment are 

provided through public review and 

comment on documents contained in 

the Administrative Record as well as on 

the Public Review Document, Draft and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

when prepared. 

In compliance with 15 CFR 990.45, 

the Council will prepare an 

Administrative Record (Record). The 

Record will include documents that the 

Council relied upon during the 

development of the SEIS. After 

preparation, the Record will be on file 

at the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee 

Council office in Anchorage, AK and 

duplicate copies will be maintained at 

the following website: http:// 

www.evostc.state.ak.us. 

Dated: January 15, 2010. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1201 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–12–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Notice of Intent To Conduct 

Restoration Planning (Pursuant to 15 

CFR 990.44)—Discharge of Oil From 

the MIV CASCO BUSAN Into San 

Francisco Bay, November 7, 2007 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to conduct 

restoration planning (pursuant to 15 

CFR 990.44)—Discharge of Oil from the 

MIV CASCO BUSAN into San Francisco 

Bay, November 7, 2007. 

SUMMARY: On or about November 7, 

2007, the privately owned cargo carrier 

MlV CASCO BUSAN struck a portion of 

the fendering system for the San 

Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge’s Delta 

Tower. This ruptured one or more of the 

vessel’s fuel tanks, allowing a portion of 

the vessel’s bunker oil to be discharged 

into the San Francisco Bay. The 

estimated discharge amounted to 

approximately 53,000 gallons of IFO 

380, a heavy fuel oil used primarily to 

propel ships. This discharge affected 

natural resources in the area. All of the 

foregoing is referred to as the ‘‘Incident.’’ 

Pursuant to section 1006 of the Oil 

Pollution Act (‘‘OPA’’), 33 U.S.C. 2701, 

et seq., federal and state trustees for 

natural resources are authorized to: (1) 

Assess natural resource injuries 

resulting from a discharge of oil or the 

substantial threat of a discharge and 

response activities, and (2) Develop and 

implement a plan for restoration of such 

injured resources. The federal trustees 

are designated pursuant to the National 

Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Section 

300.600 and Executive Order 12777. 

State trustees for California are 

designated pursuant to the National 

Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Section 

300.605 and the Governor’s Designation 

of State Natural Resource Trustees 

under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act of 1980, the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990, and California 

Health and Safety Code section 

25352(c), dated October 5, 2007. The 

natural resources trustees (‘‘Trustees’’) 

under OPA for this Incident are the 

United States Department of Commerce, 

acting through the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (‘‘NOAA’’); 

the United States Department of the 

Interior (‘‘DOl’’), acting through the 

National Park Service (‘‘NPS’’), the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (‘‘FWS’’), and 

the Bureau of Land Management 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES