Notices. Notice of establishment of purchase unit

12,545 words·~57 min read·/register/2007/10/17/07-5111

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6117-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Establishment of Rose Purchase Unit, Calhoun County, AL AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of establishment of purchase unit. SUMMARY: On August 17, 2006, the Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment created the Rose Purchase Unit. This purchase unit comprises 160 acres, more or less, within Calhoun County, Alabama. Establishment of this purchase unit was effective August 17, 2006. ADDRESSES:

A copy of the map showing the purchase unit is on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the Director, Lands Staff, 4th Floor—South, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, Forest Service, USDA, 201 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to

(202)205-1248 to facilitate entry to the building. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339) between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory C. Smith, Director, Lands Staff, Forest Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Mailstop 1124, Washington, DC 20250-003, Telephone:

(202)205-1248. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following described lands lying adjacent to or proximate to the Talladega National Forest are suitable for the protection of the watersheds of navigable streams and for other purposes in accordance with Section 6 of the Weeks Act of 1911 (16 U.S.C 515). Therefore, in furtherance of the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the Weeks Act of 1911, as amended, including Section 17 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-588; 90 Statute 2961), these lands are hereby designated and established as the Rose Purchase Unit. Lands lying in Township 13 South, Range 9 East, Calhoun County, Huntsville Meridian, Alabama and more particularly described as: Section 28: E 1/2 SW 1/4 (also known as Rose Tract T-477) containing 80 acres more or less. Section 28: W 1/2 SW 1/4 (also known as Hugh Bennett Tract T-459r) containing 80 acres more or less. Containing 160 total acres more or less. Dated: October 9, 2007. Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System. [FR Doc. E7-20429 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Forestry Research Advisory Council AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Forestry Research Advisory Council will meet in Berkeley, California, November 15-16, 2007. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss emerging issues in forestry research. DATES: The meeting will be held November 15-16, 2007. On November 15 the meeting will be from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m, and on November 16 from 8-noon. ADDRESSES: The meeting on 11/15 will be held at the International House, 2299 Piedmont Ave., and on 11/16 at the Women's Faculty Club on the University of California Campus in Berkeley, California. Individuals who wish to speak at the meeting or to propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Daina Apple, Designated Federal Officer, Forestry Research Advisory Council, USDA Forest Service Research and Development, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1120. Individuals also may fax their names and proposed agenda items to

(202)205-1530. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daina Apple, Forest Service Office of the Deputy Chief for Research and Development,

(202)205-1665. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service, Cooperative State Research Education, and Extension Service staff and Council members. Persons wishing to bring forestry research matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council staff before or after the meeting. Dated: October 11, 2007. Ann M. Bartuska Deputy Chief, Research and Development. [FR Doc. E7-20472 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* Business and Professional Classification Report. *Form Number(s):* SQ-CLASS. *OMB Control Number:* 0607-0189. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Burden Hours:* 10,835. *Number of Respondents:* 50,000. *Average Hours per Response:* 13 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The Economic Census represents the primary source of facts about the structure and function of the U.S. economy, providing essential information to government and business to help guide sound decisions. Conducted every five years, the data help build the foundation for Gross Domestic Product

(GDP)and other indicators of economic performance. Critical to its conduct is the accuracy and reliability of the Business Register data which provides the Economic Census with its establishment enumeration list. Equally important is that the status of these establishments and related industry codes be as up-to-date as possible. The primary purpose of the “Business and Professional Classification Report” or SQ-CLASS is to meet this need for the retail, wholesale, and services sectors. Firms will be mailed five-year Economic Census forms specifically tailored to their industry based on the classification information we collect using the SQ-CLASS. In addition, the SQ-CLASS report is used to collect information needed to keep the retail, wholesale, and services samples current with the business universe. Because of rapid changes in the marketplace caused by the emergence of new businesses, the death of others, and changes in company organization, the Census Bureau canvasses a sample of new Employer Identification Numbers

(EINs)obtained from the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Each firm selected in this sample is canvassed once for data on the establishment(s) associated with the new EIN. The completed SQ-CLASS form provides sales, receipts, or revenue; company organization; new or refined NAICS codes; and other key information needed for sampling to maintain proper coverage of the universe. Based on the collected information, EINs meeting the criteria for inclusion in the Census Bureau's retail, wholesale, or service surveys are subjected to second sampling. The retail and wholesale EINs selected in this second sampling are placed on a panel to report in our monthly surveys. Additional panels of selected units are included in the annual surveys. The selected service EINs report on an annual and/or quarterly basis. Given the Census-related usage of this collection, and the crucial need to collect accurate classification information, we are requesting mandatory authority to conduct this survey under Title 13, United States Code, Sections 131 and 193. Section 193 provides the specific authority to collect supplementary statistics related to the conduct of the census on a mandatory basis. There are only minimal changes to the form and instruction sheet. The wording of the questions and instructions for both sales and inventory will be reworded to be in line with the Census Bureau's monthly and annual surveys. These changes will not increase burden and will provide for consistency within the economic surveys at the Census Bureau. The letter to respondents, which accompanies the SQ-CLASS has been revised to reflect the mandatory nature of the collection. The Census Bureau selects a first phase sample of EINs recently assigned by the IRS. Selected EINs are mailed a SQ-CLASS form to determine a measure of size (based on sales, receipts, or revenue); company organization; establishment information; and wholesale inventories and type of operation data. Retail, wholesale, or service EINs that are not affiliated with previously selected units are subjected to second phase sampling, with selected sampling units added to a survey panel. This methodology updates the current retail, wholesale, and service samples with a sample of new firms entering the business sector. The information obtained from the SQ-CLASS form is also used for tabulating small businesses in succeeding economic censuses (because small businesses are not mailed an economic census report form) and for the Census Bureau's Annual County Business Patterns Programs. Although no statistical tables are prepared or published, the operations of this business birth survey directly and critically affect the quality of the estimates published for the Current Retail and Inventory Surveys (OMB Approval 0607-0717), Advance Monthly Retail Trade and Food Services Survey (OMB Approval 0607-0104), Monthly Wholesale Trade Survey (OMB 0607-0190), Services Annual Survey (OMB Approval 0607-0422), Annual Retail Trade Survey (OMB Approval 0607-0013), Annual Trade Survey (OMB Approval 0607-0195), and Quarterly Service Survey (OMB Approval 0607-0907). Indeed, all of these surveys would be seriously deficient without these business birth survey operations that keep their sample universe current. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; Not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* One time. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 131 & 193. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,

(202)395-7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *bharrisk@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: October 11, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20428 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* 2008 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, Core Questions and Wave 1 Topical Modules. *Form Number(s):* SIPP 28105(L) Director's Letter; SIPP/CAPI Automated Instrument; and SIPP 28003 Reminder Card. *OMB Control Number:* None. *Type of Request:* New collection. *Burden Hours:* 95,535. *Number of Respondents:* 94,500. *Average Hours Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The U.S. Census Bureau requests authorization from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to conduct the 2008 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). This clearance request is to accommodate the core instrument for the life of the 2008 Panel, the topical modules for the Wave 1 (February through May 2008) interviews, and the reinterview instrument, which will be used during the life of the 2008 Panel. The reinterview instrument will be used for quality control analysis of data collected by the SIPP field representatives (FRs). The SIPP represents a source of information for a wide variety of topics and allows information for separate topics to be integrated to form a single and unified database so that the interaction between tax, transfer, and other government and private policies can be examined. Government domestic policy formulators depend heavily upon the SIPP information concerning the distribution of income received directly as money or indirectly as in-kind benefits and the effect of tax and transfer programs on this distribution. They also need improved and expanded data on the income and general economic and financial situation of the U.S. population. The SIPP has provided these kinds of data on a continuing basis since 1983, permitting levels of economic well-being and changes in these levels to be measured over time. The survey is molded around a central “core” of labor force and income questions that remain fixed throughout the life of a panel. The core is supplemented with questions designed to answer specific needs, such as estimating eligibility for government programs, examining pension and health care coverage, and analyzing individual net worth. These supplemental questions are included with the core and are referred to as “topical modules.” The topical modules for the 2008 Panel Wave 1 are Recipiency History and Employment History. These topical modules were previously conducted in the SIPP 2004 Panel Wave 1 instrument. The 2008 Panel Wave 1 interviews will be conducted beginning February 1, 2008 and concluding on May 31, 2008. The SIPP is designed as a continuing series of national panels of interviewed households that are introduced every few years, with each panel having durations of 3 to 4 years. The 2008 Panel is scheduled for three years and will include nine waves, which will begin February 1, 2008. All household members 15 years old or over are interviewed using regular proxy-respondent rules. They are interviewed a total of nine times (nine waves), at 4-month intervals, making the SIPP a longitudinal survey. Sample people (all household members present at the time of the first interview) who move within the country and reasonably close to a SIPP primary sampling unit

(PSU)will be followed and interviewed at their new address. Individuals 15 years old or over who enter the household after Wave 1 will be interviewed; however, if these people move, they are not followed unless they happen to move along with a Wave 1 sample individual. Data provided by the SIPP are being used by economic policymakers, the Congress, state and local governments, and federal agencies that administer social welfare or transfer payment programs, such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. The knowledge gained from these “core” items will be of limited value without information about how the respondents reached their status at the time of the Wave 1 interview. The core, therefore, is also supplemented with questions designed to answer specific needs, such as estimating eligibility for government programs, examining pension and health care coverage, and analyzing financing of postsecondary education. These supplemental questions are included with the core and are referred to as “topical modules.” The questions in these topical modules will help us reduce, if not eliminate, the “left-censoring” analysis problem that occurs in nearly all longitudinal surveys and cited as a serious concern by our data users. Left-censoring refers to the experiences of individuals (or other units of longitudinal analysis) prior to the start of the longitudinal study period. The questions for these topical modules address major policy and program concerns. Each component is intended to provide explanatory data describing likely relationships between earlier life-course experiences and current socioeconomic status. Personal history data, when linked with data derived from the panel interviews, yield a powerful set of explanatory indicators, which help analysts more fully understand associations between social, demographic, and economic events. The following is a description of the topical modules for Wave 1 and their uses: Recipiency History The Recipiency History topical module will help determine if and for how long people not currently receiving benefits from selected programs received such aid. Data from these questions will measure the extent to which individuals and households have depended on government transfer programs and will help evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. Employment History The Employment History topical module will enable us to analyze individuals' past labor force patterns and relate them to their current employment status and their degree of reliance on government programs. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* Every 4 months. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C. Section 182. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,

(202)395-7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(DOC)will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* 2007 Survey of Business Owners and Self-Employed Persons (SBO). *Form Number(s):* SBO-1. *OMB Control Number:* None. *Type of Request:* New collection. *Burden Hours:* 240,000. *Number of Respondents:* 2,400,000. *Average Hours Per Response:* 12 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The 2007 Survey of Business Owners and Self-Employed Persons

(SBO)will provide the only comprehensive, regularly collected source of information on selected economic and demographic characteristics for businesses and business owners by gender, Hispanic or Latino origin, and race. It is conducted as part of the economic census program, which is required by law to be taken every five years. The SBO collects data on the gender, Hispanic or Latino origin, and race for up to four persons owning the majority of rights, equity, or interest in the business. These data are needed to evaluate the extent and growth of business ownership by minorities and women in order to provide a framework for assessing and directing federal, state, and local government programs designed to promote the activities of disadvantaged groups. Government program officials, industry organization leaders, economic and social analysts, and business entrepreneurs routinely use the SBO statistics. Examples of data use include those by: • The Small Business Administration

(SBA)and the Minority Business Development Agency (DOC/MBDA) to assess business assistance needs and allocate available program resources. • Local government commissions on small and disadvantaged businesses to establish and evaluate contract procurement practices. • Federal, state and local government agencies as a framework for planning, directing and assessing programs that promote the activities of disadvantaged groups. • A national women-owned business trade association to assess women-owned businesses by industry and area, and educate other industry associations, corporations and government entities. • Consultants and researchers to analyze long-term economic and demographic shifts, and differences in ownership and performance among geographic areas. • Individual business owners to analyze their operations in comparison to similar firms, compute their market share, and assess their growth and future prospects. The businesses which reported any business activity on any one of the following Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)tax forms will be eligible for survey selection: 1040 (Schedule C), “Profit or Loss from Business” (Sole Proprietorship); 1065, “U.S. Return of Partnership Income”; 941, “Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return”; 944 “Employer's Annual Federal Tax Return;” or any one of the 1,120 corporate tax forms. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; Not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* Every 5 years. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 131, 193, and 224. *OMB Desk Officer:* Brian Harris-Kojetin,

(202)395-7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer, fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *bharrisk@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: October 11, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20435 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Special American Business Internship Training (SABIT) Program: Applications and Questionnaires AGENCY: International Trade Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before December 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Tracy M. Rollins,

(202)482-0073, *tracy.rollins@mail.doc.gov* , fax

(202)482-2443. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Special American Business Internship Training (SABIT) Programs of the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA), are a key element in the U.S. Government's efforts to support the economic transition of Eurasia (the former Soviet Union). SABIT develops and implements one-month training programs for groups of up to 18 professionals from Eurasia. They are trained by U.S. companies in various business practices and principles. This unique private sector-U.S. Government partnership was created in order to tap the U.S. private sector's expertise in assisting Eurasia's transition to a market economy while boosting U.S.-Eurasian long-term trade. The participant applications and feedback

(exit)surveys are needed to enable SABIT to find the most qualified people for the training programs and to track the success of the program as regards to trade between the U.S. and the countries of Eurasia, as well as to improve the content and administration of the programs. The closing date for applications and supplemental materials is based upon the starting date of the program and is published, with the application, on the program's Russian-language Web site at *www.sabitprogram.org.* Pursuant to section 632(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the “Act”), funding for the program will be provided by the Agency for International Development (AID). SABIT is not requesting renewal of all the forms in this collection, the Insurance Form and Grant Application for U.S. Companies will be discontinued. II. Method of Collection Applications are sent to program candidates via facsimile or mail upon request. Applications are also posted on the SABIT Russian language Web site at *http://www.sabitprogram.org.* Feedback surveys are given to participating U.S. companies and Eurasian participants at the completion of programs. End-of-Internship forms are given to individual participating U.S. companies hosting internships. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0625-0225. *Form Number(s):* ITA-4143P-5. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,250. *Estimated Time Per Response:* Application, 3 hours; feedback form, 1 hour; and end-of-internship form, 2 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 5,875. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $60,250. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(202)482-2043 and fax number:

(202)482-2859; or via the Internet at *Laurie_Mease@ita.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Tax Relief and Heath Care Act of 2006 (“the Act”) contains provisions to assist the men's and boys” cotton shirting industry. Among these provisions, the Act creates an annual tariff rate quota

(TRQ)providing for temporary reductions through December 31, 2009, in the import duties of cotton woven fabrics suitable for making men's and boys' cotton shirts (new Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS)headings 9902.52.08, 9902.52.09, 9902.52.10, 9902.52.11, 9902.52.12, 9902.52.13, 9902.52.14, 9902.52.15, 9902.52.16, 9902.52.17, 9902.52.18, and 9902.52.19). The reduction in duty is limited to 85 percent of the total square meter equivalents of all imported woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight cotton used by manufacturers in cutting and sewing men's and boy's cotton shirts in the United States and purchased by such manufacturer during calendar year 2000. Section 406(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to fairly allocate the tariff rate quota. More specifically, the Secretary of Commerce must issue licenses and ensure that the tariff rate quota is fairly allocated to eligible manufacturers under such headings 9902.52.08 through 9902.52.19. The TRQ is effective for goods entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2007, and will remain in force through 2009. The TRQ will be allocated each year and a TRQ allocation will be valid only in the year for which it is issued. The Department of Commerce published regulations establishing procedures for allocation of the tariff rate quotas (72 FR 141, 15 CFR part 336). The Department must collect certain information in order to fairly allocate the TRQ to eligible persons. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved this information collection request (OMB Number 0625-0260) with an expiration date of December 31, 2007. This request for comment is for the proposed information collection after December 31, 2007. II. Method of Collection The information collection forms will be provided via the Internet ( *http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/cottontrq.nsf/trqapp* ) and by mail to requesting firms. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0625-0260. *Form Number:* ITA-4156P. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 10. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 1 hour. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 10. *Estimated Total Annual Costs:* $500. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on

(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: October 11, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20436 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-836 Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 12, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the *Preliminary Results* of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission, in Part,* 72 FR 18457 (April 12, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . Based upon our analysis of the comments and information received, we made changes to the margin calculations for the final results. We find that certain manufacturers/exporters sold subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (“POR”) March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2312. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The following events have occurred subsequent to the publication of the *Preliminary Results* . On April 27, 2007, we extended the deadline for submitting surrogate value (“SV”) information by 30 days, to June 1, 2007. On June 1, 2007, parties 1 submitted SV comments, and between June 4 and June 11, 2007, parties submitted rebuttal comments, as well as comments objecting to the submission of certain SV information by the other party. On June 14, 2007, we issued a letter stating that all SV information submitted by the parties would remain on the record and issued a supplemental questionnaire to NDCI regarding its ammonia factor of production (“FOP”). In the same letter, we also extended the deadlines for submitting case and rebuttal briefs. On June 25, 2007, NDCI submitted its response regarding its ammonia FOP. GSC did not file rebuttal comments to NDCI's June 25, 2007, response. On July 16, 2007, parties filed their case briefs, and on July 23, 2007, parties filed their rebuttal briefs. On July 27, 2007, we extended the time limit for the completion of the final results of this review until October 9, 2007. *See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review* , 72 FR 41292 (July 27, 2007). On October 2, 2007, we issued a letter rejecting as new factual information the surrogate value information filed by GSC on June 11, 2007, and requested that parties re-file their case and rebuttal briefs without reference to that submission by October 4, 2007. On October 3, 2007, GSC filed a letter objecting to the Department's letter of October 2, 2007. On October 4, 2007, the Department issued a letter providing an opportunity for NDCI to respond to GSC's letter of October 3, 2007. In the same letter, the Department also stated that parties did not need to re-file their case and rebuttal briefs until they received further notice. On October 5, 2007, NDCI filed a letter stating that the Department was correct to reject the surrogate value information GSC submitted on June 11, 2007, and that the Department should also reject GSC's October 3, 2007 letter. 1 The domestic interested party participating in this review is Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (“GSC”), and the respondent party participating in this review is Nantong Dongchang Chemical Industry Corp. (“NDCI”). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2005-2006 Administrative Review, dated October 9, 2007 (“Issues and Decision Memo”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memo is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memo is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit CRU, Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of information on the record of this review, and comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculations for the respondent. We have changed two of the SVs used in the *Preliminary Results* . The values that were modified for these final results are those for ammonia and the surrogate financial ratios. For further details *see* Issues and Decision Memo at Comments 1 and 2 and Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Final Results, dated October 9, 2007. In addition, we have incorporated, where applicable, post-preliminary clarifications and calculation corrections. For further details on these changes, *see* Issues and Decision Memo at Comments 4 and 7. 2 2 The specific calculation changes for NDCI can be found in the Memorandum to the File, Administrative Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Analysis for the Final Results of Nantong Dongchang Chemical Industry Corp., dated October 9, 2007. Scope of the Order The product covered by the order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This review covers glycine of all purity levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Partial Recession of the Administrative Review In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department issued a notice of intent to rescind the administrative review with respect to Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. (“Baoding Mantong”) because we found no evidence that it made shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. The Department received no comments on this issue, and we did not receive any further information since the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* that provides a basis for a reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review with respect to Baoding Mantong. Separate Rates In our *Preliminary Results* , we determined that NDCI met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. We have not received any information or comments since the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* that provides a basis for reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, the Department continues to find that NDCI meets the criteria for a separate rate. Final Results of the Review The Department has determined that the following final dumping margin exists for the period March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006: Glycine from the PRC Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Nantong Dongchang Chemical Industry Corp. 38.67 The Department will disclose calculations performed for these final results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer) *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”):

(1)for subject merchandise exported by Nantong Dongchang, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in the final results of review;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise, which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 155.89 percent;

(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification of Interested Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO as explained in the administrative protective order itself. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice of the final results of this administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(5). Dated: October 9, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I I. ISSUES & DECISION MEMORANDUM COMMENTS: *Comment 1:* Ammonia Surrogate Value *Comment 2:* Selection of Surrogate Financial Companies *Comment 3:* Chlorine Surrogate Value *Comment 4:* U.S. Inland Freight Valuation *Comment 5:* Zeroing *Comment 6:* CBP Assessment *Comment 7:* Ministerial Errors [FR Doc. E7-20452 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Northwest Region Federal Fisheries Permits AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before *December 17, 2007* . ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Kevin Ford,

(206)526-6115 or *Kevin.Ford@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)Northwest Region manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)off Washington, Oregon and California under the Pacific Coast Fishery Management Plan. In its consideration of a groundfish trawl rationalization program, the Pacific Fishery Management Council

(PFMC)has requested that NMFS collect detailed information for owners of trawl endorsed limited entry permits in order to develop an appropriate policy. The recent reauthorization of the Mangnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

(MSA)placed a deadline on the PFMC to complete its consideration of the trawl rationalization program. Further, the MSA (Section 303A(5)(B)(ii)) requires that the Secretary of Commerce consider procedures to address concerns over excessive geographic and/or other consolidation in harvesting and processing sectors of the fishery. NMFS would request that all trawl endorsed permit owners who are business entities to provide the names of individuals who have an ownership interest in the entity and the percentage of interest held in the entity by such individuals. This information would be requested annually on a voluntary basis. In addition, NMFS would revise its existing sablefish ownership interest form to request that all business entities who own or hold a sablefish permit to provide the percentage of ownership interest each individual has in the business entity. This information about the percentage of ownership interest by an individual would be requested on a voluntary basis. II. Method of Collection Paper applications would be provided to potential respondents and the methods of submission would include fax or mail. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0203. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; and business or other for-profits organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 90. *Estimated Time per Response:* 30 minutes to prepare and mail response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 45 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $64,677. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(NMFS)as a result of this collection. The vessel name must be affixed to the port and starboard sides of the bow and, if possible, on its stern. The official number must be displayed on the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on an appropriate weather deck so as to be clearly visible from enforcement vessels and aircraft. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0350. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 6,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 45 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 4,500 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $60,000. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: October 11, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20411 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [FY2009-FY2014] National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Human Dimensions Strategic Plan AGENCY: National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of availability of the NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2009-FY2014) and responses to public comments. SUMMARY: NOAA publishes this notice to announce the availability of the NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2009-FY2014) and provide responses to public comments requested through a **Federal Register** Notice ( *Notice of availability and solicitation of public comments on the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Draft Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2008-FY2013)* , 72 FR 7418-7419 (Feb. 15, 2007)). DATES: The NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan is effective FY2009-FY2014. ADDRESSES: The NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2009-FY2014) is available electronically at *http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/human/strategy/NCCOSHDPlan.pdf.* Hard copies of the plan may be obtained by sending a request to *nccos.hd@noaa.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marybeth Bauer, PhD, by e-mail at *nccos.hd@noaa.gov* (preferred) or mail at NOAA National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 1305 East-West Highway, NOS HQTR Route N/SCI, Silver Spring, MD 20910. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of NCCOS is to provide coastal managers and other decisionmakers with scientific information and tools needed to balance society's environmental, social, and economic goals in mitigating and adapting to ecosystem stressors such as climate change, extreme natural events, pollution, invasive species, and resource use. Humans are integral to ecosystems, and the human dimensions of ecosystems are an integral focus of the science needed to achieve this mission. Understanding the impact of humans on the ocean, the impacts of the ocean on humans, and the human aspects of ocean governance provides the scientific basis for ensuring ocean health and quality of life for this and future generations. Marine science and policy institutions in the United States and worldwide recognize that a deeper understanding of the human dimensions of ecosystems—human causes, consequences, and responses to ecosystem stress—is needed to foster improved support for coastal and ocean decisionmaking. Examples include the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources, United States Commission on Ocean Policy, Pew Oceans Commission, and NOAA's External Ecosystem Task Team. The NCCOS Human Dimensions Strategic Plan (FY2009-FY2014) establishes goals and objectives for fostering improved support of coastal and ocean decisionmaking by integrating human dimensions into the NCCOS's science program. It provides the basis for subsequent development of an implementation plan specifying programmatic elements such as strategies, outcomes, partnerships, and fiscal and human resources needs. *Comments and Responses:* On February 15, 2007, NCCOS published a notice of availability and solicitation of public comments on a Draft Human Dimensions Strategic Plan ( *Notice of availability and solicitation of public comments on the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Draft Human Dimensions Strategic Plan* ( *FY2008-FY2013* ), 72 FR 7418-7419 (Feb. 15, 2007)). During the 30-day public comment period, NCCOS received the following comments from the City of Craig, Alaska; Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education; Island Resources Foundation; New Jersey Marine Science Consortium; NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology; NOAA's National Ocean Service, Coastal and Ocean Resource Economics Program; NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Office of Weather and Air Quality and Climate Program Office; NOAA's Research Council; and University of Massachusetts-Amherst Human Dimensions of Marine and Coastal Ecosystems Program. In response to comments received, NCCOS revised the Draft Human Dimensions Strategic Plan as follows. General Comments *Comment 1:* Several commenters commended NCCOS on taking this first step toward integrating the human element into coastal management and the required supporting scientific efforts. *Response:* NCCOS appreciates this encouragement and advocacy from its coastal science and management partners, and looks forward to working with them to implement human dimensions research priorities. *Comment 2:* Several commenters stated that the document is too long and recommended eliminating redundancy. *Response:* NCCOS considerably reduced the length of the document and eliminated redundancy. To accommodate diverse levels of interest, NCCOS formatted the plan to describe each strategic objective at four levels of detail: A title, summary statement, concise rationale, and discussion. The discussion sections provide justification and explanation of strategic objectives at a level of detail that NCCOS believes is critical to cultivate a workforce that understands, appreciates, and facilitates the mission value of human dimensions research. *Comment 3:* Several commenters stated that the document includes excessive social science jargon. *Response:* NCCOS minimized social science jargon. However, NCCOS included and defined key technical terms such as socioeconomic driver, ecosystem service, mitigation, non-market value, and resilience. In doing so, NCCOS is responsive to the finding of the Social Science Review Panel to NOAA's Science Advisory Board that developing social science capacity in NOAA is challenged by “a lack of formal understanding of what social science is and what its contributions can be, leading to an organizational culture that is not conducive to social science research.” By including and defining key technical terms, NCCOS aims to foster the human dimensions literacy and common language needed to develop an integral human dimensions focus within its science program. *Comment 5:* Several commenters stated that the plan should include programmatic elements such as projects, timelines, fiscal and human resource needs, and deliverables. *Response:* As explained in the “Future Directions” section of the “Overview,” NCCOS wishes to clarify that this plan provides the basis for a follow-up implementation plan specifying programmatic elements such as those recommended. *Comment 6:* Several commenters recommended discussing specific programs, projects, or partnerships. *Response:* NCCOS affirms that this level of detail is beyond the scope of this plan, which is intended to establish broad human dimensions research priorities critical to achieve NCCOS' mission. *Comment 7:* Several commenters stated that the scope of work outlined in the plan is overly ambitious for its time frame and unrealistic given NOAA budgets. *Response:* NCCOS wishes to clarify that this plan does not outline a scope of work. It is intended to provide high-level strategic guidance as a basis for programmatic development responsive to changing fiscal conditions, legislative requirements, and other constraints and opportunities. *Comment 8:* One commenter recommended clarifying how this plan will change human behaviors. *Response:* NCCOS revised Objective 1.2, “Human Causes and Socioeconomic Drivers of Ecosystem Stress,” to emphasize that “reducing stress on coastal systems generally requires accommodating or encouraging change in human behavioral patterns such as exurban development, agricultural practices, and resource use. Developing effective intervention strategies requires understanding behavioral patterns requiring remediation and their complex natural and socioeconomic drivers.” In addition, understanding the human impacts of changes in ecosystem services (as discussed in Objectives 1.3, “Societal Consequences of Policy and Management Options,” and 2.1, “Integrative Ecosystem Models and Decision Support Tools”) provides the impetus for behavioral change. *Comment 9:* One commenter recommended clarifying how the plan captures the role of climate change in ecosystems. *Response:* NCCOS emphasizes that the goals and objectives established in this plan cut across multiple stressors such as climate change, extreme natural events, pollution, invasive species, and resource use. The document discusses specific stressors in so far as needed to illustrate cross-cutting research needs. *Comment 10:* One commenter recommended explaining the process used to develop the plan and including an appendix that lists contributors and their contact information. This commenter stated that the National Ocean Service Social Science Team should have been involved in development of the plan. *Response:* NCCOS has amended the “Message from the Director” to explain that the plan was developed through an internal NCCOS process including content analysis of significant coastal and ocean science and management documents, vetted throughout NOAA, and substantively revised in response to public review and comments solicited through a Federal Register Notice. NCCOS relied upon the NOS Social Science Plan and subsequently requested comments from the National Ocean Service Social Science Team before finalizing the document. NCCOS has provided contact information for comments on the plan. *Comment 11:* One commenter expressed concern that the objectives are loosely defined and thus allow flexibility in interpretation of what will be accomplished. *Response:* NCCOS intentionally framed its human dimensions research goals and objectives in broad terms to enable flexibility in implementation as NCCOS priorities and capabilities change. *Comment 12:* One commenter recommended that the document put greater emphasis on the need to evaluate tradeoffs inherent to ecosystem management. *Response:* In the discussion of the “Human Dimensions of Ecosystems,” which has been moved from an appendix to the “Overview,” NCCOS emphasizes that evaluating tradeoffs is fundamental to coastal management. In addition, NCCOS reconceptualized Objective 1.1, retitled “Coastal Decisionmaking,” from (in the draft) the need for stakeholder assessment to (in the final document) the need for decision support tools guiding stakeholder participation in decisionmaking confronting challenges such as tradeoffs. *Comment 13:* One commenter noted that the document does not aim to facilitate improved methods for cost-benefit analysis such as new tools to identify, describe, and quantify benefits; improvements on cost assessments; and non-economic analyses that can enhance traditional approaches. *Response:* NCCOS revised Objective 1.3, “Societal Consequences of Policy and Management Option,” to recommend economic impact analysis as an approach to help decisionmakers anticipate the cononomic consequences of alternative courses of action. As revised, this objective states that methods for putting a dollar figure on the costs and benefits of alternative management actions require improvement, *e.g.,* accounting for the true costs and benefits of alternative actions for non-market values. *Comment 14:* One commenter noted that a systems approach is implicit in the document and recommended making it more explicit. *Response:* NCCOS is responsive to criticism that the plan is overly theoretical. In an effort to balance simultaneous recommendations for elaboration and elimination of theoretical discussion, NCCOS responded to this recommendation by adding the following text and associated references to the “Purpose” section of the “Overview”: “Expanding human dimensions research will enhance NCCOS' ecosystem science and foster improved support for coastal and ocean decisionmaking. As early as 1935, ecologists cautioned that limiting analysis to environmental systems is neither scientifically sound nor practically useful (Tansley, 1935). As with any system, understanding an ecosystem requires understanding complex interactions among system components. An ecosystem is defined by interactions between human and environmental systems (elaborated below). Recognizing these interactions, ecology is increasingly adopting a systems approach focusing on coupled social-ecological systems (also called human-environmental systems) ( *e.g.,* Collins *et al.,* 2007; Colding *et al.,* 2000; Berkes *et al.,* 1998). Expanding NCCOS' scientific focus from interactions within environmental systems to interactions between couple social-ecological systems will foster holistic ecosystem understanding.” *Comment 15:* One commenter stated that as this plan moves to other areas of NOAA (particularly related to fisheries and habitat management), NCCOS needs to ensure that its implementation is properly vetted to ensure fair and balanced use in the regulatory process. *Response:* NCCOS addressed this comment in Objective 1.1, “Coastal Decisionmaking.” This objective seeks to inform and facilitate decision processes that combine scientific analysis and broad-based stakeholder deliberation to elicit diverse societal values, establish clear objectives linking values to resource outcomes, develop measurable indicators, and examine tradeoffs. In addition, NCCOS notes that this plan has been vetted by public review through a **Federal Register** Notice (72 FR 7418-7419). Finally, NCCOS is part of NOAA and produces science that is used by other parts of NOAA in the context of managing multiple uses of coastal and ocean resources. In producing scientific information and facilitating its use, NCCOS makes every effort to ensure validity, fairness, and regulatory compliance. Comments on the Summary *Comment 16:* Several commenters recommended rewriting the “Summary.” Specifically, commenters recommended eliminating the list of NCCOS and NOAA strategic definitions/missions and summary of goals/objectives established in the plan, and including a statement of purpose in the beginning. *Response:* NCCOS created an “Overview” section that begins with a statement of purpose, specifies future directions, summarizes key drivers, provides background on the human dimensions of ecosystems, defines human dimensions research, and lists the goals and objectives put forth in the plan. NCCOS believes that the list of goals and objectives is critical to provide an at-a-glance summary of the plan, and has incorporated this list into a considerably shortened “Summary” section. NCCOS moved the list of NCCOS and NOAA strategic definitions/missions to Appendix 2. *Comment 17:* One commenter recommended including National Ocean Service strategic elements in the list of strategic definitions/missions. *Response:* NCCOS added the National Ocean Service mission to this list, which was moved to Appendix 2. Comments on the Overview *Comment 18:* One commenter recommended including a comparative discussion of the terms “human dimensions” and “social science.” *Response:* NCCOS added the following text to the “Human Dimensions Research” section of the “Overview”: The distinction between the terms `human dimensions' and `social science' often generates confusion. `Human dimensions' refers conceptually to the roles of humans in ecosystems and resource management. `Social science' denotes a subset of the disciplines useful for describing, explaining, and predicting these role.” *Comment 19:* One commenter suggested giving greater emphasis to NCCOS's role in providing feedback to the greater scientific community on the information needs of coastal managers. *Response:* NCCOS expanded its list of customers in the “National Centers for Coastal and Ocean Science” section to include the greater coastal and ocean scientific community. *Comment 20:* One commenter stated that the discussion of NCCOS's fundamental strategy, the Integrated Assessment, “sounds like puffery” without empirical evidence of its value. *Response:* NCCOS added a reference to an example Integrated Assessment, *Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico* (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, 2000) to the “Integrated Assessments” section of the “Overview.” *Comment 21:* One commenter questioned the use of a fifteen-year-old National Research Council framework for understanding the human dimensions of ecosystems. *Response:* NCCOS believes that its adaptation of the National Research Council framework to conceptualize human dimensions of ecosystems (in terms of human causes, consequences, and responses to ecosystem stress) is round and useful. This model resonates with NCCOS scientists because of its simplicity and focus on stressors (an organizing feature of NCCOS' science program). NCCOS will continue to evaluate and develop its approach to conceptualizing the human dimensions of ecosystems and socio-ecological systems. *Comment 22:* One commenter recommended a more targeted definition of human dimensions research. *Response:* NCCOS believes that the plan itself embodies a targeted definition by providing numerous examples of human dimensions research topics and methods. *Comment 23:* One commenter suggested mentioning that discussions with decisionmakers will influence NCCOS' delivery of services. *Response:* NCCOS revised the “Future Directions” section of the “Overview” to emphasize that NCCOS' research agenda will be established through customer-informed strategies that identify complementary human dimensions and environmental research priorities. In addition, in the “National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science” section, NCCOS added a statement that “NOAA created NCCOS in 1999 to strengthen and integrate its coastal programs in ways that encourage strong external partnerships, increase and protect their integrity, and ensure they focus on NOAA's coastal ocean missions.” *Comment 24:* One commenter recommended mentioning that this plan updates NCCOS' contribution to the

(2005)National Ocean Service Social Science Plan. *Response:* NCCOS amended the “Human Dimensions Research Drivers” section of the “Overview” to state that this plan represents the development of NCCOS' human dimensions vision since its contribution to the

(2005)National Ocean Service Social Science Plan. *Comment 25:* One commenter recommended providing an update on specific NCCOS projects proposed in the National Ocean Service Social Science Plan. This commenter also recommended discussing how this plan will be integrated into the National Ocean Service Social Science Plan, the NOAA Research Plan, and NOAA's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System. *Response:* NCCOS affirms that this level of detail is beyond the scope of the plan. *Comment 26:* One commenter stated that the figure representing the diversity of disciplines integral to human dimensions research is misleading because it treats these diciplines as “equally impacting.” *Response:* NCCOS believes that the figure clearly represents the diversity of disciplines integral to human dimensions research without making a statement regarding their relative importance. *Comment 27:* One commenter stated that the discussion of NCCOS human dimensions accomplishments is defensive in tone. This commenter questioned the apparent historical emphasis on economics and recommended eliminating discussion of ongoing projects and other highlights. *Response:* NCCOS wishes to acknowledge its accomplishments in providing human dimensions information critical to supporting coastal and ocean management. These include new capacities, key publications, ongoing projects, and other highlights. NCCOS does not agree that this section should be eliminated. In addition, NCCOS believes that this plan corrects any historical overemphasis on economics by establishing goals and objectives that draw on a wide diversity of mission-critical human dimensions disciplines. *Comment 28:* Several commenters recommended including NCCOS' work on the development of a human use/socioeconomic indicator for eutrophication in the discussion of NCCOS human dimensions accomplishments. *Response:* NCCOS regrets the omission of this important work from the draft plan, and has added the requested information in the “NCCOS Human Dimensions Research” section of the “Overview.” *Comment 29:* One commenter recommended including NCCOS' socioeconomic monitoring work in southeast Florida in the discussion of NCCOS human dimensions accomplishments. *Response:* NCCOS regrets the omission of this important work from the draft plan, and has added the requested information in the “NCCOS Human Dimensions Research” section of the “Overview.” *Comment 30:* Several commenters recommended eliminating a reference (to Bergen and Carr, 2003), stating that the article does not provide a balanced description of the Channel Islands marine reserves network planning process. *Response:* NCCOS does not support the commenters' judgment that the article cited is not balanced. However, in the course of responding to *Comment 12* , NCCOS eliminated this reference. *Comment 31:* One commenter expressed concern that the plan contains “historical overtones of a need to understand an environment being destroyed by humans (e.g., stressors).” This commenter stated that such an approach downplays the management opportunities provided by human dimensions understanding. *Response:* NCCOS believes that the plan provides many examples of management opportunities facilitated by human dimensions understanding. To ensure that these opportunities are sufficiently emphasized, NCCOS added the following text to the “Purpose” section of the “Overview”: “* * * Human dimensions understanding enhances coastal decisionmaking and its scientific support. The plan provides many examples. It begins by highlighting the effectiveness of coastal decisionmaking that integrates ecosystem understanding with meaningful stakeholder engagement. Social science offers techniques and approaches, based on an understanding of human and organizational behavior, that help decisionmakers work with diverse stakeholders to define and achieve management priorities in the face of challenges such as conflicting and changing societal values, multi-agency authorities, and scientific uncertainty.” NCCOS disagrees that the concept of stressors is inappropriate. Comments on Objective 1.1 *Comment 32:* One commenter recommended including economic value as a distinct type of value. *Response:* NCCOS eliminated the referenced discussion of values to preserve space in the process of revising Objective 1.1, re-titled “Coastal Decisionmaking,” as described in *Comment 12.* Instead, the document defines values by providing examples in the “Human Dimensions of Ecosystems” section of the “Overview”, *e.g.,* security from natural disasters, health, good social relations, and freedom to pursue personal and cultural interests (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). *Comment 33:* One commenter recommended acknowledging that stakeholder values change over time. *Response:* NCCOS revised Objective 1.1, re-title “Coastal Decisionmaking,” to acknowledge that decisionmakers are challenged by conflicting and changing societal values. *Comment 34:* One commenter noted the need to assess preferences for specific management options in addition to values. *Response:* NCCOS revised Objective 1.1, re-titled “Coastal Decisionmaking,” to acknowledge the importance of assessing stakeholders' preferences for specific management options. *Comment 35:* One commenter recommended discussing the relationships among values, norms, user expectations, satisfaction, intentions to behave, management preferences, and attitudes. *Response:* NCCOS amended the “Human Dimensions of Ecosystems” section of the “Introduction” to state that “stakeholders' values influence their attitudes, intentions, management preferences, satisfaction levels, and norms for behavior. Values differ among individuals, but can be studied at the group level. For example, groups engaging in similar activities at similar locations and rates of participation, and using similar equipment can be expected to share values. Stakeholder values is an important topic of human dimensions research, enabling understanding of:

(1)How coastal resource conditions and management decisions are likely to be perceived by different groups;

(2)how differing value systems interact to affect coastal resource management planning and effectiveness; and

(3)interactions among changing value systems, management decision processes and outcomes, and resource conditions ( *e.g.,* Dietz *et al.,* 2005).” Comments on Objective 1.2 *Comment 36:* One commenter stated that discussion of Objective 1.2 is vague. *Response:* NCCOS agrees that this objective is vague and partly redundant with other objectives established in the plan. For these reasons, NCCOS eliminated the objective and incorporated references cited into other objectives as appropriate. *Comment 37:* One commenter recommended eliminating mention of the National Ocean Economics Program, stating that the program “does not represent good social science” and will “seriously compromise the integrity” of the plan. *Response:* NCCOS eliminated this objective for reasons explained in the response to *Comment 36.* Comments on Objective 1.4 *Comment 38:* One commenter stated that Objective 1.4 recommends specific research projects whereas the other objectives are more general. *Response:* NCCOS does not agree that Objective 1.4 recommends specific research projects. This objective recommends building on NCCOS' success documenting and utilizing traditional and local ecological knowledge to enhance coastal and ocean science. Comments on Objective 1.5 *Comment 39:* Several commenters noted that Objective 1.5 is unclear. *Response:* NCCOS substantively revised this objective (now reordered as Objective 1.7) to enhance clarity and reduce length. As revised, a large portion of the objective is incorporated into the “Overview” (in “Human Dimensions of Ecosystems”) and Objective 1.1 (“Coastal Decisionmaking”). The second section, “Ethical Questions Raised by the Implementation and Use of Science,” has been considerably shortened. *Comment 40:* One commenter noted that there is already a wealth of social science research regarding best practices for promoting community development in the context of environmental restoration. This commenter questioned whether social scientists participated in the Coastal Response Research Center workshop discussing this topic. *Response:* In an effort to reduce the length of this objective, NCCOS eliminated discussion of specific conclusions from this workshop. However, NCCOS notes that social scientists were present at the workshop. These participants were aware of the wealth of social science research related to community development, and played an important role in introducing restoration practitioners to the topic. Comments on Objective 1.6 *Comment 41:* One commenter stated that the distinction between organizations and institutions (quoted from the International Human Dimensions Program) is “conceptually thin,” and that the examples provided in the definition are “less than eye-opening.” Another commenter stated that Objective 1.6 is not understandable to a non-social scientist. *Response:* NCCOS addressed these comments by replacing this quote with a less technical definition of institutions and referring the reader to additional sources for a more sophisticated discussion. NCCOS notes that this objective has been reordered to Objective 1.5. *Comment 42:* Several commenters recommended mentioning the need for institutionalized social science data collection and sharing. *Response:* NCCOS revised this objective to state that the institutionalization of social science data collection, storage, management, and mining is a fundamental problem for incorporating human dimensions consideration into coastal decisionmaking. Comments on Objective 2.2 *Comment 43:* One commenter questioned the emphasis on economics reflected in NOAA's External Ecosystem Task Team's summary of core social science capabilities needed to integrate human dimensions information into Integrated Ecosystem Assessments. *Response:* NCCOS eliminated this summary to reduce the length of the document. NCCOS notes that the External Ecosystem Task Team's summary stands on its own ( *i.e.,* independently of NCCOS' views) as a description of the Team's vision. *Comment 44:* One commenter raised the question whether Integrated Ecosystem Assessments are to be revisited to determine their success in predicting consequences of alternative management actions. *Response:* NCCOS revised this objective to clarify that “Integrated Ecosystem Assessments are iteratively developed and revisited. Subsequent assessments evaluate past success in predicting the consequences of alternative management strategies as well as implementing previously identified research needs.” Comments on Objective 3.1 *Comment 45:* One commenter stated that Goal 3 should focus on resilience to ecosystem stressors (rather than hazards) because the focus on hazards excludes ecosystem stressors. *Response:* NCCOS wishes to clarify that a focus on hazards does not exclude ecosystem stressors. Rather, the potential for any ecosystem stressor is a hazard. However, NCCOS agrees that the objective is too narrowly focused on the impacts of disasters. It also does not adequately emphasize the need to help coastal decisionmakers anticipate the consequences of ecosystem stress in relation to alternative intervention strategies. In response to these deficiencies, this objective has been reconceptualized to develop Objective 1.3, “Societal Consequences of Policy and Management Options.” *Comment 46:* One commenter stated that Objective 3.1 ignores over fifty years of research on disasters and espouses myths such as the notion that disasters result in social disruption and conflict. Another commenter stated that Objective 3.1 should mention spouse battery (an example of social disruption and conflict) as a consequence of disasters. *Response:* NCCOS notes that these comments are contradictory. One highlights social disruption caused by coastal disasters, while another denies it. In responding to *Comment 45,* NCCOS eliminated this discussion and captured key points in Objective 1.3, “Societal Consequences of Policy and Management Options.” *Comment 47:* One commenter requested that NCCOS specify key factors considered in risk and vulnerability assessments and whether NCCOS will consider environmental or human impacts or both. *Response:* NCCOS notes that the draft provides a list of key components of risk and vulnerability assessments. NCCOS revised the text to clarify that environmental and human impacts will both be considered. *Comment 48:* One commenter stressed the importance of noting the unique requirements of small islands regarding vulnerability and resilience. *Response:* NCCOS amended the discussion of Goal 3, “Promote Ecosystem Resilience,” to state that the vulnerability of small island communities is heightened by factors such as the infeasibility of migrating out of danger zones and extreme land values. Comments on Objective 3.2 *Comment 49:* One commenter noted that Objective 3.2 ignores changes that occurred to the risk communication process as a result of cell phones, the internet, and cable television. *Response:* NCCOS amended this objective to explain that development of communication messages and strategies should take into consideration changes to the risk communication process as result of modern technology such as cell phones and the internet. *Comment 50:* One commenter stated that the relationship between an audience's belief in risk information and its level of trust in the communicating agency is “old hat.” *Response:* NCCOS is committed to developing the capacity of its workforce to understand, appreciate, and facilitate the mission value of human dimensions research. NCCOS believes that this commitment requires fostering an understanding of key concepts and methods that are familiar to social scientists, but new to many natural scientists. This commitment is responsive to the finding of the Social Science Review Panel to NOAA's Science Advisory Board that developing social science capacity in NOAA is challenged by “a lack of formal understanding of what social science is and what its contributions can be, leading to an organizational culture that is not conducive to social science research.” Comments on Objective 3.3 *Comment 51:* One commenter noted that local, regional, and national agencies rarely have the finances for risk communication research and typically lack the understanding that they need it. *Response:* Through this plan, NCCOS aims to foster understanding of the need for risk communication research to develop scientific products and tools that foster public understanding of risks, trust in the communicating agency, and risk-protective behavior. As explained in this objective, NCCOS will work with coastal managers and other customers to develop and test products, and facilitate their use in decisionmaking, to achieve these ends. *Comment 52:* One commenter raised the question of how effective communication is defined. *Response:* NCCOS points out that the existing text defines effective risk communication as communication that fosters public understanding and trust, and prompts at-risk populations to respond appropriately to mitigate and adapt to undesirable environmental, sociocultural, and economic consequences of ecosystem stress. Comments on Objective 4.1 *Comment 53:* One commenter recommended clarifying the role of NCCOS' cooperative research institutes in implementing this plan. *Response:* NCCOS revised this objective to state that “providing human dimensions understanding critical to support coastal decisionmaking will require retooling of many activities across NCCOS' component research centers, laboratories, and partnerships with cooperating institutions such as NCCOS' coral reef research institutes.” NCCOS similarly amended the “Future Directions” section of the “Overview” to specify that a follow-up implementation plan will specify program- and project-level actions and other programmatic elements “to develop an integral human dimensions research focus in NCCOS—including its component research centers, laboratories, and partnerships with cooperating institutions such as NCCOS' coral reef research institutes.” *Comment 54:* One commenter noted that the workforce needed to support ecosystem science must be interdisciplinary. *Response:* NCCOS agrees with this comment. This objective focuses on development of human dimensions capabilities that complement NCCOS' existing technical workforce, which is predominantly comprised of biological, physical, and ecological scientists. Comments on Appendix 1 *Comment 55:* One commenter stated that the 2006 National Research Council report, *Facing Hazards and Disasters,* does not (as described in the draft) recommend “that future social science research treat hazards and disaster research interchangeably and view the five core topics of hazards and disaster research within a single overarching framework.” *Response:* NCCOS points out that this is a direct quote from an Executive Summary of *Facing Hazards and Disasters* provided by the National Research Council Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences: *http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11671.html.* However, NCCOS eliminated this quote in the process of reducing the length of the document. *Comment 56:* One commenter recommended expanding the discussion of “Balancing Societal Objectives” and moving it to the front material of the document. *Response:* As recommended, NCCOS moved a substantive part of this section to a discussion of the “Human Dimensions of Ecosystems” in the “Overview.” Comments on Appendix 2 *Comment 57:* One commenter noted that the entry for the 2006 National Research Council report, *Facing Hazards and Disasters,* mistakenly includes information related to a 2005 National Science and Technology Council report, *Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction.* *Response:* NCCOS regrets this mistake and eliminated the misplaced information from the entry for the 2006 National Research Council report, *Facing Hazards and Disasters.* *Comment 58:* One commenter recommended duplicating the entry for the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act in the table of drivers related to pollution (in addition to harmful algal blooms). *Response:* As recommended, NCCOS included the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act in the table of drivers related to pollution. Comments on Appendix 3 *Comment 59:* Several commenters requested inclusion of specific additional references. *Response:* NCCOS included suggested references where appropriate. NCCOS notes that this document is not intended to provide an exhaustive literature review. Gary C. Matlock, Director, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. [FR Doc. 07-5111 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 6

Traces to 6 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

5 references not yet in our index