Request for Comments for the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, 63166-63168 [2016-22002]

Download as PDF 63166 Notices Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 178 Wednesday, September 14, 2016 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency statements of organization and functions are examples of documents appearing in this section. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Fremont and Winema Resource Advisory Committee Forest Service, USDA. Notice of meeting. AGENCY: The Fremont and Winema Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Lakeview, Oregon. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: https:// facadatabase.gov/committee/ committee.aspx?cid=2266&aid=171. SUMMARY: The meeting will be held on September 29, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. DATES: The meeting will be held at the Lakeview Interagency Building, Main Conference Rooms, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, Oregon. Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Lakeview Interagency Building, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, Oregon. Please call ahead at 541–947–6328 to facilitate entry into the building. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ADDRESSES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:55 Sep 13, 2016 David Brillenz, Designated Federal Official by phone at 541–947–6328, or by email at davidbbrillenz@fs.fed.us. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Forest Service ACTION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jkt 238001 The purpose of the meeting is to: 1. Introduce new Fremont and Winema RAC members, 2. Provide ethics training, and 3. Provide recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 15, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Roland Giller, Partnership Coordinator, 38500 Highway 97 North, Chiloquin, Oregon 97624; or by email to rgiller@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 541–783–2134. Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis. Dated: September 7, 2016. Eric Watrud, Acting Fremont-Winema N.F. Supervisor. [FR Doc. 2016–22065 Filed 9–13–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411–15–P PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket Number 160907825–6825–01] Request for Comments for the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission on EvidenceBased Policymaking, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Request for comments. AGENCY: The Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114–140), enacted March 30, 2016, established a 15-member Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking. The Commission is charged with examining strategies to increase the availability and use of government data, in order to build evidence related to government programs and policies, while protecting the privacy and confidentiality of the data. Over the next year, the Commission will consider how data, research, and evaluation are currently used to build evidence and continuously improve public programs and policies, and how to strengthen evidence-building to inform program and policy design and implementation. The Commission’s work will conclude with a presentation of findings and recommendations on evidence-building to Congress and the President. This request for comments seeks public input on a range of issues, including topics the authorizing law directs the Commission to consider. The public comments received from this request will be used to inform future deliberations of the Commission. DATES: Comments must be received by November 14, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. We will not accept comments by fax or paper delivery. Please include the Docket ID and the phrase ‘‘Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking Comments’’ at the beginning of your comments. Please also indicate which questions described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this notice are addressed in your comments. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically under Docket ID USBC–2016–0003. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing Commission SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM 14SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2016 / Notices documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under ‘‘How to Use This Site.’’ • Privacy Note: Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant Web sites. Therefore, commenters should only include in their comments information that they wish to make publicly available on the Internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public, notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Hart, Policy and Research Director for the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, nicholas.r.hart@ census.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose Request for Comments asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Overarching Questions 1. Are there successful frameworks, policies, practices, and methods to overcome challenges related to evidence-building from state, local, and/ or international governments the Commission should consider when developing findings and recommendations regarding Federal evidence-based policymaking? If so, please describe. 2. Based on identified best practices and existing examples, what factors should be considered in reasonably ensuring the security and privacy of administrative and survey data? Data Infrastructure and Access The Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (hereafter, ‘‘Commission’’) established by Public Law 114–140 is charged with examining strategies to improve the production and use of evidence to support U.S. government programs and policies. Specifically, the Commission is considering how to increase the availability and use of government data in support of evidencebuilding activities related to government programs and policies, while protecting the privacy and confidentiality of such data. This request for comments offers government entities, researchers, evaluators, contractors, and other interested parties the opportunity to inform the Commission’s work and provide recommendations on core questions the Commission will consider. Through this request for comments, the Commission is seeking initial feedback from a broad range of stakeholders on questions that will contribute to the Commission’s future activities and fulfillment of its duties, potentially including any findings and recommendations. This request for comments is for information-gathering and fact-finding purposes only, and should not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation on the part of the Commission or Federal agencies to agree with submitted comments or to make recommendations regarding specific issues identified in public comments. The Commission requests that respondents address the following questions, where possible and VerDate Sep<11>2014 applicable. Respondents are encouraged to focus on questions informed by relevant expertise or perspectives. Please clearly indicate which question(s) you address in your response and any evidence to support assertions, where practicable. 20:55 Sep 13, 2016 Jkt 238001 3. Based on identified best practices and existing examples, how should existing government data infrastructure be modified to best facilitate use of and access to administrative and survey data? 4. What data-sharing infrastructure should be used to facilitate data merging, linking, and access for research, evaluation, and analysis purposes? 5. What challenges currently exist in linking state and local data to federal data? Are there successful instances where these challenges have been addressed? 6. Should a single or multiple clearinghouse(s) for administrative and survey data be established to improve evidence-based policymaking? What benefits or limitations are likely to be encountered in either approach? 7. What data should be included in a potential U.S. government data clearinghouse(s)? What are the current legal or administrative barriers to including such data in a clearinghouse or linking the data? 8. What factors or strategies should the Commission consider for how a clearinghouse(s) could be self-funded? What successful examples exist for selffinancing related to similar purposes? 9. What specific administrative or legal barriers currently exist for accessing survey and administrative data? 10. How should the Commission define ‘‘qualified researchers and institutions?’’ To what extent should administrative and survey data held by government agencies be made available PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 63167 to ‘‘qualified researchers and institutions?’’ 11. How might integration of administrative and survey data in a clearinghouse affect the risk of unintentional or unauthorized access or release of personally-identifiable information, confidential business information, or other identifiable records? How can identifiable information be best protected to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of individual or business data in a clearinghouse? 12. If a clearinghouse were created, what types of restrictions should be placed on the uses of data in the clearinghouse by ‘‘qualified researchers and institutions?’’ 13. What technological solutions from government or the private sector are relevant for facilitating data sharing and management? 14. What incentives may best facilitate interagency sharing of information to improve programmatic effectiveness and enhance data accuracy and comprehensiveness? Data Use in Program Design, Management, Research, Evaluation, and Analysis 15. What barriers currently exist for using survey and administrative data to support program management and/or evaluation activities? 16. How can data, statistics, results of research, and findings from evaluation, be best used to improve policies and programs? 17. To what extent can or should program and policy evaluation be addressed in program designs? 18. How can or should program evaluation be incorporated into program designs? What specific examples demonstrate where evaluation has been successfully incorporated in program designs? 19. To what extent should evaluations specifically with either experimental (sometimes referred to as ‘‘randomized control trials’’) or quasi-experimental designs be institutionalized in programs? What specific examples demonstrate where such institutionalization has been successful and what best practices exist for doing so? Guidance for Submitting Documents We ask that each respondent include the name and address of his or her institution or affiliation, and the name, title, mailing and email addresses, and telephone number of a contact person for his or her institution or affiliation, if any. E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM 14SEN1 63168 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2016 / Notices Rights to Materials Submitted By submitting material in response to this request, you agree to grant the Commission a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive license to use the material, and to post it. Further, you agree that you own, have a valid license, or are otherwise authorized to provide the material to the Commission. The Commission will not provide any compensation for material submitted in response to this request for comments. Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-toLength Plate From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Iowa State University of Science and Technology, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscope asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P [C–580–888] BILLING CODE 3510–07–P This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Docket Number: 15–052. Applicant: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, IA 50011–3020. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI, Company, Czech Republic and Great Britain. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 41519, June 27, 2016. Docket Number: 16–007. Applicant: University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 41519, June 27, 2016. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as this instrument is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We Jkt 238001 [FR Doc. 2016–22099 Filed 9–13–16; 8:45 am] International Trade Administration [FR Doc. 2016–22002 Filed 9–13–16; 8:45 am] 20:55 Sep 13, 2016 Dated: September 8, 2016. Gregory W. Campbell, Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Enforcement and Compliance. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Dated: September 8, 2016. Shelly Martinez, Executive Director of the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking. VerDate Sep<11>2014 know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument. Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers/exporters of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate (CTL plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. DATES: Effective September 14, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas or John Corrigan, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3813 or (202) 482– 7438, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty (CVD) Determination With Final Antidumping Duty (AD) Determination On the same day the Department initiated this CVD investigation, the Department also initiated CVD investigations of CTL plate from Brazil and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and AD investigations of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the PRC, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey.1 The CVD investigation covers 1 See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-toLength Plate From Brazil, the People’s Republic of PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the same merchandise as the AD investigations of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Africa, and Taiwan.2 On August 25, 2016, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), Petitioners 3 requested alignment of the final CVD determination with the final AD determination of CTL plate from Korea.4 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination with the final AD determination of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Taiwan. Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than January 18, 2017, unless postponed.5 Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers CTL plate from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the Preamble to the Department’s regulations,6 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding China, and the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 81 FR 27098 (May 5, 2016) (Initiation Notice); see also Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the People’s Republic of China, South Africa, Taiwan, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 81 FR 27089 (May 5, 2016). 2 For a complete case history, see Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Negative Determination: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from the Republic of Korea,’’ dated concurrently with this notice and hereby incorporated by reference, and adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 3 Petitioners in this investigation are ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor Corporation, and SSAB Enterprises LLC. 4 See Letter from Petitioners, ‘‘Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from Korea: Petitioners’ Request to Align the Countervailing Duty Final Determinations with the Companion Antidumping Duty Final Determinations,’’ dated August 25, 2016. 5 The AD determinations of CTL plate from Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey were not postponed. See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cutto-Length Plate Austria, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 81 FR 59185 (August 29, 2016). 6 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble). E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM 14SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63166-63168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22002]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[Docket Number 160907825-6825-01]


Request for Comments for the Commission on Evidence-Based 
Policymaking

AGENCY: Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2016 (Pub. 
L. 114-140), enacted March 30, 2016, established a 15-member Commission 
on Evidence-Based Policymaking. The Commission is charged with 
examining strategies to increase the availability and use of government 
data, in order to build evidence related to government programs and 
policies, while protecting the privacy and confidentiality of the data. 
Over the next year, the Commission will consider how data, research, 
and evaluation are currently used to build evidence and continuously 
improve public programs and policies, and how to strengthen evidence-
building to inform program and policy design and implementation. The 
Commission's work will conclude with a presentation of findings and 
recommendations on evidence-building to Congress and the President. 
This request for comments seeks public input on a range of issues, 
including topics the authorizing law directs the Commission to 
consider. The public comments received from this request will be used 
to inform future deliberations of the Commission.

DATES: Comments must be received by November 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. We 
will not accept comments by fax or paper delivery. Please include the 
Docket ID and the phrase ``Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking 
Comments'' at the beginning of your comments. Please also indicate 
which questions described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this 
notice are addressed in your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically under Docket ID USBC-2016-0003. 
Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for 
accessing Commission

[[Page 63167]]

documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on 
the site under ``How to Use This Site.''
     Privacy Note: Comments submitted in response to this 
notice may be made available to the public through relevant Web sites. 
Therefore, commenters should only include in their comments information 
that they wish to make publicly available on the Internet. Please note 
that responses to this public comment request containing any routine 
notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated 
as public comments that may be made available to the public, 
notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Hart, Policy and Research 
Director for the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, 
nicholas.r.hart@census.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose

    The Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (hereafter, 
``Commission'') established by Public Law 114-140 is charged with 
examining strategies to improve the production and use of evidence to 
support U.S. government programs and policies. Specifically, the 
Commission is considering how to increase the availability and use of 
government data in support of evidence-building activities related to 
government programs and policies, while protecting the privacy and 
confidentiality of such data.
    This request for comments offers government entities, researchers, 
evaluators, contractors, and other interested parties the opportunity 
to inform the Commission's work and provide recommendations on core 
questions the Commission will consider.

Request for Comments

    Through this request for comments, the Commission is seeking 
initial feedback from a broad range of stakeholders on questions that 
will contribute to the Commission's future activities and fulfillment 
of its duties, potentially including any findings and recommendations. 
This request for comments is for information-gathering and fact-finding 
purposes only, and should not be construed as a solicitation or as an 
obligation on the part of the Commission or Federal agencies to agree 
with submitted comments or to make recommendations regarding specific 
issues identified in public comments.
    The Commission requests that respondents address the following 
questions, where possible and applicable. Respondents are encouraged to 
focus on questions informed by relevant expertise or perspectives. 
Please clearly indicate which question(s) you address in your response 
and any evidence to support assertions, where practicable.

Overarching Questions

    1. Are there successful frameworks, policies, practices, and 
methods to overcome challenges related to evidence-building from state, 
local, and/or international governments the Commission should consider 
when developing findings and recommendations regarding Federal 
evidence-based policymaking? If so, please describe.
    2. Based on identified best practices and existing examples, what 
factors should be considered in reasonably ensuring the security and 
privacy of administrative and survey data?

Data Infrastructure and Access

    3. Based on identified best practices and existing examples, how 
should existing government data infrastructure be modified to best 
facilitate use of and access to administrative and survey data?
    4. What data-sharing infrastructure should be used to facilitate 
data merging, linking, and access for research, evaluation, and 
analysis purposes?
    5. What challenges currently exist in linking state and local data 
to federal data? Are there successful instances where these challenges 
have been addressed?
    6. Should a single or multiple clearinghouse(s) for administrative 
and survey data be established to improve evidence-based policymaking? 
What benefits or limitations are likely to be encountered in either 
approach?
    7. What data should be included in a potential U.S. government data 
clearinghouse(s)? What are the current legal or administrative barriers 
to including such data in a clearinghouse or linking the data?
    8. What factors or strategies should the Commission consider for 
how a clearinghouse(s) could be self-funded? What successful examples 
exist for self-financing related to similar purposes?
    9. What specific administrative or legal barriers currently exist 
for accessing survey and administrative data?
    10. How should the Commission define ``qualified researchers and 
institutions?'' To what extent should administrative and survey data 
held by government agencies be made available to ``qualified 
researchers and institutions?''
    11. How might integration of administrative and survey data in a 
clearinghouse affect the risk of unintentional or unauthorized access 
or release of personally-identifiable information, confidential 
business information, or other identifiable records? How can 
identifiable information be best protected to ensure the privacy and 
confidentiality of individual or business data in a clearinghouse?
    12. If a clearinghouse were created, what types of restrictions 
should be placed on the uses of data in the clearinghouse by 
``qualified researchers and institutions?''
    13. What technological solutions from government or the private 
sector are relevant for facilitating data sharing and management?
    14. What incentives may best facilitate interagency sharing of 
information to improve programmatic effectiveness and enhance data 
accuracy and comprehensiveness?

Data Use in Program Design, Management, Research, Evaluation, and 
Analysis

    15. What barriers currently exist for using survey and 
administrative data to support program management and/or evaluation 
activities?
    16. How can data, statistics, results of research, and findings 
from evaluation, be best used to improve policies and programs?
    17. To what extent can or should program and policy evaluation be 
addressed in program designs?
    18. How can or should program evaluation be incorporated into 
program designs? What specific examples demonstrate where evaluation 
has been successfully incorporated in program designs?
    19. To what extent should evaluations specifically with either 
experimental (sometimes referred to as ``randomized control trials'') 
or quasi-experimental designs be institutionalized in programs? What 
specific examples demonstrate where such institutionalization has been 
successful and what best practices exist for doing so?

Guidance for Submitting Documents

    We ask that each respondent include the name and address of his or 
her institution or affiliation, and the name, title, mailing and email 
addresses, and telephone number of a contact person for his or her 
institution or affiliation, if any.

[[Page 63168]]

Rights to Materials Submitted

    By submitting material in response to this request, you agree to 
grant the Commission a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, 
nonexclusive license to use the material, and to post it. Further, you 
agree that you own, have a valid license, or are otherwise authorized 
to provide the material to the Commission. The Commission will not 
provide any compensation for material submitted in response to this 
request for comments.

    Dated: September 8, 2016.
Shelly Martinez,
Executive Director of the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking.
[FR Doc. 2016-22002 Filed 9-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.