Request for Comments for the Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence Building, 81179-81180 [2020-27489]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Notices
info@ascr.usda.gov or calling(866) 632–
9992 to request the form.
A letter may also be written
containing all of the information
requested in the form. Send the
completed complaint form or letter by
mail to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Director, Office of
Adjudication, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250–
9410, or email at program.intake@
usda.gov. Additional information can be
found online at https://
www.ascr.usda.gov/filingprogramdiscrimination-complaintusdacustomer.
USDA is an equal opportunity
provider, employer, and lender.
Chad Rupe,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–27576 Filed 12–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Request for Comments for the
Advisory Committee on Data for
Evidence Building
Request for Comments
Office of the Under Secretary
for Economic Affairs, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
The Foundations for
Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of
2018 (Evidence Act) requires federal
agencies to modernize their data
management practices to develop and
support evidence-based policymaking.
The Act requires the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), or the head of an agency
designated by the Director, to establish
the Advisory Committee on Data for
Evidence Building (Advisory
Committee). In a letter dated September
3, 2019, OMB delegated managerial and
administrative responsibility for this
Federal advisory committee to the
Department of Commerce Office of
Under Secretary for Economic Affairs
(OUSEA).
DATES: Comments must be received by
Tuesday, February 9, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov.
• By email directly to Evidence@
bea.gov. Include the Docket ID; begin
with the phrase ‘‘Comments for the
Advisory Committee on Data for
Evidence Building;’’ and indicate which
numbered questions described in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this
notice your comments address.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:35 Dec 14, 2020
Jkt 253001
Comments by fax or paper delivery will
not be accepted.
Privacy Note: Comments submitted in
response to this notice may be made
available to the public through relevant
websites. Therefore, commenters should
only include information they wish to
make publicly available on the internet.
Do not submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
Please note the confidentiality of
routine communication and responses
to this public comment request are
treated as public comments and may
therefore be made publicly available,
notwithstanding the inclusion of the
routine notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lucas Hitt, Designated Federal Official,
Advisory Committee on Data for
Evidence Building, 4600 Silver Hill
Road, Washington, DC 20233 by email
Lucas.Hitt@bea.gov or by phone (301)
278–9223.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Advisory Committee will review,
analyze, and make recommendations on
how to promote the use of data for
evidence building. The Advisory
Committee will evaluate and provide
recommendations to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget on
how to facilitate data sharing, data
linkage, and privacy enhancing
techniques in support of evidence
building. As part of its evaluation, the
Advisory Committee may consider best
practices to improve the safe and
appropriate access to data. The
Advisory Committee will consider the
coordination of data sharing and
availability of data for evidence building
across all agencies and levels of
government. The FRN commentators
may respond to any question and do not
need to respond to all questions.
This request for comments offers
researchers, evaluators, contractors,
government entities, and other
interested parties the opportunity to
inform the Committee’s work. This is a
general solicitation of comments from
the public. The Advisory Committee
will consider all feedback and
recommendations on core topics and
central issues such as:
• Capacity needs for secure data access
and record linkage
• Areas for research and development
on state-of-the-art data access and
data protection methods
• How to protect privacy when using
personally identifiable information or
confidential business information in
support of evidence building
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
81179
• How to promote transparency and
facilitate public engagement with the
evidence building process
• Agency needs for data management
and data stewardship services
• How to best facilitate the needs of
researchers, evaluators, and other
evidence builders through a national
data service or similar approach
Please clearly indicate which
question(s) you address in your
response and any evidence to support
assertions, where practicable.
Round 1
Central Questions—
1. What are the main challenges faced
by national, state/provincial, or local
governments that are trying to build a
basis for evidence-based policy? Briefly
describe the bottlenecks and pain-points
they face in the evidence-based
decision-making process.
2. What are examples of high-impact
data uses for evidence-based policy
making that successfully effected
change, reduced costs, or improved the
welfare of citizens?
3. Which frameworks, policies,
practices, or methods show promise in
overcoming challenges experienced by
governments in their evidence building?
4. The Commission on EvidenceBased Policymaking (See: www.cep.gov)
recommended the creation of a National
Secure Data Service (See Commission
Report at www.cep.gov). Do you agree
with this recommendation, and if so,
what should be the essential features of
a National Secure Data Service?
5. How can federal agencies protect
individual and organizational privacy
when using data for evidence building?
Recommend specific actions the Office
of Management and Budget and/or other
federal agencies can take when using
data for evidence building, as well as
suggested changes to federal laws,
policies, and procedures.
Secure Data Access—
6. If created, how should a data
service be structured to best facilitate (1)
research and development of secure
data access and confidentiality
technologies and methods, (2) and
agency adoption of those technologies
and techniques?
7. Government agencies have argued
that secure data access has value
because it (1) improves service delivery,
(2) improves efficiency (lowers costs),
(3) produces metrics for performance
measurement, and (4) produces new
learnings/insights from the data. Which
of these propositions do you agree holds
value and why? Do you have examples
that demonstrate these benefits? Do you
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
81180
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Notices
have other examples of the value of
secure data access?
the FTZ Board’s regulations, including
Section 400.14.
Data Services to Federal, State, Local
Agencies and the Public—
8. What are the most pressing data
needs of state and local decision makers
and how would making data accessible
from federal agencies help meet those
needs? To share data, what guarantees
do data owners (or data controllers)
need regarding privacy, data
stewardship, and retention?
9. What are the key problems and use
cases where collaborative work between
federal, state, and local authorities’ data
analysis can inform decisions? What are
key decision support tools? How would
greater communication about data and
tools benefit expanded evidence
building?
Dated: December 10, 2020.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
Infrastructure for Meeting Public and
Evidence Building Needs—
10. What basic public data services
are essential for a data service to address
existing capacity gaps and needs? What
infrastructure or incentives can the
federal government create that locals
and states cannot?
Dated: December 9, 2020.
Gianna Marrone,
Assistant Designated Federal Official,
Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence
Building.
International Trade Administration
[A–489–816]
Oil Country Tubular Goods From the
Republic of Turkey: Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2019–2020
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) is rescinding the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on oil country
tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic
of Turkey (Turkey) covering the period
of review (POR) September 1, 2019,
through August 31, 2020, based on the
timely withdrawal of the request for
review.
AGENCY:
Applicable December 15, 2020.
Christopher Williams, AD/CVD
Operations, Office I, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–5166.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[B–54–2020]
Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 136—
Brevard County, Florida; Authorization
of Production Activity; Airbus OneWeb
Satellites North America LLC
(Satellites and Satellite Systems);
Merritt Island, Florida
On August 12, 2020, Airbus OneWeb
Satellites North America LLC submitted
a notification of proposed production
activity to the FTZ Board for its facility
within FTZ 136, in Merritt Island,
Florida.
The notification was processed in
accordance with the regulations of the
FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including
notice in the Federal Register inviting
public comment (85 FR 51010–51011,
August 19, 2020). On December 10,
2020, the applicant was notified of the
FTZ Board’s decision that no further
review of the activity is warranted at
this time. The production activity
described in the notification was
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
BILLING CODE 3510–MN–P
17:35 Dec 14, 2020
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DATES:
[FR Doc. 2020–27489 Filed 12–14–20; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
[FR Doc. 2020–27550 Filed 12–14–20; 8:45 am]
Background
On September 1, 2020, Commerce
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on OCTG from
Turkey for the POR September 1, 2019,
through August 31, 2020.1 On
September 30, 2020, the petitioners 2
timely requested an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
with respect to seven exporters/
producers.3 Commerce received no
other requests for an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order.
1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 85 FR 54349
(September 1, 2020).
2 The petitioners are the United States Steel
Corporation, Maverick Tube Corporation, Tenaris
Bay City, Inc., and IPSCO Tubulars Inc.
3 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular
Goods from Turkey: Request for Administrative
Review of Antidumping Duty Order,’’ dated
September 30, 2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On October 30, 2020, pursuant to
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.221(c)(1)(i), we published in the
Federal Register a notice of initiation of
an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on OCTG from
Turkey with respect to the seven
companies listed in the petitioners’
request for review.4 On November 25,
2020, the petitioners timely withdrew
their administrative review request for
all of the following seven companies for
which a review was requested: APL
Apollo Tubes Ltd., BAUER Casings
Makina San. ve Tic. Ltd, Binayak Hi
Tech Engineering Ltd., Goktas Yassi
Hadde Mamulleri San. ve Tic. A.S.,
ISMT Limited, Noksel Celik Boru
Sanayi. A.S., and TPAO (Turkiye
Petrolleri Anonim Ortakligi).5
Rescission of Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),
Commerce will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in
part, if a party that requested a review
withdraws the request within 90 days of
the date of publication of notice of
initiation of the requested review. The
petitioners timely withdrew their
request for review within 90 days of the
publication date of the Initiation Notice.
No other parties requested an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order. Therefore, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),
we are rescinding the administrative
review of the antidumping order on
OCTG from Turkey for the period
September 1, 2019, through August 31,
2020, in its entirety.
Assessment
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of OCTG from Turkey during the
POR at rates equal to the cash deposit
rate of estimated antidumping duties
required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends
to issue appropriate assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
Notification to Importers
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
4 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 85 FR
68840 (October 30, 2020) (Initiation Notice).
5 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular
Goods from Turkey: Withdrawal of Request for
Administrative Review,’’ dated November 25, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81179-81180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27489]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Request for Comments for the Advisory Committee on Data for
Evidence Building
AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Department
of Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018
(Evidence Act) requires federal agencies to modernize their data
management practices to develop and support evidence-based
policymaking. The Act requires the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), or the head of an agency designated by the Director,
to establish the Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence Building
(Advisory Committee). In a letter dated September 3, 2019, OMB
delegated managerial and administrative responsibility for this Federal
advisory committee to the Department of Commerce Office of Under
Secretary for Economic Affairs (OUSEA).
DATES: Comments must be received by Tuesday, February 9, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.
By email directly to [email protected]. Include the Docket
ID; begin with the phrase ``Comments for the Advisory Committee on Data
for Evidence Building;'' and indicate which numbered questions
described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this notice your comments
address. Comments by fax or paper delivery will not be accepted.
Privacy Note: Comments submitted in response to this notice may be
made available to the public through relevant websites. Therefore,
commenters should only include information they wish to make publicly
available on the internet. Do not submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
Please note the confidentiality of routine communication and
responses to this public comment request are treated as public comments
and may therefore be made publicly available, notwithstanding the
inclusion of the routine notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucas Hitt, Designated Federal
Official, Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence Building, 4600 Silver
Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233 by email [email protected] or by phone
(301) 278-9223.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Advisory Committee will review, analyze, and make
recommendations on how to promote the use of data for evidence
building. The Advisory Committee will evaluate and provide
recommendations to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
on how to facilitate data sharing, data linkage, and privacy enhancing
techniques in support of evidence building. As part of its evaluation,
the Advisory Committee may consider best practices to improve the safe
and appropriate access to data. The Advisory Committee will consider
the coordination of data sharing and availability of data for evidence
building across all agencies and levels of government. The FRN
commentators may respond to any question and do not need to respond to
all questions.
This request for comments offers researchers, evaluators,
contractors, government entities, and other interested parties the
opportunity to inform the Committee's work. This is a general
solicitation of comments from the public. The Advisory Committee will
consider all feedback and recommendations on core topics and central
issues such as:
Capacity needs for secure data access and record linkage
Areas for research and development on state-of-the-art data
access and data protection methods
How to protect privacy when using personally identifiable
information or confidential business information in support of evidence
building
How to promote transparency and facilitate public engagement
with the evidence building process
Agency needs for data management and data stewardship services
How to best facilitate the needs of researchers, evaluators,
and other evidence builders through a national data service or similar
approach
Please clearly indicate which question(s) you address in your
response and any evidence to support assertions, where practicable.
Round 1
Central Questions--
1. What are the main challenges faced by national, state/
provincial, or local governments that are trying to build a basis for
evidence-based policy? Briefly describe the bottlenecks and pain-points
they face in the evidence-based decision-making process.
2. What are examples of high-impact data uses for evidence-based
policy making that successfully effected change, reduced costs, or
improved the welfare of citizens?
3. Which frameworks, policies, practices, or methods show promise
in overcoming challenges experienced by governments in their evidence
building?
4. The Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (See: www.cep.gov)
recommended the creation of a National Secure Data Service (See
Commission Report at www.cep.gov). Do you agree with this
recommendation, and if so, what should be the essential features of a
National Secure Data Service?
5. How can federal agencies protect individual and organizational
privacy when using data for evidence building? Recommend specific
actions the Office of Management and Budget and/or other federal
agencies can take when using data for evidence building, as well as
suggested changes to federal laws, policies, and procedures.
Secure Data Access--
6. If created, how should a data service be structured to best
facilitate (1) research and development of secure data access and
confidentiality technologies and methods, (2) and agency adoption of
those technologies and techniques?
7. Government agencies have argued that secure data access has
value because it (1) improves service delivery, (2) improves efficiency
(lowers costs), (3) produces metrics for performance measurement, and
(4) produces new learnings/insights from the data. Which of these
propositions do you agree holds value and why? Do you have examples
that demonstrate these benefits? Do you
[[Page 81180]]
have other examples of the value of secure data access?
Data Services to Federal, State, Local Agencies and the Public--
8. What are the most pressing data needs of state and local
decision makers and how would making data accessible from federal
agencies help meet those needs? To share data, what guarantees do data
owners (or data controllers) need regarding privacy, data stewardship,
and retention?
9. What are the key problems and use cases where collaborative work
between federal, state, and local authorities' data analysis can inform
decisions? What are key decision support tools? How would greater
communication about data and tools benefit expanded evidence building?
Infrastructure for Meeting Public and Evidence Building Needs--
10. What basic public data services are essential for a data
service to address existing capacity gaps and needs? What
infrastructure or incentives can the federal government create that
locals and states cannot?
Dated: December 9, 2020.
Gianna Marrone,
Assistant Designated Federal Official, Advisory Committee on Data for
Evidence Building.
[FR Doc. 2020-27489 Filed 12-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-MN-P
