Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Notices 81179 

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 

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 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. 

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: 

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 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 

81180 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Notices 

1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 85 FR 54349 

(September 1, 2020). 

2The petitioners are the United States Steel 

Corporation, Maverick Tube Corporation, Tenaris 

Bay City, Inc., and IPSCO Tubulars Inc. 

3See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular 

Goods from Turkey: Request for Administrative 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order,’’ dated 

September 30, 2020. 

4See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 85 FR 

68840 (October 30, 2020) (Initiation Notice). 

5See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular 

Goods from Turkey: Withdrawal of Request for 

Administrative Review,’’ dated November 25, 2020. 

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 

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 

the FTZ Board’s regulations, including 

Section 400.14. 

Dated: December 10, 2020. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27550 Filed 12–14–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–489–816] 

Oil Country Tubular Goods From the 

Republic of Turkey: Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2019–2020 

AGENCY: 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. 

DATES: Applicable December 15, 2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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: 

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. 

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