Census Designated Place (CDP) Program for the 2010 Census-Final Criteria, 8269-8273 [E8-2667]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Notices
Environmental Impact
No Takings Implications
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
These final additions to Forest Service
Manual (FSM) 2070 would address the
use of native plant materials in
revegetation, rehabilitation, and
restoration projects; and when
nonnative, noninvasive species may be
used. Section 31.1b of Forest Service
Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 (57 FR 43168;
September 18, 1992) excludes from
documentation in an environmental
assessment or impact statement ‘‘rules,
regulations, or policies to establish
Service-wide administrative procedures,
program processes, or instruction.’’ The
Agency’s preliminary assessment is that
this final action falls within this
category of actions, and that no
extraordinary circumstances exist as
currently defined which would require
preparation of an environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment.
A final determination will be made
upon adoption of the final directive.
This final directive has been analyzed
in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
12630 (March 15, 1998) on
governmental actions and interference
with constitutionally protected property
rights. It has been determined that the
final directive does not pose the risk of
a taking of constitutionally protected
private property.
Bureau of the Census
Federalism
The agency has considered this final
directive under the requirements of
Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999)
on federalism. The agency has made an
assessment that the final directive
conforms with the federalism principles
set out in this executive order; would
not impose any compliance costs on the
States; and would not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, nor on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, the
Agency concludes that the final
directive does not have federalism
implications.
Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
8269
This final directive has been reviewed
under Executive Order 13175
(November 6, 2000) on consultation and
coordination with Indian tribal
governments. This final directive does
not have substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes. Nor does
this final directive impose substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Therefore, it has been determined that
this final directive does not have tribal
implications requiring advance
consultation with Indian tribes.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
Civil Justice Reform Act
This final action has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988 (February
7, 1996) on civil justice reform. If this
final directive were adopted: (1) All
State and local laws and regulations that
are in conflict with this final directive
or which would impede its full
implementation would be preempted;
(2) no retroactive effect would be given
to this final directive; and (3) it would
not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court
challenging its provisions.
Energy Effects
This final directive has been reviewed
under Executive Order 13211 (May 18,
2001) on actions concerning regulations
that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, or use. It has been
determined that this final directive does
not constitute a significant energy action
as defined in the Executive Order.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the
Public
This final directive does not contain
any additional recordkeeping or
reporting requirements associated with
onshore oil and gas exploration and
development or other information
collection requirements as defined in
Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), part 1320. Accordingly, the
review provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) and its implementing
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not
apply.
Dated: February 7, 2008.
Abigail R. Kimbell,
Chief.
[FR Doc. E8–2659 Filed 2–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
PO 00000
[Docket Number 070104002–7796–02]
Census Designated Place (CDP)
Program for the 2010 Census—Final
Criteria
Bureau of the Census,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final criteria and
program implementation.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This Notice announces the
Bureau of the Census’ (Census Bureau’s)
final criteria for defining census
designated places (CDPs) for the 2010
Census. CDPs1 are statistical geographic
entities representing closely settled,
unincorporated communities that are
locally recognized and identified by
name. They are the statistical
equivalents of incorporated places, with
the primary differences being the lack of
both a legally-defined boundary and an
active, functioning governmental
structure, chartered by the state and
administered by elected officials. CDPs
defined for the 2010 Census also will be
used to tabulate American Community
Survey, Puerto Rico Community Survey,
Economic Census data after 2010, and
potentially data from other Census
Bureau censuses and surveys.
In addition to providing final criteria
for CDPs, this Notice also contains a
summary of comments received in
response to proposed criteria published
in the April 6, 2007, Federal Register
(72 FR 17326), as well as the Census
Bureau’s response to those comments.
DATES: This notice’s final criteria will be
effective on February 13, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Geographic Standards and Criteria
Branch, Geography Division, U.S.
Census Bureau, via e-mail at
geo.psap.list@census.gov or telephone at
301–763–3056.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The CDP concept and delineation
criteria have evolved over the past five
decades in response to data user needs
for place-level data. This evolution has
taken into account differences in the
way in which places were perceived,
and the propensity for places to
incorporate in various states. The result,
over time, has been an increase in the
number and types of unincorporated
communities identified as CDPs, as well
as increasing consistency in the
relationship between the CDP concept
1 The term CDP includes comunidades and zonas
urbanas in Puerto Rico.
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
8270
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Notices
and the kinds of places encompassed by
the incorporated place category, or a
compromise between localized
perceptions of place and a concept that
would be familiar to data users
throughout the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Island Areas.
Although not as numerous as
incorporated places or municipalities,2
CDPs have been important geographic
entities since their introduction for the
1950 Census. (CDPs were referred to as
‘‘unincorporated places’’ from 1950
through the 1970 decennial censuses.)
For the 1950 Census, CDPs were defined
only outside urbanized areas and were
required to have at least 1,000 residents.
For the 1960 Census, CDPs could also be
identified inside urbanized areas
outside of New England, but these were
required to have at least 10,000
residents. The Census Bureau modified
the population threshold within
urbanized areas to 5,000 in 1970,
allowed for CDPs in urbanized areas in
New England in 1980, and lowered the
urbanized area threshold again to 2,500
in 1990. In time, other population
thresholds were adopted for
identification of CDPs in Alaska, as well
as in Puerto Rico, the Island Areas, and
on American Indian reservations. The
Census Bureau eliminated all
population threshold requirements for
Census 2000, achieving consistency
between CDPs and incorporated places,
for which the Census Bureau
historically has published data without
regard to population size.
According to Census 2000, more than
35 million people in the United States,3
Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas 4 lived
in CDPs. The relative importance of
CDPs varies from state-to-state
depending on laws governing municipal
incorporation and annexation, but also
depending on local preferences and
attitudes regarding the identification of
places.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
II. Summary of Comments Received in
Response to Proposed Criteria
The April 6, 2007, Federal Register
(72 FR 17326) notice requested
comment on proposed criteria for CDPs.
Specific proposed changes to the Census
2000 included:
2 Known by various terms throughout the United
States: cities, towns (except in the six New England
States, New York, and Wisconsin), villages, and
boroughs (except in New York and Alaska).
3 For Census Bureau purposes, the United States
includes the fifty states and the District of
Columbia.
4 For Census Bureau purposes, the Island Areas
includes the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and Guam. There are no CDPs in American
Samoa because villages cover its entire territory and
population.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
• Requiring each CDP to contain, at a
minimum, some population or housing;
• Eliminating the ability to delineate
CDPs that were coextensive with
governmental minor civil divisions
(MCDs) in the six New England States,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin;
• Eliminating the use of hyphenated
names for CDPs, except in situations in
which two or more communities have
grown together and share a common
identity.
The Census Bureau received ten
comments related to CDPs. Two
commenters expressed general support
for the proposed criteria. Two
commenters (both from townships in
New Jersey) opposed elimination of
CDPs. It was unclear from their
comments whether they mistook the
Census Bureau’s question regarding
continued identification of census
county divisions as applying to CDPs, or
whether their comments were offered in
response to a separate inquiry from a
township in New Jersey to treat
townships as places within the Census
Bureau’s geographic area hierarchy.
Treatment of townships as places would
result in the elimination of small CDPs
defined to represent closely settled
communities within townships. Due to
the lack of information, the Census
Bureau did not make any changes to the
criteria.
The Nevada State Demographers’
office commented on the
characterization of CDPs as
unincorporated communities lacking
legally described boundaries, noting
that many CDPs in Nevada are
designated as ‘‘special taxation areas’’
and as such have legally described
boundaries.5 Nevertheless, the Census
Bureau notes that Nevada’s CDPs are not
incorporated as municipalities in the
same sense as cities in that state, and
therefore it is still appropriate to
identify Nevada’s special taxation areas
as CDPs. The Census Bureau will
attempt to provide greater detail in its
documentation and geographic
attributes describing the various kinds
of communities identified as CDPs.
The Census Bureau received two
comments related specifically to the
proposal to reduce the number of
instances in which places were
combined to form a single CDP and
related use of hyphenated names. Both
commenters were from California, and
each noted the negative impact this
proposed criterion might have on the
accurate depiction of unincorporated
communities in California. Both agreed
5 CDPs in Hawaii and zonas urbanas in Puerto
Rico also have legally described boundaries.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
with the criterion in principle, but
requested that the Census Bureau clarify
when it is acceptable for multiple
communities to be defined as a single
CDP (for instance, when two
communities have grown together to the
extent that it is difficult to discern
where one ends and the other begins)
and when it is not. The example of
Arden-Arcade, California, was cited,
noting that the identities of these once
separate places have become so
intertwined that it is more common to
hear them referred to together, rather
than apart. The Census Bureau agrees
with this comment and will clarify in
both published criteria and program
guidelines when it is acceptable for
multiple communities to be defined as
a single CDP. Multiple communities
may only be combined to form a single
CDP when the identities of these
communities have become so
intertwined that the communities are
commonly perceived and referenced as
a single place, or when there is no
distinguishable or suitable feature in the
landscape that can be used as a
boundary between the communities.
The Census Bureau received three
comments related to the proposal to no
longer allow CDPs in Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin to be
defined as coextensive with
governmentally active MCDs. Each of
the three commenters had extensive
experience working with and analyzing
statistical data for places, MCDs, and
other census geographic areas. One of
the commenters supported the proposal.
Two of the commenters did not support
the proposal, noting that CDPs that are
coextensive with governmentally active
MCDs represent a relatively small
proportion of all CDPs and MCDs;
therefore, the creation of coextensive,
‘‘whole-town’’ CDPs does not represent
a substantial problem. Both commenters
noted that since ‘‘place’’ is in general a
rather nuanced concept, with different
meanings to different people, the
Census Bureau should not be overly
restrictive in how it applies its CDP
concept in areas of the United States,
such as the Northeast and Midwest in
which residents commonly perceive
MCDs to be places in the same sense
that residents of other parts of the
country use the term ‘‘place.’’ They
concluded that if the goal of the
proposal was to eliminate redundancy
in place-based data tables for these 12
states, then that goal could be
accomplished within the data tabulation
program without requiring
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
modifications to geographic area
criteria. The Census Bureau agrees that
the elimination of redundant data
should be accomplished through
changes in the way in which place-level
data tables are prepared rather than
through changes to the CDP criteria.
Therefore, the Census Bureau will
review the way in which it presents data
for places and MCDs in the states listed
above, and seek to eliminate
redundancy in place-level data tables
through changes in data tabulation
policy and procedures.
Changes to the Criteria From the
Proposed Rule
The changes made to the final criteria
(from the proposed criteria) in ‘‘Section
II, Census Designated Place Criteria and
Characteristics for the 2010 Census,’’ are
as follows:
1. Section II, ‘‘Census Designated
Place Criteria and Characteristics for the
2010 Census,’’ in the introductory
paragraph to this section, removed the
reference to American Indian
reservations and off-reservation trust
lands in the first sentence because these
areas are, by definition, within the
United States.
2. Section II, ‘‘Census Designated
Place Criteria and Characteristics for the
2010 Census,’’ added a second
paragraph to subsection 1, in response
to comments received to clarify the
circumstances under which it would be
appropriate to combine multiple places
to form a single CDP with a hyphenated
name. This paragraph provides specific
examples of CDPs that encompass
multiple communities and are
appropriately identified with a
hyphenated name. We also have
provided several questions for program
participants to consider when
determining whether to combine
multiple communities as a single CDP
and how to identify the CDP by name.
3. Section II, ‘‘Census Designated
Place Criteria and Characteristics for the
2010 Census,’’ subsection 4. The Census
Bureau deleted the criterion in
subsection 4 of the proposed criteria,
stating that a CDP may not be
coextensive with governmentally
functioning MCDs in the 12 ‘‘strongMCD’’ states: Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
and Wisconsin. The goal of this
proposal was to eliminate redundancy
in selected place-level data tables for
these states, in which data appear for
both the MCD and the coextensive CDP
of the same name (for example,
Framingham, Massachusetts MCD and
Framingham CDP). While this practice
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
occasionally creates confusion on the
part of some data users, the number of
CDPs that are coextensive with
governmentally active MCDs represents
a relatively small proportion of all CDPs
and MCDs in these states. Further, the
concept of ‘‘place’’ is nuanced and
varies to some extent from one part of
the country to another, and there are
instances in which residents of an MCD
identify it as a place, in the same sense
as places are recognized throughout the
country. Rather than adopt a restrictive
criterion applicable to only a subset of
states, we agreed with the commenters
and concluded that the elimination of
redundant data could be accomplished
through changes in the way in which
place-level data tables are prepared
rather than through changes to the CDP
criteria.
III. Census Designated Place Criteria
and Characteristics for the 2010 Census
The criteria contained herein apply to
the United States, Puerto Rico, and the
Island Areas. In accordance with the
final criteria, the Census Bureau may
modify and, if necessary, reject any
proposals for CDPs that do not meet the
established criteria. In addition, the
Census Bureau reserves the right to
modify the boundaries and attributes of
CDPs as needed to maintain geographic
relationships before the final tabulation
geography is set for the 2010 Census.
The Census Bureau will use the
following criteria and characteristics to
identify the areas that will qualify for
designation as CDPs for use in
tabulating data from the 2010 Census,
the American Community Survey, the
Puerto Rico Community Survey, the
Economic Census, and potentially other
Census Bureau censuses and surveys.
1. A CDP constitutes a single, closely
settled center of population that is
named. To the extent possible,
individual unincorporated communities
should be identified as separate CDPs.
Similarly, a single community should be
defined as a single CDP rather than
multiple CDPs with each part
referencing the community name and a
directional term (i.e., north, south, east,
or west). Since a CDP is defined to
provide data for a single named locality,
the Census Bureau does not encourage
CDPs that comprise a combination of
places or identified by hyphenated
names. For example, CDPs such as
Poplar-Cotton Center and DownievilleLawson-Dumont are no longer
acceptable. Communities were often
combined as a single CDP in order to
comply with the Census Bureau’s
minimum population requirements. The
Census Bureau’s elimination of
population threshold criteria has made
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8271
such combinations unnecessary. Other
communities were combined because
visible features were not available for
use as boundaries for separate CDPs.
The Census Bureau’s new policy to
allow the use of some nonvisible
boundaries so that participants can
separate individual communities has
dispensed with the need to have multiplace CDPs.
Multiple communities may only be
combined to form a single CDP when
the identities of these communities have
become so intertwined that the
communities are commonly perceived
and referenced as a single place. For
example, the communities of Arden and
Arcade in California have grown
together over time and residents
commonly use the place name ArdenArcade. Further, because of the
intertwined identity, residents would
have difficulty identifying a boundary
between the separate, historical
communities of Arden and Arcade.
Multiple communities also may be
defined as a single CDP when there is
no distinguishable or suitable feature in
the landscape that can be used as a
boundary between the communities,
even if the two communities still have
separate identities. For example, the
CDP of Ashton-Sandy Spring in
Maryland encompasses two
communities that still maintain separate
identities in common, daily usage. The
two communities, however, have grown
together to such an extent that a clear
break between the two communities is
no longer identifiable in the landscape.
In general, when considering whether to
combine multiple communities as a
single CDP, the following questions
should be taken into account: Do
residents commonly perceive and refer
to the communities as a single entity?
Are there landscape elements, such as
signs, that use a hyphenated name for
the community? Can residents or other
knowledgeable individuals identify
clear, commonly accepted boundaries
for the individual communities?
2. A CDP generally consists of a
contiguous cluster of census blocks
comprising a single piece of territory
and containing a mix of residential and
commercial uses similar to that of an
incorporated place of similar size. Some
CDPs, however, may be predominantly
residential; such places should
represent recognizably distinct, locally
known communities, but not typical
suburban subdivisions. Examples of
such predominantly residential
communities that can be recognized as
CDPs are colonias found along the
United States-Mexico border, small
rural communities, and unincorporated
resort and retirement communities.
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
8272
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Notices
3. A CDP may not be located, either
partially or entirely, within an
incorporated place or another CDP.
4. A CDP may be located in more than
one county but must not cross state
boundaries. It is important to note,
however, that since county boundaries
provide important demarcations for
communities, CDPs that cross county
lines should be kept to a minimum and
identified only when the community
clearly sees itself existing on both sides
of a county boundary.
5. There are no minimum population
or housing unit thresholds for defining
CDPs; however, a CDP must contain
some population or housing units or
both. The Census Bureau recognizes that
some communities, such as a resort or
other kinds of seasonal communities,
may lack population at certain times of
the year. Nevertheless, there should be
some evidence, generally in the form of
houses, barracks, dormitories,
commercial buildings and/or other
structures, providing the basis for local
perception of the place’s existence. For
the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau
will not accept a CDP delineated with
zero population and zero housing units.
The Census Bureau will review the
number of housing units within the
place, as reported in the previous
decennial census, and consider whether
additional information is needed before
recognizing the CDP. Participants
submitting boundaries for places with
less than ten housing units may be
asked to provide additional information
attesting to the existence of the CDP.
6. CDP boundaries should follow
visible features, except in those
circumstances when a CDP’s boundary
is coincident with the nonvisible
boundary of a state, county, MCD (in the
six New England states, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), or
incorporated place. CDP boundaries
may follow other nonvisible features in
instances where reliance upon visible
features will result in overbounding of
the CDP in order to include housing
units on both sides of a road or street
feature. Such boundaries might include
parcel boundaries and public land
survey system lines; fence lines;
national, state, or local park boundaries;
ridgelines; or drainage ditches.
7. The CDP name should be one that
is recognized and used in daily
communication by the residents of the
community. Because unincorporated
communities generally lack legally
defined boundaries, a commonly used
community name and the geographic
extent of its use by local residents is
often the best identifier of the extent of
a place, the assumption being that if
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
residents associate with a particular
name and use it to identify the place in
which they live, then the CDP’s
boundaries can be mapped based on the
use of the name. There should be
features in the landscape that use the
name, such that a non-resident would
have a general sense of the location or
extent of the community; for example,
signs indicating when one is entering
the community; highway exit signs that
use the name; or businesses, schools, or
other buildings that make use of the
name. It should not be a name
developed solely for planning or other
purposes (including simply to obtain
data from the Census Bureau) that is not
in regular daily use by the local
residents and business establishments.
8. A CDP may not have the same
name as an adjacent or nearby
incorporated place. If the community
does not have a name that distinguishes
it from other nearby communities, then
the community is not a distinct place.
The use of directional terms (‘‘north,’’
‘‘south,’’ ‘‘east,’’ ‘‘west,’’ and so forth) to
differentiate the name of a CDP from a
nearby municipality where this name is
not in local use is not acceptable. For
example, the name ‘‘North Laurel’’
would be permitted if this name were in
local use. The name ‘‘Laurel North’’
would not be permitted if it were not in
local use. Again, this has much to do
with the way in which people typically
refer to the places in which they live. It
is permissible to change the name of a
2000 CDP for the 2010 Census if the
new name provides a better
identification of the community.
IV. Definitions of Key Terms
Alaska Native regional corporation
(ANRC)—A corporate geographic area
established under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 92–
203) to conduct both the business and
nonprofit affairs of Alaska Natives.
Twelve ANRCs cover the state of
Alaska, except for the Annette Island
Reserve.
American Indian reservation (AIR)—
A federally recognized American Indian
land area with boundaries established
by final treaty, statute, executive order,
and/or court order, and over which a
federally recognized American Indian
tribal government has governmental
authority. Along with reservations,
designations such as colonies,
communities, pueblos, rancherias, and
reserves apply to AIRs.
Census block—A geographic area
bounded by visible and/or invisible
features shown on a map prepared by
the Census Bureau. A block is the
smallest geographic entity for which the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Census Bureau tabulates decennial
census data.
Coextensive—Descriptive of two or
more geographic entities that cover
exactly the same area, with all
boundaries shared.
Comunidad—A census designated
place in Puerto Rico that is not related
to a municipio’s seat of government,
called an aldea or a ciudad prior to the
1990 Census.
Contiguous—Descriptive of
geographic areas that are adjacent to one
another, sharing either a common
boundary or point of contact.
Housing unit—A house, an apartment,
a mobile home or trailer, or a group of
rooms or a single room occupied as a
separate living quarter or, if vacant,
intended for occupancy as a separate
living quarter. Separate living quarters
are those in which the occupants live
and eat separately from any other
residents of the building and which
have direct access from outside the
building or through a common hall.
Incorporated place—A type of
governmental unit established to
provide governmental services for a
concentration of people within legally
prescribed boundaries, incorporated
under state law as a city, town (except
in New England, New York, and
Wisconsin), borough (except in Alaska
and New York), village, or other
description.
Island areas—An entity, other than a
state or the District of Columbia, under
the jurisdiction of the United States. For
the 2010 Census, these will include
American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
several small islands in the Caribbean
Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The Census
Bureau treats each Island Territory as
the statistical equivalent of a state.
Minor civil division—The primary
governmental or administrative division
of a county in 28 states, Puerto Rico,
and the Island Areas having legal
boundaries, names, and descriptions.
MCDs represent many different types of
legal entities with a wide variety of
characteristics, powers, and functions
depending on the state and type of
MCD. In some states, some or all of the
incorporated places also constitute
MCDs.
Municipio—A type of governmental
unit that is the primary legal
subdivision of Puerto Rico. The Census
Bureau treats the municipio as the
statistical equivalent of a county.
Nonvisible feature—A map feature
that is not visible, such as a city or
county boundary, a property line
running through space, a short
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2008 / Notices
imaginary extension of a street or road,
or a point-to-point line.
Statistical geographic entity—A
geographic entity that is specially
defined and delineated, such as block
group, CDP, or census tract, so that the
Census Bureau may tabulate data for it.
Designation as a statistical entity neither
conveys nor confers legal ownership,
entitlement, or jurisdictional authority.
Urbanized area (UA)—An area
consisting of a central place(s) and
adjacent urban fringe that together have
a minimum residential population of at
least 50,000 people and generally an
overall population density of at least
1,000 people per square mile. The
Census Bureau uses published criteria
to determine the qualification and
boundaries of UAs at the time of each
decennial census or from the results of
a special census during the intercensal
period.
Visible feature—A map feature that
can be seen on the ground, such as a
road, railroad track, major above-ground
transmission line or pipeline, stream,
shoreline, fence, sharply defined
mountain ridge, or cliff. A nonstandard
visible feature is a feature that may not
be clearly defined on the ground (such
as a ridge), may be seasonal (such as an
intermittent stream), or may be
relatively impermanent (such as a
fence). The Census Bureau generally
requests verification that nonstandard
features pose no problem in their
location during field work.
Zona urbana—In Puerto Rico, the
settled area functioning as the seat of
government for a municipio. A zona
urbana cannot cross a municipio
boundary.
Executive Order 12866
This notice has been determined to be
not significant under Executive Order
12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
This program notice does not
represent a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.,
Chapter 35.
Dated: February 8, 2008.
Steve H. Murdock,
Director, Bureau of the Census.
[FR Doc. E8–2667 Filed 2–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 Feb 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–890]
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review,
Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Review and Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) for this
administrative review is January 1,
2006, through December 31, 2006. This
administrative review covers multiple
producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise, three of which are being
individually investigated as mandatory
respondents. The Department is also
conducting a new shipper review for an
exporter/producer. The POR for the new
shipper review is also January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006.
We preliminarily determine that all
three mandatory respondents in the
administrative review made sales in the
United States at prices below normal
value (‘‘NV’’). With respect to the
remaining respondents in the
administrative review (herein after
collectively referred to as the SeparateRate Applicants), we preliminarily
determine that 30 entities have provided
sufficient evidence that they are
separate from the state-controlled entity,
and we have established a weightedaverage margin based on the rates we
have calculated for the three mandatory
respondents, excluding any rates that
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely
on adverse facts available, to be applied
to these separate rate entities. In
addition, we have determined to rescind
the review with respect to three entities
in this administrative review. See
‘‘Partial Rescission’’ section below.
Further, we preliminarily determine
that the remaining separate-rate
applicants have not demonstrated that
they are entitled to a separate rate, and
will thus be considered part of the PRC
entity. Finally, we preliminarily
determine that the new shipper made
sales in the United States at prices
below normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, we will instruct
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8273
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties
on entries of subject merchandise
during the POR for which the importerspecific assessment rates are above de
minimis.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments are
requested to submit with each argument
a statement of the issue and a brief
summary of the argument. We intend to
issue the final results of this review no
later than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Stolz or Hua Lu, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–4474 and (202) 482–6478,
respectively.
Background
On January 4, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture from the PRC. See
Notice of Amended Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January
4, 2005). On January 3, 2007, the
Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on wooden bedroom furniture from the
PRC for the period January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation: Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 72 FR 99
(January 3, 2007). On March 7, 2007, the
Department initiated the second
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture from the PRC. See
Notice of Initiation of Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 10159
(March 7, 2007) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
Additionally, on March 7, 2007, the
Department initiated new shipper
reviews of the order with respect to the
following two companies: Golden Well
International (HK), Ltd. (‘‘Golden Well’’)
and its supplier Zhangzhou XYM
Furniture Product Co., Ltd. and Mei Jia
Ju Furniture Industrial (Shenzhen) Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Mei Jia Ju’’). See Notice of
Initiation of New Shipper Reviews on
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM
13FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8269-8273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2667]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of the Census
[Docket Number 070104002-7796-02]
Census Designated Place (CDP) Program for the 2010 Census--Final
Criteria
AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final criteria and program implementation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice announces the Bureau of the Census' (Census
Bureau's) final criteria for defining census designated places (CDPs)
for the 2010 Census. CDPs\1\ are statistical geographic entities
representing closely settled, unincorporated communities that are
locally recognized and identified by name. They are the statistical
equivalents of incorporated places, with the primary differences being
the lack of both a legally-defined boundary and an active, functioning
governmental structure, chartered by the state and administered by
elected officials. CDPs defined for the 2010 Census also will be used
to tabulate American Community Survey, Puerto Rico Community Survey,
Economic Census data after 2010, and potentially data from other Census
Bureau censuses and surveys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term CDP includes comunidades and zonas urbanas in
Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to providing final criteria for CDPs, this Notice also
contains a summary of comments received in response to proposed
criteria published in the April 6, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR
17326), as well as the Census Bureau's response to those comments.
DATES: This notice's final criteria will be effective on February 13,
2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Geographic Standards and Criteria
Branch, Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau, via e-mail at
geo.psap.list@census.gov or telephone at 301-763-3056.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The CDP concept and delineation criteria have evolved over the past
five decades in response to data user needs for place-level data. This
evolution has taken into account differences in the way in which places
were perceived, and the propensity for places to incorporate in various
states. The result, over time, has been an increase in the number and
types of unincorporated communities identified as CDPs, as well as
increasing consistency in the relationship between the CDP concept
[[Page 8270]]
and the kinds of places encompassed by the incorporated place category,
or a compromise between localized perceptions of place and a concept
that would be familiar to data users throughout the United States,
Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas.
Although not as numerous as incorporated places or
municipalities,\2\ CDPs have been important geographic entities since
their introduction for the 1950 Census. (CDPs were referred to as
``unincorporated places'' from 1950 through the 1970 decennial
censuses.) For the 1950 Census, CDPs were defined only outside
urbanized areas and were required to have at least 1,000 residents. For
the 1960 Census, CDPs could also be identified inside urbanized areas
outside of New England, but these were required to have at least 10,000
residents. The Census Bureau modified the population threshold within
urbanized areas to 5,000 in 1970, allowed for CDPs in urbanized areas
in New England in 1980, and lowered the urbanized area threshold again
to 2,500 in 1990. In time, other population thresholds were adopted for
identification of CDPs in Alaska, as well as in Puerto Rico, the Island
Areas, and on American Indian reservations. The Census Bureau
eliminated all population threshold requirements for Census 2000,
achieving consistency between CDPs and incorporated places, for which
the Census Bureau historically has published data without regard to
population size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Known by various terms throughout the United States: cities,
towns (except in the six New England States, New York, and
Wisconsin), villages, and boroughs (except in New York and Alaska).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Census 2000, more than 35 million people in the United
States,\3\ Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas \4\ lived in CDPs. The
relative importance of CDPs varies from state-to-state depending on
laws governing municipal incorporation and annexation, but also
depending on local preferences and attitudes regarding the
identification of places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For Census Bureau purposes, the United States includes the
fifty states and the District of Columbia.
\4\ For Census Bureau purposes, the Island Areas includes the
U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. There are no CDPs in American
Samoa because villages cover its entire territory and population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Comments Received in Response to Proposed Criteria
The April 6, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 17326) notice requested
comment on proposed criteria for CDPs. Specific proposed changes to the
Census 2000 included:
Requiring each CDP to contain, at a minimum, some
population or housing;
Eliminating the ability to delineate CDPs that were
coextensive with governmental minor civil divisions (MCDs) in the six
New England States, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin;
Eliminating the use of hyphenated names for CDPs, except
in situations in which two or more communities have grown together and
share a common identity.
The Census Bureau received ten comments related to CDPs. Two
commenters expressed general support for the proposed criteria. Two
commenters (both from townships in New Jersey) opposed elimination of
CDPs. It was unclear from their comments whether they mistook the
Census Bureau's question regarding continued identification of census
county divisions as applying to CDPs, or whether their comments were
offered in response to a separate inquiry from a township in New Jersey
to treat townships as places within the Census Bureau's geographic area
hierarchy. Treatment of townships as places would result in the
elimination of small CDPs defined to represent closely settled
communities within townships. Due to the lack of information, the
Census Bureau did not make any changes to the criteria.
The Nevada State Demographers' office commented on the
characterization of CDPs as unincorporated communities lacking legally
described boundaries, noting that many CDPs in Nevada are designated as
``special taxation areas'' and as such have legally described
boundaries.\5\ Nevertheless, the Census Bureau notes that Nevada's CDPs
are not incorporated as municipalities in the same sense as cities in
that state, and therefore it is still appropriate to identify Nevada's
special taxation areas as CDPs. The Census Bureau will attempt to
provide greater detail in its documentation and geographic attributes
describing the various kinds of communities identified as CDPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CDPs in Hawaii and zonas urbanas in Puerto Rico also have
legally described boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Census Bureau received two comments related specifically to the
proposal to reduce the number of instances in which places were
combined to form a single CDP and related use of hyphenated names. Both
commenters were from California, and each noted the negative impact
this proposed criterion might have on the accurate depiction of
unincorporated communities in California. Both agreed with the
criterion in principle, but requested that the Census Bureau clarify
when it is acceptable for multiple communities to be defined as a
single CDP (for instance, when two communities have grown together to
the extent that it is difficult to discern where one ends and the other
begins) and when it is not. The example of Arden-Arcade, California,
was cited, noting that the identities of these once separate places
have become so intertwined that it is more common to hear them referred
to together, rather than apart. The Census Bureau agrees with this
comment and will clarify in both published criteria and program
guidelines when it is acceptable for multiple communities to be defined
as a single CDP. Multiple communities may only be combined to form a
single CDP when the identities of these communities have become so
intertwined that the communities are commonly perceived and referenced
as a single place, or when there is no distinguishable or suitable
feature in the landscape that can be used as a boundary between the
communities.
The Census Bureau received three comments related to the proposal
to no longer allow CDPs in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin to be defined as coextensive with
governmentally active MCDs. Each of the three commenters had extensive
experience working with and analyzing statistical data for places,
MCDs, and other census geographic areas. One of the commenters
supported the proposal. Two of the commenters did not support the
proposal, noting that CDPs that are coextensive with governmentally
active MCDs represent a relatively small proportion of all CDPs and
MCDs; therefore, the creation of coextensive, ``whole-town'' CDPs does
not represent a substantial problem. Both commenters noted that since
``place'' is in general a rather nuanced concept, with different
meanings to different people, the Census Bureau should not be overly
restrictive in how it applies its CDP concept in areas of the United
States, such as the Northeast and Midwest in which residents commonly
perceive MCDs to be places in the same sense that residents of other
parts of the country use the term ``place.'' They concluded that if the
goal of the proposal was to eliminate redundancy in place-based data
tables for these 12 states, then that goal could be accomplished within
the data tabulation program without requiring
[[Page 8271]]
modifications to geographic area criteria. The Census Bureau agrees
that the elimination of redundant data should be accomplished through
changes in the way in which place-level data tables are prepared rather
than through changes to the CDP criteria. Therefore, the Census Bureau
will review the way in which it presents data for places and MCDs in
the states listed above, and seek to eliminate redundancy in place-
level data tables through changes in data tabulation policy and
procedures.
Changes to the Criteria From the Proposed Rule
The changes made to the final criteria (from the proposed criteria)
in ``Section II, Census Designated Place Criteria and Characteristics
for the 2010 Census,'' are as follows:
1. Section II, ``Census Designated Place Criteria and
Characteristics for the 2010 Census,'' in the introductory paragraph to
this section, removed the reference to American Indian reservations and
off-reservation trust lands in the first sentence because these areas
are, by definition, within the United States.
2. Section II, ``Census Designated Place Criteria and
Characteristics for the 2010 Census,'' added a second paragraph to
subsection 1, in response to comments received to clarify the
circumstances under which it would be appropriate to combine multiple
places to form a single CDP with a hyphenated name. This paragraph
provides specific examples of CDPs that encompass multiple communities
and are appropriately identified with a hyphenated name. We also have
provided several questions for program participants to consider when
determining whether to combine multiple communities as a single CDP and
how to identify the CDP by name.
3. Section II, ``Census Designated Place Criteria and
Characteristics for the 2010 Census,'' subsection 4. The Census Bureau
deleted the criterion in subsection 4 of the proposed criteria, stating
that a CDP may not be coextensive with governmentally functioning MCDs
in the 12 ``strong-MCD'' states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The goal of this proposal was to
eliminate redundancy in selected place-level data tables for these
states, in which data appear for both the MCD and the coextensive CDP
of the same name (for example, Framingham, Massachusetts MCD and
Framingham CDP). While this practice occasionally creates confusion on
the part of some data users, the number of CDPs that are coextensive
with governmentally active MCDs represents a relatively small
proportion of all CDPs and MCDs in these states. Further, the concept
of ``place'' is nuanced and varies to some extent from one part of the
country to another, and there are instances in which residents of an
MCD identify it as a place, in the same sense as places are recognized
throughout the country. Rather than adopt a restrictive criterion
applicable to only a subset of states, we agreed with the commenters
and concluded that the elimination of redundant data could be
accomplished through changes in the way in which place-level data
tables are prepared rather than through changes to the CDP criteria.
III. Census Designated Place Criteria and Characteristics for the 2010
Census
The criteria contained herein apply to the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Island Areas. In accordance with the final criteria, the
Census Bureau may modify and, if necessary, reject any proposals for
CDPs that do not meet the established criteria. In addition, the Census
Bureau reserves the right to modify the boundaries and attributes of
CDPs as needed to maintain geographic relationships before the final
tabulation geography is set for the 2010 Census.
The Census Bureau will use the following criteria and
characteristics to identify the areas that will qualify for designation
as CDPs for use in tabulating data from the 2010 Census, the American
Community Survey, the Puerto Rico Community Survey, the Economic
Census, and potentially other Census Bureau censuses and surveys.
1. A CDP constitutes a single, closely settled center of population
that is named. To the extent possible, individual unincorporated
communities should be identified as separate CDPs. Similarly, a single
community should be defined as a single CDP rather than multiple CDPs
with each part referencing the community name and a directional term
(i.e., north, south, east, or west). Since a CDP is defined to provide
data for a single named locality, the Census Bureau does not encourage
CDPs that comprise a combination of places or identified by hyphenated
names. For example, CDPs such as Poplar-Cotton Center and Downieville-
Lawson-Dumont are no longer acceptable. Communities were often combined
as a single CDP in order to comply with the Census Bureau's minimum
population requirements. The Census Bureau's elimination of population
threshold criteria has made such combinations unnecessary. Other
communities were combined because visible features were not available
for use as boundaries for separate CDPs. The Census Bureau's new policy
to allow the use of some nonvisible boundaries so that participants can
separate individual communities has dispensed with the need to have
multi-place CDPs.
Multiple communities may only be combined to form a single CDP when
the identities of these communities have become so intertwined that the
communities are commonly perceived and referenced as a single place.
For example, the communities of Arden and Arcade in California have
grown together over time and residents commonly use the place name
Arden-Arcade. Further, because of the intertwined identity, residents
would have difficulty identifying a boundary between the separate,
historical communities of Arden and Arcade. Multiple communities also
may be defined as a single CDP when there is no distinguishable or
suitable feature in the landscape that can be used as a boundary
between the communities, even if the two communities still have
separate identities. For example, the CDP of Ashton-Sandy Spring in
Maryland encompasses two communities that still maintain separate
identities in common, daily usage. The two communities, however, have
grown together to such an extent that a clear break between the two
communities is no longer identifiable in the landscape. In general,
when considering whether to combine multiple communities as a single
CDP, the following questions should be taken into account: Do residents
commonly perceive and refer to the communities as a single entity? Are
there landscape elements, such as signs, that use a hyphenated name for
the community? Can residents or other knowledgeable individuals
identify clear, commonly accepted boundaries for the individual
communities?
2. A CDP generally consists of a contiguous cluster of census
blocks comprising a single piece of territory and containing a mix of
residential and commercial uses similar to that of an incorporated
place of similar size. Some CDPs, however, may be predominantly
residential; such places should represent recognizably distinct,
locally known communities, but not typical suburban subdivisions.
Examples of such predominantly residential communities that can be
recognized as CDPs are colonias found along the United States-Mexico
border, small rural communities, and unincorporated resort and
retirement communities.
[[Page 8272]]
3. A CDP may not be located, either partially or entirely, within
an incorporated place or another CDP.
4. A CDP may be located in more than one county but must not cross
state boundaries. It is important to note, however, that since county
boundaries provide important demarcations for communities, CDPs that
cross county lines should be kept to a minimum and identified only when
the community clearly sees itself existing on both sides of a county
boundary.
5. There are no minimum population or housing unit thresholds for
defining CDPs; however, a CDP must contain some population or housing
units or both. The Census Bureau recognizes that some communities, such
as a resort or other kinds of seasonal communities, may lack population
at certain times of the year. Nevertheless, there should be some
evidence, generally in the form of houses, barracks, dormitories,
commercial buildings and/or other structures, providing the basis for
local perception of the place's existence. For the 2010 Census, the
Census Bureau will not accept a CDP delineated with zero population and
zero housing units. The Census Bureau will review the number of housing
units within the place, as reported in the previous decennial census,
and consider whether additional information is needed before
recognizing the CDP. Participants submitting boundaries for places with
less than ten housing units may be asked to provide additional
information attesting to the existence of the CDP.
6. CDP boundaries should follow visible features, except in those
circumstances when a CDP's boundary is coincident with the nonvisible
boundary of a state, county, MCD (in the six New England states,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin), or incorporated place. CDP boundaries may follow other
nonvisible features in instances where reliance upon visible features
will result in overbounding of the CDP in order to include housing
units on both sides of a road or street feature. Such boundaries might
include parcel boundaries and public land survey system lines; fence
lines; national, state, or local park boundaries; ridgelines; or
drainage ditches.
7. The CDP name should be one that is recognized and used in daily
communication by the residents of the community. Because unincorporated
communities generally lack legally defined boundaries, a commonly used
community name and the geographic extent of its use by local residents
is often the best identifier of the extent of a place, the assumption
being that if residents associate with a particular name and use it to
identify the place in which they live, then the CDP's boundaries can be
mapped based on the use of the name. There should be features in the
landscape that use the name, such that a non-resident would have a
general sense of the location or extent of the community; for example,
signs indicating when one is entering the community; highway exit signs
that use the name; or businesses, schools, or other buildings that make
use of the name. It should not be a name developed solely for planning
or other purposes (including simply to obtain data from the Census
Bureau) that is not in regular daily use by the local residents and
business establishments.
8. A CDP may not have the same name as an adjacent or nearby
incorporated place. If the community does not have a name that
distinguishes it from other nearby communities, then the community is
not a distinct place. The use of directional terms (``north,''
``south,'' ``east,'' ``west,'' and so forth) to differentiate the name
of a CDP from a nearby municipality where this name is not in local use
is not acceptable. For example, the name ``North Laurel'' would be
permitted if this name were in local use. The name ``Laurel North''
would not be permitted if it were not in local use. Again, this has
much to do with the way in which people typically refer to the places
in which they live. It is permissible to change the name of a 2000 CDP
for the 2010 Census if the new name provides a better identification of
the community.
IV. Definitions of Key Terms
Alaska Native regional corporation (ANRC)--A corporate geographic
area established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Public
Law 92-203) to conduct both the business and nonprofit affairs of
Alaska Natives. Twelve ANRCs cover the state of Alaska, except for the
Annette Island Reserve.
American Indian reservation (AIR)--A federally recognized American
Indian land area with boundaries established by final treaty, statute,
executive order, and/or court order, and over which a federally
recognized American Indian tribal government has governmental
authority. Along with reservations, designations such as colonies,
communities, pueblos, rancherias, and reserves apply to AIRs.
Census block--A geographic area bounded by visible and/or invisible
features shown on a map prepared by the Census Bureau. A block is the
smallest geographic entity for which the Census Bureau tabulates
decennial census data.
Coextensive--Descriptive of two or more geographic entities that
cover exactly the same area, with all boundaries shared.
Comunidad--A census designated place in Puerto Rico that is not
related to a municipio's seat of government, called an aldea or a
ciudad prior to the 1990 Census.
Contiguous--Descriptive of geographic areas that are adjacent to
one another, sharing either a common boundary or point of contact.
Housing unit--A house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, or a
group of rooms or a single room occupied as a separate living quarter
or, if vacant, intended for occupancy as a separate living quarter.
Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat
separately from any other residents of the building and which have
direct access from outside the building or through a common hall.
Incorporated place--A type of governmental unit established to
provide governmental services for a concentration of people within
legally prescribed boundaries, incorporated under state law as a city,
town (except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin), borough (except
in Alaska and New York), village, or other description.
Island areas--An entity, other than a state or the District of
Columbia, under the jurisdiction of the United States. For the 2010
Census, these will include American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and several
small islands in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The Census
Bureau treats each Island Territory as the statistical equivalent of a
state.
Minor civil division--The primary governmental or administrative
division of a county in 28 states, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas
having legal boundaries, names, and descriptions. MCDs represent many
different types of legal entities with a wide variety of
characteristics, powers, and functions depending on the state and type
of MCD. In some states, some or all of the incorporated places also
constitute MCDs.
Municipio--A type of governmental unit that is the primary legal
subdivision of Puerto Rico. The Census Bureau treats the municipio as
the statistical equivalent of a county.
Nonvisible feature--A map feature that is not visible, such as a
city or county boundary, a property line running through space, a short
[[Page 8273]]
imaginary extension of a street or road, or a point-to-point line.
Statistical geographic entity--A geographic entity that is
specially defined and delineated, such as block group, CDP, or census
tract, so that the Census Bureau may tabulate data for it. Designation
as a statistical entity neither conveys nor confers legal ownership,
entitlement, or jurisdictional authority.
Urbanized area (UA)--An area consisting of a central place(s) and
adjacent urban fringe that together have a minimum residential
population of at least 50,000 people and generally an overall
population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. The Census
Bureau uses published criteria to determine the qualification and
boundaries of UAs at the time of each decennial census or from the
results of a special census during the intercensal period.
Visible feature--A map feature that can be seen on the ground, such
as a road, railroad track, major above-ground transmission line or
pipeline, stream, shoreline, fence, sharply defined mountain ridge, or
cliff. A nonstandard visible feature is a feature that may not be
clearly defined on the ground (such as a ridge), may be seasonal (such
as an intermittent stream), or may be relatively impermanent (such as a
fence). The Census Bureau generally requests verification that
nonstandard features pose no problem in their location during field
work.
Zona urbana--In Puerto Rico, the settled area functioning as the
seat of government for a municipio. A zona urbana cannot cross a
municipio boundary.
Executive Order 12866
This notice has been determined to be not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This program notice does not represent a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.,
Chapter 35.
Dated: February 8, 2008.
Steve H. Murdock,
Director, Bureau of the Census.
[FR Doc. E8-2667 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
