37770 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Notices 

7. Update on Disaster Task Force 

Implementation 

a. Lynn Jennings, Vice President for 

Grants Management 

8. Update on the Eviction Study and 

Housing Task Force 

Implementation 

a. Lynn Jennings, Vice President for 

Grants Management 

9. Consider and act on Expenditure of 

Private Funds to Support LSC’s 

Housing Task Force, Resolution 

2021–XXX 

10. Update on Rural Justice Task Force 

a. Marissa Jeffery, Graduate Law 

Fellow 

11. Public comment 

12. Consider and act on other business 

13. Consider and act on motion to 

adjourn the Open Session meeting 

and proceed to a Closed Session 

Closed Session 

1. Approval of minutes of the 

Institutional Advancement 

Committee’s Closed Session 

meeting on April 19, 2021 

2. Development activities report 

a. Nadia Elguindy, Director of 

Institutional Advancement 

3. Consider and act on motion to 

approve Leaders Council and 

Emerging Leaders Council invitees 

4. Consider and act on other business 

5. Consider and act on motion to 

adjourn the meeting 

Communications Subcommittee of the 

Institutional Advancement Committee 

Open Session 

1. Approval of agenda 

2. Approval of minutes of the 

Subcommittee’s Open Session 

meeting on April 19, 2021 

3. Communications and social media 

update 

a. Carl Rauscher, Director of 

Communications and Media 

Relations 

b. Carol Bergman, Vice President for 

Government Relations and Public 

Affairs 

c. Jada Breegle, Chief Information 

Officer 

d. Shanikka Richardson, Web Content 

Manager 

4. Public comment 

5. Consider and act on other business 

6. Consider and act on motion to 

adjourn the meeting 

Board of Directors Meeting 

Open Session 

1. Pledge of Allegiance 

2. Approval of agenda 

3. Approval of minutes of the Board’s 

Telephonic Meeting on May 25, 

2021 

4. Chairman’s Report 

5. Members’ Reports 

6. President’s Report 

7. Inspector General’s Report 

8. Consider and act on the Report of the 

Governance and Performance 

Review Committee 

9. Consider and act on the Report of the 

Operations and Regulations 

Committee 

10. Consider and act on the Report of 

the Finance Committee 

11. Consider and act on the Report of 

the Audit Committee 

12. Consider and act on the Report of 

the Institutional Advancement 

Committee 

13. Consider and act on the report of the 

Delivery of Legal Services 

Committee 

14. Consider and act on Resolution 

2021–XXX, In Recognition and 

Appreciation of Distinguished 

Service by Members of the LSC 

Veterans Task Force 

15. Consider and act on Resolution 

2021–XXX, In Recognition and 

Appreciation of Distinguished 

Service by DLA Piper 

16. Public comment 

17. Consider and act on other business 

18. Consider and act on whether to 

authorize a Closed Session of the 

Board to address items listed below 

Closed Session 

1. Approval of minutes of the Board’s 

Closed Session meeting on April 20, 

2021 

2. Management briefing 

3. Inspector General briefing 

4. Consider and act on General 

Counsel’s report on potential and 

pending litigation involving LSC 

5. Consider and act on prospective 

Leaders Council and Emerging 

Leaders Council invitees 

6. Consider and act on motion to 

adjourn the meeting 

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: 

Jessica Wechter, Board Relations 

Coordinator, at (202) 295–1626. 

Questions may also be sent by electronic 

mail to FR_NOTICE_QUESTIONS@

lsc.gov. 

NON-CONFIDENTIAL MEETING MATERIALS: 

Non-confidential meeting materials will 

be made available in electronic format at 

least 24 hours in advance of the meeting 

on the LSC website, at https://

www.lsc.gov/about-lsc/board-meetingmaterials. 

Dated: July 13, 2021. 

Mark Freedman, 

Senior Associate General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15205 Filed 7–14–21; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

2020 Standards for Delineating Core 

Based Statistical Areas 

AGENCY: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Executive 

Office of the President. 

ACTION: Notice of decision. 

SUMMARY: This Notice announces the 

adoption of 2020 Standards for 

Delineating Core Based Statistical Areas 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). The 2020 standards, 

which reflect modest revisions to the 

2010 Standards for Delineating 

Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas, supersede the 2010 

standards. The SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION in this Notice provides 

background information on the 

standards (Section A), a brief synopsis 

of the public comments OMB received 

in response to the January 19, 2021 

Federal Register notice describing the 

recommendations of the Metropolitan 

and Micropolitan Statistical Area 

Standards Review Committee (Section 

B), the statement of the Standards 

Review Committee in response to public 

comment (Section C), and OMB’s 

decisions on the recommendations of 

the Standards Review Committee 

(Section D). The 2020 standards appear 

at the end of this Notice (Section E). 

DATES: This Notice is effective 

immediately. OMB plans to publish 

delineations of areas based on the 2020 

standards and 2020 Census data in 

2023. Federal agencies should begin to 

use the new area delineations to 

tabulate and publish statistics when the 

delineations are published. 

ADDRESSES: Please send correspondence 

about OMB’s decision to Dominic 

Mancini, Acting Chief Statistician and 

Deputy Administrator, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Room 9264, New Executive Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20503, or 

email US_Chief_Statistician@

omb.eop.gov with the subject ‘‘2020 

Metro Areas.’’ 

Electronic Availability: This notice is 

available on the internet from the OMB 

website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/information-regulatory-affairs/ 

statistical-programs-standards/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

Sivinski, Senior Statistician, Office of 

Management and Budget, telephone 

(202) 395–1205; or email: Statistical_

Directives@omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Notices 37771 

Outline of Notice 

A. Background and Review Process 

B. Summary of Comments Received in 

Response to the Recommendations of the 

Standards Review Committee 

C. Standards Review Committee Response to 

Comments 

D. OMB’s Decisions Regarding Changes to the 

2010 Standards for Delineating 

Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas 

E. 2020 Standards for Delineating Core Based 

Statistical Areas, and Key Terms 

A. Background and Review Process 

1. Background 

In its role as coordinator of the 

Federal statistical system under the 

Budget and Accounting Procedures Act 

of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 1104(d)) and the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3504(e)), OMB is required to 

ensure the system’s efficiency and 

effectiveness. A key method used by 

OMB to achieve this responsibility is 

the promulgation, maintenance, and 

oversight of Government-wide 

principles, policies, standards, and 

guidance concerning the development, 

presentation, and dissemination of 

Federal statistical products. OMB’s 

Office of Statistical and Science Policy, 

within the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, relies on public 

comment and subject matter expertise 

across the Federal government to help 

OMB identify policies or guidance that 

may be out of date, lacking clarity, or 

inefficient. 

One of the long-standing statistical 

standards maintained by OMB is the 

core based statistical areas program. 

This program, under various names, has 

provided standard statistical area 

delineations for approximately 70 years. 

In the 1940s, it became clear that the 

value of statistics produced by Federal 

agencies would be greatly enhanced if 

statistical agencies used a single set of 

geographic delineations for the Nation’s 

largest centers of population and 

activity. OMB’s predecessor, the Bureau 

of the Budget, led the effort to develop 

what were then called ‘‘standard 

metropolitan areas’’ in time for their use 

in 1950 census publications. Since then, 

comparable data products for 

metropolitan areas have been available. 

The general concept of a core based 

statistical area (CBSA) is that of an area 

containing a large population nucleus, 

or urban area, and adjacent 

communities that have a high degree of 

integration with that nucleus. There are 

two types of CBSAs: Metropolitan 

statistical areas (MSAs) and 

micropolitan statistical areas (mSAs). 

Metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas are conceptually similar 

to each other, but a micropolitan area 

features a smaller nucleus. 

Both metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas are composed of entire 

counties. ‘‘Central counties’’ are those 

that contain the population nucleus 

mentioned above. These nuclei are 

identified by a separate geographic 

statistical program, the urban areas 

program at the Census Bureau. 

‘‘Outlying counties’’ qualify to join a 

central county based on demonstrating 

sufficient commuting with the central 

county or counties of the area. Counties 

that do not fall within metropolitan or 

micropolitan statistical areas are 

‘‘outside of a CBSA. ’’ 

The purpose of these statistical areas 

is unchanged from when standard 

metropolitan areas were first delineated: 

The classification provides a nationally 

consistent set of delineations for 

collecting, tabulating, and publishing 

Federal statistics for geographic areas. 

OMB establishes and maintains these 

areas solely for statistical purposes. In 

reviewing and revising these areas, 

OMB does not take into account, or 

attempt to anticipate, any public or 

private sector nonstatistical uses of the 

delineations. While the use of these 

areas in nonstatistical programs is 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICESEN16JY21.001</GPH>

Figure 1. Representative Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas with Urban Areas 

Metropolltan statistical area ml Urban area of at least 50,000 population D County or equivalent 

IIMicropolftlln statistical area ■ Urban area of betWeen 10;000 and 49,999 population 
37772 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Notices 

relatively common, and will be 

discussed in more detail below as those 

potential impacts were the subject of the 

vast majority of public comments OMB 

received on the proposed standards, 

these areas are not designed for the 

purpose of serving as a general-purpose 

geographic framework applicable for use 

in program administration or funding 

formulas. If these areas are used for 

program administration, OMB 

recommends structuring the use in a 

way that prevents any unintended 

disruption that may be caused by OMB’s 

regular review and revision of the 

standards. 

Furthermore, the MSA and mSA 

delineations do not produce an urbanrural classification, and confusion of 

these concepts has the potential to affect 

the ability of a program to effectively 

target either urban or rural areas, if that 

is the program goal. Counties included 

in metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas may contain both urban 

and rural territory and population. For 

instance, programs that seek to 

strengthen rural economies by focusing 

solely on counties located outside MSAs 

could ignore a predominantly rural 

county that is included in an MSA 

because a high percentage of the 

county’s residents commute to urban 

centers for work. OMB urges agencies, 

organizations, and policy makers to 

review carefully the goals of 

nonstatistical programs and policies to 

ensure that appropriate geographic 

entities are used to determine the 

allocation of Federal funds. 

2. Review Process 

Periodic review of the standards is 

necessary to ensure their continued 

usefulness and relevance. Every decade 

OMB reviews the statistical area 

standards and, if warranted, revises 

them prior to their application to new 

decennial census data. The current 

review of the CBSA standards is the 

seventh such review. In 2018, OMB 

charged the Metropolitan and 

Micropolitan Statistical Area Standards 

Review Committee (Standards Review 

Committee) with examining the 2010 

Standards for Delineating Metropolitan 

and Micropolitan Statistical Areas 

(available at: https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2010/06/28/2010-15605/2010- 

standards-for-delineating-metropolitanand-micropolitan-statistical-areas) and 

providing recommendations for how to 

improve the standards. The Standards 

Review Committee is a standing 

committee composed of subject matter 

experts at the agencies that rely on the 

statistical areas to produce official 

statistics. Agencies represented on the 

review committee include the U.S. 

Census Bureau (Chair), Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

Economic Research Service, National 

Center for Health Statistics, Statistics of 

Income, and ex officio, OMB. The 

Census Bureau provided research 

support to the committee. 

OMB published the Review 

Committee’s recommendations for 

revisions to the 2010 standards in a 

Federal Register Notice (FRN) on 

January 19, 2021: ‘‘Recommendations 

From the Metropolitan and 

Micropolitan Statistical Area Standards 

Review Committee to the Office of 

Management and Budget Concerning 

Changes to the 2010 Standards for 

Delineating Metropolitan and 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas’’ (86 FR 

5263). The notice described six 

recommendations from the Standards 

Review Committee. The Standards 

Review Committee recommended that: 

(1) The minimum urban area 

population to qualify an MSA be 

increased from 50,000 to 100,000; 

(2) The delineation of New England 

city and town areas (NECTAs), NECTA 

divisions, and combined NECTAs be 

discontinued; 

(3) Research be undertaken on an 

additional, territorially exhaustive 

classification that covers all of the 

United States and Puerto Rico; 

(4) The first annual delineation 

update of the coming decade be 

combined with the decennial-based 

delineations; 

(5) OMB should make publicly 

available a schedule for updates to the 

core based statistical areas (see 

proposed update schedule below); and 

(6) OMB continue use of American 

Community Survey commuting data in 

measurement of intercounty 

connectivity, though changing societal 

and economic trends may warrant 

considering changes in the 2030 

standards. 

After the public comment period 

closed, OMB reconvened the Standards 

Review Committee to analyze and 

respond to the resulting comments. 

After taking into consideration public 

comment and the position of the 

Standards Review Committee, OMB is 

publishing this FRN to announce final 

decisions and the content of the 2020 

Standards for Delineating Core Based 

Statistical Areas. The 2020 standards 

replace and supersede OMB’s 2010 

Standards for Delineating Metropolitan 

and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. 

B. Summary of Public Comments 

Received in Response to the Review 

Committee’s Recommendations 

After removing duplicate submissions 

from the same senders, OMB received 

848 comments in response to the 

Standards Review Committee’s 

recommendations. 

Recommendation 1: Raise the 

minimum MSA core population 

threshold from 50,000 to 100,000. 

Seven hundred thirty-four comments 

remarked on Recommendation 1, 

increasing the minimum population 

threshold of an urban area to qualify an 

MSA from 50,000 to 100,000, with 21 in 

favor (5 of which conditionally agreed 

with additional suggestions regarding 

population thresholds) and 712 

opposed. In addition, there was one 

comment that was neutral toward 

Recommendation 1. 

Many of the comments opposing 

Recommendation 1 did not provide a 

rationale for their opposition. Of the 

commenters who did cite a rationale for 

their opposition, almost all cited a 

nonstatistical rationale, such as 

concerns about loss of federal or other 

funding; concerns about other 

programmatic consequences; and 

concerns about economic development 

for individual areas that would be 

reclassified from metropolitan to 

micropolitan. Some comments cited 

both nonstatistical and statistical 

rationales, such as concerns about 

potential loss of data for individual 

areas that would be reclassified from a 

metropolitan to a micropolitan 

statistical area; concerns about long 

term data analysis and longitudinal 

analysis if such a change led to a break 

in data series or the type of statistics 

collected and produced at this level of 

geographic area; concern that the 

recommended change was too modest to 

justify making any change; failure to 

consider another approach (such as 

adding a top size class using some 

definition of the ‘‘largest’’ areas); and 

perceived failure on behalf of the 

Standards Review Committee to show a 

sufficient rationale for doubling the 

current threshold. A few of the 

comments presented a purely statistical 

rationale. 

Twenty-one comments were in favor 

of raising the minimum population 

threshold of an urban area to qualify an 

MSA from 50,000 to 100,000. Five of 

these comments offered additional 

suggestions, such as modifying the 

minimum population to qualify a mSA. 

Recommendation 2: Discontinue 

Updates to the New England City and 

Town Areas, New England City and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Notices 37773 

Town Area Divisions, and Combined 

New England City and Town Areas. 

Ten comments remarked on 

Recommendation 2, the discontinuation 

of New England City and Town Area 

delineations, with three in favor, two 

neutral, and five opposed to the 

recommendation. 

Among points cited by those opposed 

to Recommendation 2 were the relative 

prominence of cities and towns (as 

opposed to counties) in the six New 

England states, and concerns about 

impact of the recommendation on data 

availability and longitudinal data 

analysis. 

An argument in favor of the 

recommendation advocated against 

providing special treatment to one 

region of the country. 

Recommendation 3: Launch a 

research effort into delineating 

territorially exhaustive areas. 

Seven comments remarked on 

Recommendation 3 concerning research 

into developing a set of territorially 

exhaustive areas. All seven comments 

were in favor of the recommendation, 

with one of the comments also in favor 

of delineation of areas in United States 

Island Areas, in addition to the United 

States and Puerto Rico. Comments 

offered technical suggestions on 

different means of delineating the 

territory of the United States and Puerto 

Rico, such as the use of Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (BEA) Economic 

Areas, United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) commuting zones, 

USDA data, regional intergovernmental 

organizations, and substate districts. 

Recommendation 4: Incorporate the 

results of the decade’s first annual 

update review into the results of the 

decade’s decennial census-based 

update. 

Eight comments remarked on 

Recommendation 4 concerning 

combining the publication of the first 

annual delineation update with the 

decennial-based redelineation, with 

three in favor (with one comment not 

wanting any updates during the decade 

except this one). An argument in favor 

was to minimize statistical area churn in 

the inventory. 

Five comments expressed general 

concerns about OMB conducting 

updates during the decade, but did not 

provide a specific opinion on this 

particular recommendation to combine 

the annual and decennial updates. 

Recommendation 5: Establish a 

Publicly Available Update Schedule. 

Two comments remarked on 

Recommendation 5, which involved 

establishing and publishing a public 

schedule for the release of delineations 

and updates. The two comments were 

both in favor of publishing an update 

schedule. An argument in favor was 

increased transparency and 

predictability. 

Recommendation 6: Continue use of 

American Community Survey 

commuting data to measure intercounty 

connectivity. 

There was a total of 45 comments on 

Recommendation 6, concerning the 

continued use of American Community 

Survey (ACS) commuting data for the 

2023 delineations. 

Forty-one comments discussed 

Recommendation 6, while 

simultaneously arguing for an outcome 

for a specific area or set of areas. 

Suggestions for additional or alternative 

datasets included the commodity flow 

survey (Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics), shopping and transaction 

data, the Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics (Census Bureau), 

new modes of transportation, and 

geographic proximity between cities. 

Two of the four remaining comments 

offered support for the recommendation 

(with one suggesting that other data may 

be needed to determine if areas should 

change during the mid-decade update), 

and two provided suggestions for other 

datasets, such as primary care service 

areas and other measures of economic 

activity. 

A few comments not included in this 

count suggested specific changes to how 

the ACS commuting data are used in the 

standards, such as modifying 

commuting thresholds, without 

discussing whether the ACS data should 

continue to be used or what other 

sources of data might replace or 

supplement it. 

Other Comments 

The remaining comments mostly 

raised issues outside of the scope of the 

request, in that they were directed at 

specific applications of the standards, 

and did not offer recommendations that 

were relevant to the potential 

modification of the standards 

themselves. Several comments 

expressed concern about the current 

configuration of one or more 

metropolitan areas and requested 

changes. For example, forty-two 

comments requested modification to the 

components of the Evansville, IN-KY 

metropolitan area; two comments 

requested modification to the 

components of the Idaho Falls, ID 

metropolitan area, and one comment 

requested modification to the 

components of the Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 

metropolitan area. Five comments 

requested using subcounty units to 

possibly identify a separate area within 

the current Riverside-San BernardinoOntario, CA metropolitan area. Other 

comments requested different 

arrangements of multiple metropolitan 

areas, including three comments 

concerning merging the Raleigh-Cary, 

NC and Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 

metropolitan areas, and one comment 

concerning merging the GreenvilleAnderson, SC and Spartanburg, SC 

metropolitan areas. 

C. Standards Review Committee 

Response to Comments 

After the close of the public comment 

period, OMB reconvened the Standards 

Review Committee and asked them to 

provide a statement on their earlier 

recommendations, taking into account 

the public comments received and 

potential impacts of the coronavirus 

pandemic. The Standards Review 

Committee statement reads, in its 

entirety: 

‘‘The Committee subscribes without 

reservation to the view that federal 

statistical standards require regular 

review and sometimes revision to stay 

abreast of the phenomena they describe. 

Over the course of nearly ten months, 

the Committee reviewed the ‘‘2010 

Standards for Delineating Metropolitan 

and Micropolitan Statistical Areas,’’ 

and, in the end, it recommended six 

revisions to OMB. Now, the Committee 

also has examined public comment 

received on those recommendations.’’ 

‘‘Each of the recommendations 

followed from thoughtful consideration 

and discussion, both within the 

Committee and with a panel of external 

experts. In addition, nearly all of the 

topics addressed in the 

recommendations were familiar from 

Committee discussions in previous 

reviews of the standards.’’ 

‘‘Having reviewed the public 

comment, the Committee stands by five 

of its six recommendations but now 

recommends that action on the first of 

those recommendations—regarding the 

minimum population core size for 

metropolitan statistical areas—be 

delayed pending completion of 

additional research on the topic.’’ 

‘‘Reviewing the public comment. 

Public comment received on 

Recommendations 2 through 6 generally 

was supportive or offered no counterarguments that the Committee found 

sufficiently compelling to change its 

earlier views. In general, these 

recommendations generated modest 

amounts of comment. Implementing 

these recommendations will improve 

the performance of the program in the 

near term, lay the foundation for 

improved data availability in the future, 

and increase transparency and 

usability.’’ 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
37774 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Notices 

‘‘Recommendation 1, on the other 

hand, received substantial comment, 

and that comment raised a number of 

concerns of potential importance to the 

federal statistical system. One such 

concern focused on a possible reduction 

in federal statistical data available for 

areas that would change status from 

metropolitan statistical areas to 

micropolitan statistical areas as a result 

of an increased core population 

requirement. Another concern was with 

discontinuities in longitudinal federal 

statistical data series that could come 

with a changed population 

requirement.’’ 

‘‘A third identified statistical issue 

relative to Recommendation 1 focused 

on the size of the recommended core 

population requirement increase (from 

50,000 to 100,000). For some, that 

increase—if needed at all—was viewed 

as too large; on the other side, there 

were indications of dissatisfaction that 

the Committee did not consider 

alternative or larger changes to address 

the wide range of core populations 

currently covered within the category of 

‘‘metropolitan.’’ Finally, public 

comment challenged the Committee to 

justify more clearly its Recommendation 

1 with documented research results.’’ 

‘‘Next steps. The Committee now 

recommends OMB’s delaying action on 

Recommendation 1 in order to complete 

further analysis and research. A side 

benefit of this work is that it might help 

to reassure data users that appropriate 

consideration has been invested in a key 

change to the standards.’’ 

‘‘With assistance from the statistical 

agencies, OMB could, with medium 

level of effort, address two of the 

concerns raised about Recommendation 

1: 

• Provide a thorough assessment of 

the anticipated effects of a changed 

minimum core population size on 

federal statistical data availability, 

reviewing possible effects in individual 

data programs across the full set of 

statistical agencies. 

• Conduct an analysis of changes in 

thresholds in other statistical programs 

over the years to provide guidance on 

mitigating discontinuities in time series 

data. Programs change requirements 

with different frequencies and using 

different approaches. The fact that this 

program has held the minimum 

metropolitan statistical area core 

population size constant in the name of 

stability for an extended period should 

not permanently preclude adjustments 

to fit changed circumstances.’’ 

‘‘Robust examination of the 

appropriate size for an increase in 

required core population for 

metropolitan statistical areas as well as 

associated, derived area classification 

issues will require a more extensive 

effort. Experience suggests these tasks 

would be addressed most effectively by 

a combination of statistical agency 

research and two to three external 

research projects. Those projects would 

analyze evolving U.S. central place 

hierarchies and economic agglomeration 

thresholds during the period 1940– 

2020. Also, consideration should be 

given to including within the scope of 

these research projects an examination 

of changed commuting patterns 

(pertinent to Recommendation 6, in 

light of changes in commuting behavior 

associated with the COVID–19 

pandemic that occurred after the 

Committee had submitted its 

recommendations). This work would 

best take place between late 2023 (once 

new statistical areas are delineated 

based on 2020 data) and the end of 2025 

so results would be available to OMB 

and the Committee in early 2026. By 

2023, the lasting effects of the pandemic 

on journey to work should have started 

becoming clearer.’’ 

‘‘(In the interest of smoothing 

resource demands for research over the 

decade, conducting the groundwork on 

approaches to preparing territorially 

exhaustive statistical areas 

(Recommendation 3) can follow and 

benefit from the work on core size and 

commuting data and should be 

scheduled to start in 2026 and conclude 

in 2028.)’’ 

‘‘Final thought. In view of the 

considerable volume of public comment 

addressing issues extraneous to the 

purpose of the metropolitan and 

micropolitan statistical areas program, 

the Committee urges OMB to assume a 

more assertive posture in reiterating 

through various available channels the 

value and role of this federal statistical 

standard. Part of that effort will require 

continued efforts to educate 

nonstatistical program users of the 

limitations of these statistical areas to 

meet their programs’ needs; the other 

side of the effort will be to ensure that 

federal statistical agencies and programs 

are taking full advantage of the areas to 

disseminate data for the benefit of data 

users. The success of the program 

depends in part on the continued 

demonstration of its usefulness across 

the federal statistical system.’’ 

—Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Statistical Area Standards Review 

Committee 

D. OMB’s Decisions Regarding Changes 

to the 2010 Standards for Delineating 

Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas 

This section of the Notice presents the 

decisions OMB made on the Standards 

Review Committee’s recommendations. 

In arriving at these decisions, we 

considered the Standards Review 

Committee’s recommendations, the 

public comments we received on those 

the Standards Review Committee’s 

recommendations, and the Standards 

Review Committee’s subsequent 

statement in Section C. 

OMB also benefited from the 

continued and thorough deliberations of 

the statistical experts that constitute the 

Standards Review Committee, as well as 

the research and analytic support 

provided by the Census Bureau. As in 

past reviews of the standards, we relied 

upon the technical and subject-matter 

expertise, insight, and dedication of the 

Standards Review Committee members. 

We sincerely appreciate these 

contributions to the rigor, objectivity, 

and usefulness of the CBSA program, 

and offer special thanks to the 

invaluable support of the Population 

Division at the Census Bureau. 

OMB’s decisions on each of the 

Review Committee’s recommendations 

are discussed below. OMB did not make 

any substantive changes to the 2010 

standards beyond the revisions 

discussed in this section. 

Recommendation 1: Raise the 

minimum MSA core population 

threshold from 50,000 to 100,000. 

OMB Decision: OMB does not accept 

the initial recommendation to raise the 

MSA core population threshold in the 

2020 standards, and has decided to 

leave the current threshold of 50,000 in 

place. A change to the fundamental 

criteria that determine whether an area 

is considered metropolitan would cause 

disruption to statistical programs and 

products, and would be difficult for the 

statistical agencies to implement. OMB 

decided that there is insufficient 

justification at this time to raise the 

threshold to 100,000 and that further 

research is necessary before deciding 

whether to change the criteria that 

determine whether an area is considered 

metropolitan. Finally, we also note the 

Standard Review Committee’s 

subsequent modification of their initial 

recommendation recognizing the value 

of additional research before modifying 

the threshold. 

We acknowledge the Standards 

Review Committee’s concern that the 

MSA thresholds have not kept pace 

with population growth, which affects 

the ability of the CBSA program to meet 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Notices 37775 

its intended purpose of identifying the 

primary centers of population and 

economic activity in the United States 

for use in official statistics. OMB 

commits to working with the Standards 

Review Committee to conduct research 

and stakeholder outreach over the next 

four years to closely examine the utility 

of the current requirements for an area 

to qualify as an MSA, and for outlying 

counties to join an MSA (See 

Recommendation 6). This research will 

be guided by the MSA program’s 

primary goal of identifying the major 

centers of population and economic 

activity of the United States, and will 

include exploring different frameworks 

and data sources for classifying 

metropolitan areas, including alternate 

core population thresholds, features and 

amenities of areas, evolving U.S. central 

place hierarchies, potential economic 

thresholds, and other topics identified 

by the Standards Review Committee or 

outside experts. The Standards Review 

Committee will advise OMB on the 

impact of any potential revisions on the 

statistical products released by their 

agencies. 

Recommendation 2: Discontinue 

Updates to the NECTAs, NECTA 

Divisions, and Combined NECTAs. 

OMB Decision: OMB accepts this 

recommendation, and the conclusion of 

the Committee that the significant 

complexity generated by maintaining 

these areas is not justified by their use 

in Federal statistical products and 

programs. 

We recognize that NECTAs are more 

granular than county-based CBSAs, and 

more closely reflect the functional local 

government structure in New England. 

However, Federal statistical programs 

often do not release two sets of data for 

both NECTAs and MSAs in the New 

England states, because doing so would 

create unacceptable risk of disclosure or 

reidentification. As a result, several 

statistical programs currently release 

data by NECTAs in New England and by 

county-based CBSAs for the rest of the 

country. This practice is contrary to the 

intent of the standards to provide a 

nationally consistent geographic 

framework. After consulting with the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the 

primary user of these areas, OMB is 

confident that BLS programs can 

continue to release high quality and 

useful statistics across the country. This 

decision will not affect the release of 

BLS products at finer geographic scales, 

such as the release of Local Area 

Unemployment Statistics data by minor 

civil division. 

Recommendation 3: Launch a 

research effort into delineating 

territorially exhaustive areas. 

OMB Decision: OMB accepts this 

recommendation. The CBSA program 

currently does not delineate a large 

portion of U.S. territory. A territorially 

exhaustive delineation would increase 

the utility of the CBSA program and 

improve coordination of Federal 

statistics. OMB commits to working 

with the Review Committee on the 

plans for the research necessary to 

provide a robust, exhaustive delineation 

of the United States and Puerto Rico. 

Recommendation 4: Incorporate the 

results of the decade’s first annual 

update review into the results of the 

decade’s decennial census-based 

update. 

OMB Decision: OMB accepts this 

recommendation. As background, on an 

annual basis and according to the 

standards, OMB makes small changes, 

generally to just a few MSAs, based on 

annual updates to the Census 

population data used to determine a 

county’s CBSA status. In the past a 

small number of counties experienced 

change in delineation status between 

the comprehensive, decennial 

delineations issued in the third year 

after the Decennial Census and in the 

subsequent annual update that follows, 

due in part to the different geographic 

units used in the decennial update and 

annual updates. The Committee believes 

this has led to unnecessary uncertainty 

and instability in the program. 

Implementing this recommendation will 

improve the consistency of the areas 

with negligible impact on timing or 

resources. 

Recommendation 5: Establish a 

Publicly Available Update Schedule. 

OMB Decision: OMB accepts this 

recommendation. To increase 

transparency and consistency, we have 

provide a high level, preliminary 

schedule below, and will publish and 

maintain a schedule of upcoming CBSA 

delineations and updates on our 

Statistical Policies and Programs web 

page (https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

information-regulatory-affairs/ 

statistical-programs-standards/). 

Because the timing of OMB updates 

depends in part on the timing of 

delivery of the inputs by the Census 

Bureau, we also intend to include the 

input dates into this schedule. If OMB 

is unable to meet the public update 

schedule, we will notify the public as 

soon as feasible through the web page. 

As described in the final 2020 

standards in Section E, OMB will 

release three different types of updates. 

(1) Annual Updates—These updates 

would address qualification of new 

metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas and typically would 

affect a small number of counties. (In 

some years, there may be no updates 

warranted by the data.) (2) Five-Year 

(‘‘mid-decade’’) Update—This broader 

update would include: Qualification of 

metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas, qualification of outlying 

counties, merging of adjacent 

metropolitan or micropolitan statistical 

areas, qualification of principal cities, 

categorization of metropolitan and 

micropolitan statistical areas, 

qualification of metropolitan divisions, 

qualification of combined statistical 

areas, and titling of metropolitan and 

micropolitan statistical areas, 

metropolitan divisions, and combined 

statistical areas. (3) Decennial 

Delineation—The initial re-delineation 

following adoption of revised standards 

would include all of the changes listed 

for the five-year update, plus the 

qualification of central counties. 

Update type Release date 

Decennial Delineation June 2023. 

Annual Update .......... December 2024. 

Annual Update .......... December 2025. 

Annual Update .......... December 2026. 

Annual Update .......... December 2027. 

Five-Year Update ...... December 2028. 

Annual Update .......... December 2029. 

Recommendation 6: Continue use of 

American Community Survey 

commuting data to measure intercounty 

connectivity. 

OMB Decision: OMB accepts this 

recommendation for the 2020 standards. 

We note that changes in commuting 

behavior as a result of the pandemic 

could result in a reduction in the fiveyear average ACS estimates of 

commuting which will contribute to the 

planned CBSA update in 2028. This 

anticipated reduction could result, if no 

other adjustments are made, in a large 

number of outlying counties getting 

dropped from their CBSAs, at least until 

the next time commuting data is 

updated in 2033. 

OMB recognizes that the pandemic’s 

impact on commuting patterns may 

create an acute challenge for the 2028 

mid-decade update, as well as a longerterm challenge for the continued use of 

ACS commuting data as the sole 

measure of intercounty connectivity and 

economic integration. We especially 

recognize the importance of additional 

research in this area in light of the 

changing nature of work patterns, which 

the pandemic may have accelerated, and 

other ways in which geography and 

economic activity interact. 

To that end, OMB will reconvene the 

Standards Review Committee to 

conduct a full review of intercounty 

connectivity measures before 2028, and 

to advise OMB on whether pandemicVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:26 Jul 15, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16JYN1.SGM 16JYN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
37776 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Notices 

related changes in commuting patterns 

warrant any adjustments to the 

standards prior to the mid-decade 

update in 2028 to minimize the risk of 

unintended and potentially temporary 

pandemic-related changes to the CBSAs 

in 2028. In addition, we expect that the 

scope of this research will also 

encompass whether other measures of 

economic activity may be useful in the 

identification of CBSAs, and position 

OMB to ensure that the standards for 

including outlying counties in CBSAs 

are robust and meaningful. 

E. 2020 Standards for Delineating Core 

Based Statistical Areas, and Key Terms 

A Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) 

is a geographic entity associated with at 

least one core of 10,000 or more 

population, plus adjacent territory that 

has a high degree of social and 

economic integration with the core as 

measured by commuting ties. The 

standards delineate two categories of 

CBSAs: Metropolitan statistical areas 

(MSAs) and micropolitan statistical 

areas (mSAs). CBSAs consist of counties 

and equivalent entities throughout the 

United States and Puerto Rico. 

Throughout these standards, the term 

‘‘county’’ is used to refer to counties and 

county-equivalents. 

The purpose of the CBSA standards is 

to provide nationally consistent 

delineations for collecting, tabulating, 

and publishing Federal statistics for a 

set of geographic areas. The Office of 

Management and Budget establishes and 

maintains these areas solely for 

statistical purposes as part of their 

statutory responsibilities to coordinate 

and ensure the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the Federal statistical 

system. 

CBSAs are not designed as a 

geographic framework for nonstatistical 

activities or for use in program funding 

formulas. The CBSA classification is not 

an urban-rural classification; MSAs, 

mSAs, and many counties outside 

CBSAs contain both urban and rural 

populations. 

The following criteria apply to all 

CBSAs nationwide. Commuting and 

employment estimates are derived from 

the Census Bureau’s American 

Community Survey. Whenever 

American Community Survey 

commuting and employment data are 

referred to below, the criteria use point 

estimates and do not incorporate a 

measure of sampling variability of the 

estimates. 

Section 1. Population Size Requirements 

for Qualification of Core Based 

Statistical Areas 

Each CBSA must have a Census 

Bureau-delineated Urban Area of at least 

10,000 population. 

Section 2. Central Counties 

The central county or counties of a 

CBSA are those counties that: 

(a) Have at least 50 percent of their 

population in Urban Areas of at least 

10,000 population; or 

(b) Have within their boundaries a 

population of at least 5,000 located in a 

single Urban Area of at least 10,000 

population. 

A central county is associated with 

the Urban Area that accounts for the 

largest portion of the county’s 

population. The central counties 

associated with a particular Urban Area 

are grouped to form a single cluster of 

central counties for purposes of 

measuring commuting to and from 

potentially qualifying outlying counties. 

Section 3. Outlying Counties 

A county qualifies as an outlying 

county of a CBSA if it meets the 

following commuting requirements: 

(a) At least 25 percent of the workers 

living in the county work in the central 

county or counties of the CBSA; or 

(b) At least 25 percent of the 

employment in the county is accounted 

for by workers who reside in the central 

county or counties of the CBSA. 

A county may be included in only one 

CBSA. If a county qualifies as a central 

county of one CBSA and as outlying in 

another, it falls within the CBSA in 

which it is a central county. A county 

that qualifies as outlying to multiple 

CBSAs falls within the CBSA with 

which it has the strongest commuting 

tie, as measured by either 3(a) or 3(b) 

above. The counties included in a CBSA 

must be contiguous; if a county is not 

contiguous with other counties in the 

CBSA, it will not fall within the CBSA. 

Section 4. Merging of Adjacent Core 

Based Statistical Areas 

Two adjacent CBSAs will merge to 

form one CBSA if the central county or 

counties (as a group) of one CBSA 

qualify as outlying to the central county 

or counties (as a group) of the other 

CBSA using the measures and 

thresholds stated in 3(a) and 3(b) above. 

Section 5. Identification of Principal 

Cities 

The principal city (or cities) of a 

CBSA will include: 

(a) The largest incorporated place 

with a 2020 Census population of at 

least 10,000 in the CBSA or, if no 

incorporated place of at least 10,000 

population is present in the CBSA, the 

largest incorporated place or census 

designated place in the CBSA; and 

(b) Any additional incorporated place 

or census designated place with a 2020 

Census population of at least 250,000 or 

in which 100,000 or more persons work; 

and 

(c) Any additional incorporated place 

or census designated place with a 2020 

Census population of at least 50,000, but 

less than 250,000, and in which the 

number of workers working in the place 

meets or exceeds the number of workers 

living in the place; and 

(d) Any additional incorporated place 

or census designated place with a 2020 

Census population of at least 10,000, but 

less than 50,000, and at least one-third 

the population size of the largest place, 

and in which the number of workers 

working in the place meets or exceeds 

the number of workers living in the 

place. 

Section 6. Categories and Terminology 

A CBSA is categorized based on the 

population of the largest Urban Area 

within the CBSA. Categories of CBSAs 

are: Metropolitan statistical areas, based 

on Urban Areas of 50,000 or more 

population, and micropolitan statistical 

areas, based on Urban Areas of at least 

10,000 population but less than 50,000 

population. Counties that do not fall 

within CBSAs will represent ‘‘outside 

core based statistical areas.’’ 

Section 7. Divisions of Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas 

An MSA containing a single Urban 

Area with a population of at least 2.5 

million may be subdivided to form 

smaller groupings of counties referred to 

as metropolitan divisions. A county 

qualifies as a ‘‘main county’’ of a 

metropolitan division if 65 percent or 

more of workers living in the county 

also work within the county and the 

ratio of the number of workers working 

in the county to the number of workers 

living in the county is at least 0.75. A 

county qualifies as a ‘‘secondary 

county’’ if 50 percent or more, but less 

than 65 percent, of workers living in the 

county also work within the county and 

the ratio of the number of workers 

working in the county to the number of 

workers living in the county is at least 

0.75. 

A main county automatically serves 

as the basis for a metropolitan division. 

For a secondary county to qualify as the 

basis for forming a metropolitan 

division, it must join with either a 

contiguous secondary county or a 

contiguous main county with which it 

has the highest employment interchange 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Notices 37777 

measure of 15 or more (where the 

employment interchange measure is the 

sum of the percentage of workers living 

in the smaller entity who work in the 

larger entity and the percentage of 

employment in the smaller entity that is 

accounted for by workers who reside in 

the larger entity). After all main 

counties and secondary counties are 

identified and grouped (if appropriate), 

each additional county that already has 

qualified for inclusion in the MSA falls 

within the metropolitan division 

associated with the main/secondary 

county or counties with which the 

county at issue has the highest 

employment interchange measure. 

Counties in a metropolitan division 

must be contiguous. 

Section 8. Combining Adjacent Core 

Based Statistical Areas 

(a) Any two adjacent CBSAs will form 

a combined statistical area if the 

employment interchange measure 

between the two areas is at least 15. 

(b) The CBSAs thus combined will 

also continue to be recognized as 

individual CBSAs within the combined 

statistical area. 

Section 9. Titles of Core Based 

Statistical Areas, Metropolitan 

Divisions, and Combined Statistical 

Areas 

(a) The title of a CBSA will include 

the name of its principal city with the 

largest 2020 Census population. If there 

are multiple principle cities, the names 

of the second-largest and (if present) 

third-largest principle cities will appear 

in the title in order of descending 

population size. If the principal city 

with the largest 2020 Census population 

is a census designated place, the name 

of the largest incorporated place of at 

least 10,000 population that also is a 

principal city will appear first in the 

title followed by the name of the census 

designated place. If the principal city 

with the largest 2020 Census population 

is a census designated place, and there 

is no incorporated place of at least 

10,000 population that also is a 

principal city, the name of that census 

designated place principal city will 

appear first in the title. 

(b) The title of a metropolitan division 

will include the name of the principal 

city with the largest 2020 Census 

population located in the metropolitan 

division. If there are multiple principle 

cities, the names of the second-largest 

and (if present) third-largest principle 

cities will appear in the title in order of 

descending population size. If there are 

no principle cities located in the 

metropolitan division, the title of the 

metropolitan division will use the 

names of up to three counties in order 

of descending 2020 Census population 

size. 

(c) The title of a combined statistical 

area will include the names of the two 

largest principle cities in the 

combination and the name of the thirdlargest principal city, if present. If the 

combined statistical area title duplicates 

that of one of its component CBSAs, the 

name of the third-most-populous 

principal city will be dropped from the 

title of the Combined Statistical Area. 

(d) Titles also will include the names 

of any State in which the area is located. 

Section 10. Updating Schedule 

(a) The Office of Management and 

Budget will delineate CBSAs in 2023 

based on 2020 Census data and 2016– 

2020 American Community Survey fiveyear estimates. Release of these 

delineations will take place during June 

2023. 

(b) In the 2023 delineations and in 

subsequent years, the Office of 

Management and Budget will designate 

a new mSA if: 

(1) A city that is outside any existing 

CBSA has a Census Bureau special 

census count of 10,000 to 49,999 

population, or a population estimate of 

10,000 to 49,999 for two consecutive 

years from the Census Bureau’s 

Population Estimates Program, or 

(2) A Census Bureau special census 

results in the delineation of an Urban 

Area of 10,000 to 49,999 population that 

is outside of any existing CBSA. 

(c) Also in the 2023 delineations and 

in subsequent years, the Office of 

Management and Budget will designate 

a new MSA if: 

(1) A city that is outside any existing 

MSA has a Census Bureau special 

census count of 50,000 or more 

population, or a population estimate of 

50,000 or more for two consecutive 

years from the Census Bureau’s 

Population Estimates Program, or 

(2) A Census Bureau special census 

results in the delineation of an Urban 

Area of 50,000 or more population that 

is outside of any existing MSA. 

(d) Outlying counties of CBSAs that 

qualify in this section will qualify 

according to the criteria in Section 3 

above, on the basis of American 

Community Survey five-year 

commuting estimates. 

(e) OMB will review the delineations 

of all existing CBSAs and related 

statistical areas in 2028 using 2021– 

2025 five-year commuting and 

employment estimates from the Census 

Bureau’s American Community Survey. 

The Urban Areas used in these 

delineations will be those based on 2020 

Census data or subsequent special 

censuses for which Urban Areas are 

created. The central counties of CBSAs 

identified on the basis of a 2020 Census 

population count, or on the basis of 

population estimates from the Census 

Bureau’s Population Estimates Program 

or a special census count in the case of 

postcensally delineated areas, will 

constitute the central counties for 

purposes of these area delineations. 

New CBSAs will be designated in 2028 

on the basis of Census Bureau special 

census counts or population estimates 

as described above in Sections 10(b) and 

10(c); outlying county qualification will 

be based on five-year commuting 

estimates from the American 

Community Survey. 

(f) Other aspects of the CBSA 

delineations are not subject to change 

between decennial censuses. 

(g) OMB will issue delineation 

updates (one per year in those years 

when there is an update) in years other 

than 2023 during December. 

(h) OMB will maintain a publicly 

available release schedule for these 

updates on its statistical programs and 

standards web page (https://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/informationregulatory-affairs/statistical-programsstandards/). Any delays will be 

announced on the website as soon as 

possible, along with an updated release 

date. 

Section 11. Definitions of Key Terms 

Census designated place—A 

statistical geographic entity that is 

analogous to an incorporated place, 

delineated for the decennial census and 

consisting of a locally recognized, 

unincorporated concentration of 

population that is identified by name. 

Central county—The county or 

counties of a Core Based Statistical Area 

containing a substantial portion of an 

Urban Area, and to and from which 

commuting is measured to determine 

qualification of outlying counties. 

Combined Statistical Area—A 

geographic entity consisting of two or 

more adjacent Core Based Statistical 

Areas with employment interchange 

measures of at least 15. 

Core—A densely settled concentration 

of population, comprising an Urban 

Area (of 10,000 or more population) 

delineated by the Census Bureau, 

around which a Core Based Statistical 

Area is delineated. 

Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA)— 

A statistical geographic entity consisting 

of the county or counties associated 

with at least one core (Urban Area) of 

at least 10,000 population, plus adjacent 

counties having a high degree of social 

and economic integration with the core 

as measured through commuting ties 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
37778 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Notices 

1See Docket No. RM2018–3, Order Adopting 

Final Rules Relating to Non-Public Information, 

June 27, 2018, Attachment A at 19–22 (Order No. 

4679). 

with the counties containing the core. 

Metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas are the two categories of 

core based statistical areas. 

Delineation—The establishment of the 

boundary of a statistical area, or the 

boundary that results. 

Employment interchange measure—A 

measure of ties between two adjacent 

entities. The employment interchange 

measure is the sum of the percentage of 

workers living in the smaller entity who 

work in the larger entity and the 

percentage of employment in the 

smaller entity that is accounted for by 

workers who reside in the larger entity. 

Geographic building block—The 

geographic unit, such as a county, that 

constitutes the basic geographic 

component of a statistical area. 

Main county—A county that acts as 

an employment center within a CBSA 

that has a core with a population of at 

least 2.5 million. A main county serves 

as the basis for delineating a 

metropolitan division. 

Metropolitan Division—A county or 

group of counties within a CBSA that 

contains an Urban Area with a 

population of at least 2.5 million. A 

metropolitan division consists of one or 

more main/secondary counties that 

represent an employment center or 

centers, plus adjacent counties 

associated with the main/secondary 

county or counties through commuting 

ties. 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)— 

A Core Based Statistical Area associated 

with at least one Urban Area that has a 

population of at least 50,000. The MSA 

comprises the central county or counties 

containing the core, plus adjacent 

outlying counties having a high degree 

of social and economic integration with 

the central county or counties as 

measured through commuting. 

Micropolitan Statistical Area (mSA)— 

A Core Based Statistical Area associated 

with at least one Urban Area that has a 

population of at least 10,000, but less 

than 50,000. The mSA comprises the 

central county or counties containing 

the core, plus adjacent outlying counties 

having a high degree of social and 

economic integration with the central 

county or counties as measured through 

commuting. 

Outlying county—A county that 

qualifies for inclusion in CBSA on the 

basis of commuting ties with the CBSA’s 

central county or counties. 

Outside Core Based Statistical 

Areas—Counties that do not qualify for 

inclusion in a CBSA. 

Principal City—The largest city of a 

CBSA, plus additional cities that meet 

specified statistical criteria. 

Secondary county—A county that acts 

as an employment center in 

combination with a main county or 

another secondary county within a 

CBSA that has a core with a population 

of at least 2.5 million. A secondary 

county may serve as the basis for 

delineating a metropolitan division, but 

only when combined with a main 

county or another secondary county. 

Urban Area— A statistical geographic 

entity delineated by the Census Bureau, 

which represents densely developed 

territory, and encompasses residential, 

commercial, and other non-residential 

urban land uses. For purposes of 

delineating MSAs, at least one Urban 

Area of 50,000 or more population is 

required; for purposes of delineating 

mSAs, at least one Urban Area of 10,000 

to 49,999 population is required. 

Sharon Block, 

Acting Administrator, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15159 Filed 7–13–21; 5:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2021–111 and CP2021–113; 

MC2021–112 and CP2021–114] 

New Postal Products 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing for the 

Commission’s consideration concerning 

a negotiated service agreement. This 

notice informs the public of the filing, 

invites public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: July 20, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

I. Introduction 

The Commission gives notice that the 

Postal Service filed request(s) for the 

Commission to consider matters related 

to negotiated service agreement(s). The 

request(s) may propose the addition or 

removal of a negotiated service 

agreement from the market dominant or 

the competitive product list, or the 

modification of an existing product 

currently appearing on the market 

dominant or the competitive product 

list. 

Section II identifies the docket 

number(s) associated with each Postal 

Service request, the title of each Postal 

Service request, the request’s acceptance 

date, and the authority cited by the 

Postal Service for each request. For each 

request, the Commission appoints an 

officer of the Commission to represent 

the interests of the general public in the 

proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 

(Public Representative). Section II also 

establishes comment deadline(s) 

pertaining to each request. 

The public portions of the Postal 

Service’s request(s) can be accessed via 

the Commission’s website (http://

www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of 

the Postal Service’s request(s), if any, 

can be accessed through compliance 

with the requirements of 39 CFR 

3011.301.1

The Commission invites comments on 

whether the Postal Service’s request(s) 

in the captioned docket(s) are consistent 

with the policies of title 39. For 

request(s) that the Postal Service states 

concern market dominant product(s), 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 

CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) 

that the Postal Service states concern 

competitive product(s), applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 

39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 

39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment 

deadline(s) for each request appear in 

section II. 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

1. Docket No(s).: MC2021–111 and 

CP2021–113; Filing Title: USPS Request 

to Add Priority Mail & First-Class 

Package Service Contract 199 to 

Competitive Product List and Notice of 

Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing 

Acceptance Date: July 12, 2021; Filing 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 

3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 

3035.105; Public Representative: 

Kenneth R. Moeller; Comments Due: 

July 20, 2021. 

2. Docket No(s).: MC2021–112 and 

CP2021–114; Filing Title: USPS Request 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES