Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2022 / Notices 34235 

work. Key questions associated with 

outcome-based metrics and 

prioritization include: What successful 

prioritization approaches have you seen 

at the landscape scale? How are Tribal 

Nations, State and local governments, 

and partners involved? How have the 

needs of underserved and socially 

vulnerable communities (including 

tribal communities), and the impacts on 

these communities, been considered? 

What tools are you currently using or 

interested in using, and why? 

Science Supporting Wildfire Risk 

Reduction. Delineation of priority 

treatment areas and subsequent project 

design will be supported by the best 

available science, including social 

science and Traditional and Indigenous 

Ecological Knowledge. Key questions 

associated with science application 

include: What types of science products 

do you rely upon to support this work? 

What do you see as current gaps and 

information needs in the science of fuels 

and fire risk reduction efforts? How 

effective is information sharing across 

communities, agencies, disciplines, and 

scales (local, regional, and national), 

and what can be done to improve or 

sustain such sharing? 

Workforce Capacity. We need to 

rebuild skills and workforce capacity to 

accomplish management treatments and 

fully engage with communities at the 

necessary pace and scale. This will 

require building and sustaining an 

inclusive workforce across governments 

and organizations. Key questions 

associated with workforce capacity 

include: What major constraints are you 

facing around workforce capacity? What 

key workforce skills and knowledge are 

needed for fuels reduction work? How 

might we ensure our collective 

workforce is well-positioned to engage 

and support underserved and socially 

vulnerable communities? Are there 

existing training or workforce 

development programs that you have 

developed or are using/leveraging for 

this work? 

Conclusion. The Forest Service is 

considering how best to proceed in 

further developing and refining its 

implementation of the Wildfire Crisis 

Strategy. Your input relating to the 

questions listed above will be helpful in 

building this Plan. 

Dated: May 31, 2022. 

Brian Ferebee, 

Senior Executive, Intergovernmental Affairs, 

USDA Forest Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12071 Filed 6–3–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Census Bureau 

[Docket Number 220519–0117] 

Change to County-Equivalents in the 

State of Connecticut 

AGENCY: Census Bureau, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice provides 

information about the State of 

Connecticut’s (hereafter Connecticut or 

the State) formal request to the Census 

Bureau to adopt the State’s nine 

planning regions as county-equivalent 

geographic units for purposes of 

collecting, tabulating, and disseminating 

statistical data, replacing the eight 

counties which ceased to function as 

governmental and administrative 

entities in 1960. The Census Bureau will 

implement this change internally in 

2022, with public data and geospatial 

products reflecting the change 

beginning in late 2022. By 2024, all 

Census Bureau operations and 

publications, both internal and external, 

will use the nine new county-equivalent 

boundaries, names, and codes, except 

for 2020 Decennial Census data 

publications and other datasets 

referencing the eight legacy counties as 

published before June 1, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information on 

this notice should be directed to Rikki 

Wortham: geo.geography@census.gov. 

Phone: 812–218–3973. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Officials 

with the Connecticut Office of Policy 

and Management contacted the Census 

Bureau in October 2017 regarding the 

possibility of replacing the State’s eight 

counties with the State’s nine planning 

regions for purposes of collecting, 

tabulating, and disseminating statistical 

data. This notice provides information 

about Connecticut’s formal request to 

the Census Bureau to adopt the State’s 

nine planning regions, representing 

their councils of governments (COGs), 

designated under Section 16a–4a (4) of 

the Connecticut General Statutes, as the 

county-equivalent geographic unit for 

purposes of collecting, tabulating, and 

disseminating statistical and geospatial 

data. This notice also serves as a final 

response to all comments received to 

the proposed notice published in the 

Federal Register on December 14, 2020 

(85 FR 80766). 

The Census Bureau is publishing this 

notice in consultation with Connecticut 

to inform county-level data users of the 

decision to implement the change and 

to request that all stakeholders begin 

preparation for the mitigation of any 

potential impacts. Other federal 

agencies may have their own 

operational uses for the legacy 

boundaries, names, codes, or related 

geospatial data; however, specific 

guidance on these matters is out of 

scope for this notice. 

All agencies, stakeholders, and data 

users are urged to review their own 

operations and procedures to prepare 

for the change and assess any impacts. 

The Census Bureau will continue to 

maintain the boundaries, names, and 

codes of the eight nonfunctioning legacy 

counties as recorded by the 

International Committee for Information 

Technology Standards (INCITS) 

(formerly Federal Information 

Processing Standard (FIPS)) Codes, but 

they will no longer be recognized as 

valid and current for future Census 

Bureau programs, products, and 

publications after June 2022. Previously 

published data and geospatial products 

will continue to reflect the boundaries, 

names, and codes of the legacy counties 

in effect at the time of publication and 

can be used as a reference for research 

and operational needs. 

This notice is Census Bureau’s final 

announcement that Connecticut’s 

request will be implemented and urges 

all stakeholders to immediately prepare 

for any impacts related to the adoption 

of planning regions as countyequivalents on data collection; data 

analysis; data dissemination; planning 

and decision making; and program 

implementation. The Census Bureau 

suggests that stakeholders: (1) establish 

plans for updating or replacing data 

collection and tabulation programs or 

nonstatistical programs that will not be 

able to implement this change; (2) 

establish plans to accommodate a 

substantial break in data continuity if 

longitudinal analyses are no longer 

possible; and (3) identify specific 

programs and other uses of county-level 

information that will require county 

name, code, and boundary updates. 

13 U.S.C. 181 requires that the 

Secretary of Commerce ‘‘annually 

produce and publish for each State, 

county, and local unit of generalpurpose government which has a 

population of fifty thousand or more, 

current data on total population and 

population characteristics and, to the 

extent feasible, . . . biennially produce 

and publish for other local units of 

general-purpose government current 

data on total population.’’ 13 U.S.C. 183 

further requires that with the exception 

of laws which provide that only 

population or population characteristics 

data obtained in the most recent 

decennial census may be used, that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
34236 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2022 / Notices 

‘‘. . . for the purpose of administering 

any law of the United States in which 

population or other population 

characteristics are used to determine the 

amount of benefit received by State, 

county, or local units of general-purpose 

government, the Secretary shall transmit 

to the President for use by the 

appropriate departments and agencies of 

the executive branch the data most 

recently produced and published under 

this title.’’ To meet these statutory 

requirements, the Census Bureau must, 

to the best of its ability use the most 

current, accurate, and up to date 

geographic boundaries for States, 

counties, and local units of generalpurpose government. 

The Census Bureau strives to provide 

statistical data for geographic areas that 

are meaningful and relevant for analysis 

and decision-making. In Connecticut, 

the nine COGs exist to address matters 

of mutual interest to their constituent 

cities and towns, with each member city 

and town represented by its highest 

elected official. They function as 

regional planning organizations, 

coordinating activities for their 

constituent cities and towns, and in that 

capacity can exercise a variety of 

responsibilities typically undertaken by 

counties in other states. Being that 

Connecticut’s counties ceased to 

function as governmental and 

administrative entities in 1960, the 

planning regions are more meaningful 

and relevant areas for tabulation and 

dissemination of statistical data within 

the State, as well as for regional and 

national county comparisons, than are 

the eight legacy counties. 

The Census Bureau believes, given the 

substantial length of time that has 

elapsed since the dissolution of 

Connecticut’s counties with no 

functioning governmental alternatives 

having been put into place, it is 

appropriate to accept the adoption of 

these nine county-equivalent entities 

and their associated boundaries, codes, 

and names for spatial representation 

and publication of statistical data at the 

county level of the Census Bureau’s 

geographic hierarchy. This decision was 

made without regard to similar 

circumstances that may exist in other 

states and is narrowly focused on this 

unique situation in Connecticut. 

Therefore, it should not be taken as a 

precedent for other situations that may 

currently exist or arise later. 

The Census Bureau will implement 

this change in early 2022 and use the 

new county-equivalents when reporting 

all statistical data and geospatial data 

referenced to 2022 and all years 

thereafter. 

Background 

Although Connecticut’s eight counties 

have long provided stable geographic 

units for reporting statistical data, they 

have not served as functional 

governmental and administrative 

entities since county government in the 

state was abolished in 1960. The State’s 

nine COGs function as regional 

planning organizations, coordinating 

activities for their constituent cities and 

towns (note, however, that in some 

instances the name of the planning 

region differs from that of its COG). As 

such, planning regions provide a more 

meaningful geographic unit for 

reporting data since the data would be 

aligned with the collection of 

municipalities (i.e., cities and towns) 

that constitute the governance 

framework for each COG. Each 

municipality within a designated 

planning region is entitled to 

membership in the region’s COG upon 

adoption of an ordinance by its 

legislative body. The highest elected 

official of each member municipality is 

then provided a vote on all COG 

matters. By reporting statistical data for 

COGs, member municipalities will be in 

a better position to plan collaboratively 

and act strategically on the efficient 

delivery of services, bulk purchasing, 

and other matters of practical interest. 

While COGs do not have the authority 

to levy taxes, they are authorized under 

State law to assess dues on their 

member municipalities, to accept other 

sources of public and private assistance 

for the purpose of providing regional 

and shared services, and to administer 

a regional property tax base revenue 

sharing system if approved by a 

unanimous vote of its member 

municipalities. In this regard, as well as 

the ability to provide the variety of 

services listed below, Connecticut’s 

COGs and associated planning regions 

have the authority to carry out 

administrative functions that are 

typically found in county governments 

in other states. Section 8–31b(b) of the 

Connecticut General Statutes states that: 

Regional services provided to member 

municipalities shall be determined by each 

regional council of governments . . . and 

may include, without limitation, the 

following services: (1) Engineering; (2) 

inspectional and planning; (3) economic 

development; (4) public safety; (5) emergency 

management; (6) animal control; (7) land use 

management; (8) tourism promotion; (9) 

social; (10) health; (11) education; (12) data 

management; (13) regional sewerage; (14) 

housing; (15) computerized mapping; (16) 

household hazardous waste collection; (17) 

recycling; (18) public facility siting; (19) 

coordination of master planning; (20) 

vocational training and development; (21) 

solid waste disposal; (22) fire protection; (23) 

regional resource protection; (24) regional 

impact studies; and (25) transportation. 

In the same section, the COGs are 

authorized to ‘‘accept or participate in 

any grant, donation, or program made 

available to counties by any other 

governmental or private entity.’’ 

Scope of Change 

Adoption of the nine planning regions 

as county-equivalents applies to the 

collection, tabulation, and 

dissemination of Census Bureau 

statistical and geospatial data for 

Connecticut. The Census Bureau 

proposes to implement this change 

internally in early 2022, and will use 

the resulting county-equivalent 

planning regions in all of its programs 

that collect, tabulate, and disseminate 

demographic or economic data, such as: 

the American Community Survey 

(ACS); the intercensal Population 

Estimates Program (PEP); Small Area 

Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) 

Program; the Economic Census; County 

Business Patterns; the Longitudinal 

Employer-Household Dynamics 

Program; the 2030 Decennial Census; 

and all other future Census Bureau 

operations. While other federal agencies 

are encouraged to adopt Connecticut’s 

planning regions as county-equivalents 

for use in their statistical and nonstatistical programs, the Census Bureau 

does not have the authority to require 

such a change. Nevertheless, adoption 

of planning regions as countyequivalents will assure comparability of 

data produced by all federal agencies as 

well as comparability between statistical 

and non-statistical programs. 

Transitioning From Counties to 

Planning Regions 

Relationship Between Counties and 

Planning Regions 

Although the planning regions and 

counties do not align, there is 

substantial overlap, to the extent that 

one can discern the relationships 

between individual planning regions 

and counties. Figure 1 depicts the 

relationship between Connecticut’s 

eight counties and its nine planning 

regions. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2022 / Notices 34237 

The closest relationship is between 

Middlesex County and Lower 

Connecticut River Valley Planning 

Region, with all 15 of the cities and 

towns within the county also located 

within the planning region (which also 

contains two towns located in New 

London County). 

Cities and towns are the constituent 

governments within each COG/planning 

region. As such, data for cities and 

towns can be aggregated to planning 

regions, facilitating reconstruction of 

time series data and longitudinal 

analysis. Table 1 provides the 2020 

Census population and housing for each 

planning region, based on aggregated 

data previously published for 

constituent cities and towns. 

TABLE 1—PLANNING REGION: 2020 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Planning region 

2020 Census 

population 

count 

2020 Census 

housing count 

Capitol ...................................................................................................................................................................... 976,248 414,084 

Greater Bridgeport ................................................................................................................................................... 325,778 125,332 

Lower Connecticut River Valley .............................................................................................................................. 174,225 82,497 

Naugatuck Valley ..................................................................................................................................................... 450,376 191,376 

Northeastern Connecticut ........................................................................................................................................ 95,348 41,439 

Northwest Hills ......................................................................................................................................................... 112,503 55,478 

South Central Connecticut ....................................................................................................................................... 570,487 246,044 

Southeastern Connecticut ....................................................................................................................................... 280,430 125,183 

Western Connecticut ............................................................................................................................................... 620,549 248,764 

Using the distribution of cities and 

towns within counties and planning 

regions as a guide, data users can use 

crosswalk relationship files between 

counties and planning regions, to build 

longitudinal datasets or make 

approximate comparisons as depicted in 

Table 2 below. 

TABLE 2—COUNTIES-TO-PLANNING REGIONS APPROXIMATION

County 2020 Census 

population count Planning region 2020 Census population count 

.............................. Greater Bridgeport ................................................. 325,778 

Fairfield ................................................................... 957,419 Western Connecticut .............................................. 620,549 

Hartford ................................................................... 899,498 ................................................................................. ..............................

Tolland .................................................................... 149,788 Capitol .................................................................... 976,248 

Litchfield .................................................................. 185,186 Northwest Hills ....................................................... 112,503 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1EN06JN22.001</GPH>

Figure 1. Relationship between Counties and Planning Regions. County boundaries are shown 

as thick llnes; names are labeieq in standard font irran caps. The plaMirtg regkms are shaded; 

names areJn italics'-
34238 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2022 / Notices 

1To make the 3-digit county codes (INCITS 31) 

nationally unique, they need to be combined/ 

concatenated with the 2-digit state codes (INCITS 

38) as the prefix. 

2National Standard Codes included in Census 

Bureau products are 8-digit INCITS 446 Codes 

stored and maintained by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) on behalf of the U.S. BGN in the 

GNIS. 

3The codes in this notice do not match the codes 

listed in the proposed notice issued on December 

14, 2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR 80766). 

After issuing the proposal, it was determined that 

a distinct break in the INCITS 31 (formerly FIPS 6) 

Code series would more clearly demarcate the new 

county-equivalent planning regions from the legacy 

counties and indicate the significant change in 

county-level geographic representation. 

TABLE 2—COUNTIES-TO-PLANNING REGIONS APPROXIMATION—Continued 

County 2020 Census 

population count Planning region 2020 Census population count 

Middlesex ................................................................ 164,245 Lower Connecticut River Valley ............................. 174,225 

.............................. Naugatuck Valley ................................................... 450,376 

New Haven ............................................................. 864,835 South Central Connecticut ..................................... 570,487 

New London ............................................................ 268,555 Southeastern Connecticut ...................................... 280,430 

Windham ................................................................. 116,418 Northeastern Connecticut ...................................... 95,348 

To assist with the transition from 

counties to planning regions and the 

development of longitudinal data for the 

new county-equivalents, the Census 

Bureau will produce and make available 

reference files identifying the cities and 

towns that constitute each planning 

region, and reference files identifying 

the relationships between various substate and sub-county geographic areas 

and the planning regions. This will 

facilitate aggregation of data from 

Census Bureau programs that collect, 

tabulate, and disseminate data for cities 

and towns in Connecticut. These files 

will be posted at the Census Bureau 

website titled ‘‘Substantial Changes to 

Counties and County-Equivalent 

Entities: 1970–Present’’ and will include 

detailed information about the updates 

referenced in this notice. 

Upon adoption of this change, the 

Census Bureau will include planning 

regions in all geospatial data products, 

including TIGER/Line Shapefiles, 

TIGER/Line Geodatabases, cartographic 

boundary files, and mapping services. 

The INCITS 31 Codes and National 

Standard (NS) (specifically INCITS 446) 

Codes for the eight counties will be 

retired from current and future Census 

Bureau products and used only within 

the context of data referencing the 

counties in Connecticut as published 

before 2022, see Table 3 below. 

TABLE 3—LEGACY COUNTY NAMES AND INCITS (FORMERLY FIPS) CODES

Name 

INCITS 38 state + 

INCITS 31 county 

code 1

National standard 

county code 2

Fairfield County ............................................................................................................................................ 09001 00212794 

Hartford County ........................................................................................................................................... 09003 00212338 

Litchfield County .......................................................................................................................................... 09005 00212796 

Middlesex County ........................................................................................................................................ 09007 00212797 

New Haven County ...................................................................................................................................... 09009 00212798 

New London County .................................................................................................................................... 09011 00212799 

Tolland County ............................................................................................................................................. 09013 00212668 

Windham County ......................................................................................................................................... 09015 00212801 

Each planning region has been 

assigned a new three-digit INCITS 31 

Code, starting with 110, and continuing 

in alphanumeric order by name (Table 

4).3 Each planning region has also been 

assigned a new eight-digit National 

Standard (NS) Code as included in the 

U.S. Board on Geographic Names’ 

(BGN’s) Geographic Names Information 

System (GNIS). These new codes and 

other attribute codes will be included in 

Census Bureau geographic reference 

products after this change is 

implemented. 

TABLE 4—PLANNING REGION NAMES AND INCITS (FORMERLY FIPS) CODES

Name 

INCITS 38 state + 

INCITS 31 county 

code 

National standard 

county code 

Capitol Planning Region .............................................................................................................................. 09110 02830244 

Greater Bridgeport Planning Region ........................................................................................................... 09120 02830245 

Lower Connecticut River Valley Planning Region ....................................................................................... 09130 02830246 

Naugatuck Valley Planning Region ............................................................................................................. 09140 02830249 

Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region ................................................................................................ 09150 02830250 

Northwest Hills Planning Region ................................................................................................................. 09160 02830251 

South Central Connecticut Planning Region ............................................................................................... 09170 02830252 

Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region ................................................................................................ 09180 02830253 

Western Connecticut Planning Region ........................................................................................................ 09190 02830254 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2022 / Notices 34239 

Relationship to Other Statistical 

Geographic Entities 

The Census Bureau accounted for the 

change from counties to planning 

regions when implementing the 

Participant Statistical Areas Program 

(PSAP) for the 2020 Census, the 

program in which the Census Bureau 

works with local officials to review and 

update block groups and census tracts. 

The planning regions were the official 

PSAP participants in Connecticut for 

both the 2010 and 2020 censuses, thus 

ensuring that census tracts and block 

groups generally aligned with city and 

town boundaries, facilitating transition 

to the new county-equivalents. The 

Census Bureau further reviewed block 

group and census tract boundaries for 

the 2020 Census to ensure alignment 

with planning region boundaries. As a 

result, the change to county-equivalents 

in Connecticut will not affect block 

group and census tract boundaries. Both 

types of entities will nest within 

planning region boundaries. 

The adoption of planning regions as 

county-equivalents will affect the 

current and future delineations of 

Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas as well as Combined 

Statistical Areas by the Office of 

Management and Budget. Current New 

England City and Town Areas (NECTAs) 

and combined NECTAs are not affected 

by this change. 

Timeline 

Officials with Connecticut’s Office of 

Policy and Management contacted the 

Census Bureau in October 2017 

regarding the process they should 

follow to adopt the State’s nine 

planning regions as county-equivalents. 

At that time, Census Bureau staff 

advised that officials first obtain broad 

data user support throughout the State, 

including other State agencies, the State 

Data Center, as well as the planning 

regions. Table 5 below highlights 

important milestones of the process 

leading to the publication of this notice. 

Once broad support for the change was 

achieved, a formal request addressed to 

the Census Bureau’s Director was 

needed for the Census Bureau to take 

formal steps toward adoption of the 

nine planning regions as countyequivalents. The State’s initial formal 

request was received by the Census 

Bureau in August 2019. The State also 

submitted a letter of support from the 

Connecticut Data Collaborative/State 

Data Center attesting to the importance 

and value of data for planning regions 

to analysts, decision makers, and other 

data users throughout Connecticut as 

well as broad support for the change 

among data users throughout the State. 

In addition, members of Connecticut’s 

Congressional delegation, chairs of each 

of the State’s nine COGs, and officials 

from the Connecticut Conference of 

Municipalities, Council of Small Towns, 

and the Advisory Commission on 

Intergovernmental Relations were 

copied on the State’s letter to the Census 

Bureau. The Census Bureau held a 

meeting with Connecticut State and 

local government officials, State agency 

staff, and COG chairs in April 2020 to 

provide an update on outreach 

regarding the proposed change where 

meeting participants reiterated the 

importance of, and support for, 

adoption of the State’s nine planning 

regions as county-equivalents. 

The Census Bureau began outreach to 

other federal agencies and data users 

regarding this change in October 2019, 

following Connecticut’s formal request 

to begin the process of replacing its 

eight counties with the nine planning 

regions. The Census Bureau published a 

notice in the Federal Register on 

December 14, 2020 (85 FR 80766) 

requesting comments on the proposed 

program change. The Census Bureau has 

held seven briefings for staff of federal 

agencies: one for the Interagency 

Council on Statistical Policy; two 

organized by the Federal Committee on 

Statistical Methodology—Geospatial 

Interest Group; two specifically for 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development staff, including staff 

managing the Community Development 

Block Grant and other funding 

allocation programs; one specifically for 

Bureau of Labor Statistics staff; and one 

organized by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation attended by federal, 

State, and local transportation planners. 

Summary of Comments Received in 

Response to Proposed Changes 

The Census Bureau received eight 

comments in total in response to the 

notice on the proposal published in the 

Federal Register on December 14, 2020 

(85 FR 80766). Six of the comments 

expressed support for the change. One 

comment suggested a change from the 

county code assignments published in 

Table 4 of the proposed notice to the 

county code assignment which was 

adopted for this final notice. The final 

comment focused on questions 

regarding state-level decisions and was 

referred to Connecticut executive 

stakeholders to provide a response. 

Following completion of the formal 

period of comment associated with the 

proposal in the December 14, 2020 

Federal Register Notice (85 FR 80766), 

the Census Bureau, in consultation with 

Connecticut government officials, 

reviewed the comments received to 

determine if there were valid reasons to 

revisit the proposed plan. With none 

being noted, Connecticut reached the 

final decision in December 2021 to 

move forward with the implementation 

of the nine planning regions as countyequivalents in Census Bureau 

publications. This Notice serves as the 

Census Bureau’s final formal 

announcement of intent to immediately 

implement the changes detailed herein. 

The Census Bureau continued to 

conduct additional outreach after the 

official comment period for the proposal 

in the Federal Register Notice closed on 

February 12, 2021. From March 2021 to 

February 2022 the Census Bureau held 

meetings with DHS (Department of 

Homeland Security) and two of its 

components, FEMA (Federal Emergency 

Management Agency) and the Office of 

Infrastructure within NPPD (the 

National Protection and Program 

Directorate); the Department of Interior 

and its component agency, the U.S. 

Geological Survey, including USGS’s 

National Geospatial Program Office; the 

Department of Agriculture; the 

Department of Defense Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Homeland Defense and Americas’ 

Security Affairs; and, two other 

Commerce Department bureaus, NOAA 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration—including the National 

Weather Service) and BEA (Bureau of 

Economic Affairs). 

TABLE 5—TIMELINE OF ACTIVITIES

Activity Dates 

Officials from the State of Connecticut’s Office of Policy and Management contact Census Bureau regarding 

proposed adoption of planning regions as county-equivalents.

October 2017. 

Connecticut Office of Policy and Management staff conduct outreach at the State-level to obtain consensus 

for change.

November 2017–March 2019. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
34240 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 5—TIMELINE OF ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Activity Dates 

Formal request from the State of Connecticut to the Census Bureau’s Director regarding adoption of planning 

regions as county-equivalents.

August 2019. 

Census Bureau outreach to federal agencies and other data users .................................................................... September 2019–present 

FEDERAL REGISTER Notice announcing the Census Bureau’s proposed implementation of the change in county-equivalents.December 14, 2020. 

Census Bureau receives final decision from Connecticut to move forward with the changes ............................. December 1, 2021. 

Census Bureau, in consultation with the State of Connecticut, issues final decision regarding adoption of 

planning regions as county-equivalents.

Spring 2022. 

Robert L. Santos, Director, Census 

Bureau, approved the publication of this 

Notice in the Federal Register. 

Dated: May 31, 2022. 

Mary Reuling Lenaiyasa, 

Program Manager, Paperwork Reduction Act, 

Policy Coordination Office, Census Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12063 Filed 6–3–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[B–22–2022] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 164—Muskogee, 

Oklahoma; Application for 

Reorganization and Expansion Under 

Alternative Site Framework 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by 

the Muskogee City-County Port 

Authority, grantee of FTZ 164, 

requesting authority to reorganize and 

expand the zone under the alternative 

site framework (ASF) adopted by the 

FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.2(c)). The ASF 

is an option for grantees for the 

establishment or reorganization of zones 

and can permit significantly greater 

flexibility in the designation of new 

subzones or ‘‘usage-driven’’ FTZ sites 

for operators/users located within a 

grantee’s ‘‘service area’’ in the context of 

the FTZ Board’s standard 2,000-acre 

activation limit for a zone. The 

application was submitted pursuant to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the 

regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 

400). It was formally docketed on May 

31, 2022. 

FTZ 164 was approved by the FTZ 

Board on November 17, 1989 (Board 

Order 450, 54 FR 49321, November 30, 

1989) and expanded on February 12, 

2007 (Board Order 1500, 72 FR 8966– 

8967, February 28, 2007). 

The current zone includes the 

following sites: Site 1 (48.19 acres 

total)—Port of Muskogee located at Port 

and Industrial Park Service Road and 

Port Access Road (14.6 acres), at 2631 

Port Place Road (5.92 acres) and at 

North 43rd Street East and Don Cayo 

Road (27.67 acres) in Muskogee; Site 2 

(47.47 acres)—Port of Muskogee/John T. 

Griffin Industrial Park (Lot 2) located on 

Dal-Tile Road near State Highway 165 

and U.S. Highway 64 in Muskogee; and, 

Site 3 (22.83 acres total)—Komar 

Distribution Center facilities located at 

400 West Chickasaw (7.63 acres) and at 

10 V. Hubert Smith Drive (15.2 acres) in 

McAlester. 

The grantee’s proposed service area 

under the ASF would be Muskogee 

County, Oklahoma, as described in the 

application. If approved, the grantee 

would be able to serve sites throughout 

the service area based on companies’ 

needs for FTZ designation. The 

application indicates that the proposed 

service area is adjacent to the Tulsa 

Customs and Border Protection port of 

entry. 

The applicant is requesting authority 

to reorganize its existing zone to include 

all of the existing sites as ‘‘magnet’’ 

sites. The ASF allows for the possible 

exemption of one magnet site from the 

‘‘sunset’’ time limits that generally 

apply to sites under the ASF, and the 

applicant proposes that Site 1 be so 

exempted. The applicant is also 

requesting approval of the following 

subzone: Proposed Subzone 164A— 

Vallourec Star, LP, 3800 Port Place, 

Muskogee, Muskogee County (102 

acres). 

In accordance with the FTZ Board’s 

regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ 

Staff is designated examiner to evaluate 

and analyze the facts and information 

presented in the application and case 

record and to report findings and 

recommendations to the FTZ Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions shall be 

addressed to the FTZ Board’s Executive 

Secretary and sent to: ftz@trade.gov. The 

closing period for their receipt is August 

5, 2022. Rebuttal comments in response 

to material submitted during the 

foregoing period may be submitted 

during the subsequent 15-day period to 

August 22, 2022. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection in the 

‘‘Online FTZ Information Section’’ 

section of the FTZ Board’s website, 

which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ 

ftz. For further information, contact 

Camille Evans at Camille.Evans@

trade.gov. 

Dated: May 31, 2022. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12078 Filed 6–3–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[B–23–2022] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 163—Ponce, 

Puerto Rico; Application for Subzone; 

Petro Air Corporation, Carolina, Puerto 

Rico 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by 

CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, 

requesting subzone status for the facility 

of Petro Air Corporation, located in 

Carolina, Puerto Rico. The application 

was submitted pursuant to the 

provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones 

Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), 

and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 

CFR part 400). It was formally docketed 

on May 31, 2022. 

The proposed subzone (0.80 acres) is 

located at World Fuel—Petro Air 

Facility, PR–26 LMM Airport, Calle Jose ́

Santana Interior, Carolina, Puerto Rico. 

No authorization for production activity 

has been requested at this time. 

In accordance with the FTZ Board’s 

regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ 

Staff is designated examiner to review 

the application and make 

recommendations to the FTZ Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions shall be 

addressed to the FTZ Board’s Executive 

Secretary and sent to: ftz@trade.gov. The 

closing period for their receipt is July 

18, 2022. Rebuttal comments in 

response to material submitted during 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1