[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17696-17706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06064]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Census Bureau
15 CFR Part 90
[Docket Number: 230313-0072]
RIN 0607-AA60
Population Estimates Challenge Program
AGENCY: Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) amends the
regulations for the Population Estimates Challenge Program which will
provide eligible general-purpose governmental entities (local
governments) with the opportunity to file requests for the review of
their population estimates for 2021 and subsequent years in forthcoming
estimates series, beginning with the Vintage 2022 series that is
scheduled to be published in 2023. Under this program, a governmental
unit may file a challenge to its official population estimate by
submitting additional data to the Census Bureau for evaluation, or by
identifying a technical error in processing input data or producing the
estimates. Specifically, the Census Bureau amends its regulations to
update the regulation's references pertaining to the input data which
are used to produce the official population estimates and revise the
evidence required to support a challenge. In this final rule, the
Census Bureau responds to comments received during the public comment
period--closed on December 22, 2022--on the notice of proposed
rulemaking posted in the Federal Register pertaining to ways in which
the Population Estimates Challenge Program might be improved.
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 24, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information
should be directed to Amel Toukabri, Chief, Local Government Estimates
and Migration Processing Branch, Population Division, 301-763-2461 or
census.gov">POP.challenge@census.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Census Bureau typically releases annual population estimates,
in accordance with Title 13 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). These
estimates are typically based to some extent upon the most recent
Decennial Census of Population and Housing and compiled from the most
current administrative and survey data available for that purpose.
Although not required by any statute, the Census Bureau also typically
offers an opportunity for local units of general-purpose government
(hereinafter collectively ``governmental unit'') to challenge these
official estimates through its Population Estimates Challenge Program.
Under this program, a governmental unit may challenge its population
estimate by submitting additional data to the Census Bureau for
evaluation, or by identifying a technical error in processing input
data or producing the estimates. If the additional data are accepted
during the review period by the Census Bureau, resulting in an updated
population estimate, the Census Bureau will provide a written
notification to the governmental unit and publish the revised estimate
at www.census.gov. If the additional data are not accepted for a
revised estimate, the Census Bureau will notify the governmental unit.
In the challenge process, the Census Bureau will only accept a
challenge when the evidence provided indicates the use of incorrect
data, processes, or calculations in the estimates.
In this final rule, the Census Bureau amends its regulations to:
(1) update the regulation's references pertaining to the input data
which are used to produce the official population estimates, and (2)
revise the evidence required to support a challenge.
The Census Bureau also solicited comments from the public about
ways in which the program might be improved. In particular, the Census
Bureau welcomed comments about (1) the methodology used in preparing
the annual Population Estimates, (2) the sources of data that the
agency considers (or does not consider) in preparing the annual
Population Estimates, and (3) what sorts of factual
[[Page 17697]]
or methodological arguments the agency considers (or does not consider)
in evaluating a potential challenge.
Based on the public comments received, the Census Bureau is
amending its final rule to: (1) retain the flexibility to accept a
physical copy of challenge materials rather than exclusively accepting
digital challenge submissions; and (2) increase communication with
localities by encouraging the appropriate Federal State Cooperative for
Population Estimates (FSCPE) members to serve as conduits with local
governments in the review of pre-release estimates, to the extent that
this is possible given data confidentiality requirements for pre-
release data. Furthermore, to the extent that research findings
indicate that additional recommendations/changes support the
development of accurate estimates and ensure equity for all general-
purpose governmental units, the Census Bureau is open to expanding the
scope of the Challenge Program. Nonetheless, this is contingent on the
Population Estimates Program (PEP)'s programmatic capacity, future
research priorities, and the outcome of such research. For the reasons
explained below, at least at this time, the Census Bureau is not
implementing the comments that advocated for an expansion of the
Program (e.g., the use of more flexible methodology, a wider range of
data sources to support a challenge, and removal of the county
control). The Census Bureau intends, however, to study more closely the
issues raised in those comments, and commits to conducting future
research that will allow for regular enhancement of the current
methodologies, and which would improve both the accuracy of the
population estimates and the Challenge Program.
Currently, the Census Bureau begins the process of preparing
population estimates by updating population information from the most
recent decennial census and other sources with information found in the
annual administrative records of Federal and State agencies. The
Federal agencies provide tax records, Medicare records, and some vital
records and group quarters information. The FSCPE members, designated
by their respective governors to work in cooperation with the Census
Bureau's Population Estimates Program to produce population estimates,
also supply vital statistics and information about group quarters like
college dorms or prisons.\1\ The Census Bureau combines census base
data, administrative records, and selected survey data (e.g., data from
the American Community Survey, American Housing Survey, and the
Building Permit Survey) to produce current population estimates that
usually begin with the last decennial census. Additionally, the Census
Bureau's general-purpose governmental units' population estimates are
provided to the FSCPE agencies in preliminary form for review and
comment to resolve data processing issues identified during that
period. For the purposes of this program, the District of Columbia is
treated as a statistical equivalent of a county and, therefore, is
eligible to participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/fscpe.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major priority for the Census Bureau is balancing the need to use
the 2020 Census counts at the lowest level of estimates geography as
the starting point in estimates production with the statutory
obligation to protect the respondents' confidentiality at every stage
of the data lifecycle. Since the 1990 Census, the Bureau has added
``noise''--or variations from the actual count--to the collected data
to ensure privacy and confidentiality. For 2020 Census data, the Census
Bureau applied noise using a newer disclosure avoidance technique based
on ``differential privacy.'' \2\ The Census Bureau uses a housing unit
method to distribute a county population to places within its legal
boundaries. The components in this method include housing units
estimates, average household population per housing unit, and an
estimate of the population in group quarters. The estimation formula
was simplified to increase the accuracy of the estimates and minimize
the impact of differential privacy on the population estimates by
reducing the number of components requiring privacy protection used to
generate population estimates. Consequently, the occupancy rate and
Persons Per Household (PPH) previously used in this method were
replaced with the average household population per housing unit. The
household population and the group quarters population used in the
calculation of the estimate are the only two components subject to
differential privacy protection compared to the prior three
components--occupancy rate, PPH, and group quarters population--that
would have otherwise required privacy protection. Therefore, the PPH
and occupancy rate components are no longer inputs used to produce
those population estimates. The distributive housing unit equation used
to calculate the population estimates for governmental units is
simplified to accommodate the application of the disclosure avoidance
technique prior to releasing the estimates. As a result, the Census
Bureau amends 15 CFR part 90 to revise: (1) the regulation's references
pertaining to the input data which are used to produce the official
population estimates, (2) where to file a challenge, and (3) the
evidence required to support a challenge. These changes are captured in
the updates to Sec. Sec. 90.2, 90.7, and 90.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For more information about the differential privacy
technique, visit Understanding Differential Privacy (census.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously, the Census Bureau published a final rule on January 9,
2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR 1100) to announce that the Census
Bureau would temporarily suspend the Population Estimates Challenge
Program to accommodate the taking of the 2020 Census and subsequent
review and evaluation activities. Efforts to resume the program were
delayed in response to the changes to the operational schedule for the
2020 Census which occurred due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Census Bureau followed the suspension of the Population Estimates
Challenge Program with two Federal Register documents published on
November 22, 2022. A document was posted in the Federal Register (87 FR
71240), entitled ``Resumption of the Population Estimates Challenge
Program,'' which resumed the suspended program to provide eligible
entities the opportunity to file requests for the review of population
estimates for 2021 and subsequent years beginning with the Vintage \3\
2022 series that is scheduled to be published in 2023. That rule also
made clear that challenges to previous estimates series (for which the
90-day limitations period set forth in 15 CFR 90.6 had long since
elapsed) would not be accepted. The resumption document did not
implement revisions to the program or its requirements. On November 22,
2022, the Census Bureau published another notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register (87 FR 71269) for its program, entitled
``Resumption of the Population Estimates Challenge Program and Proposed
Changes to the Program.'' In that announcement, the Census Bureau
solicited comments from the public about ways in which the program
might be improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Annually, PEP revises and updates the entire time series of
estimates from April 1, 2020 to July 1 of the year for which the
estimates are published which is referred to as the vintage year.
The term ``vintage'' is used to denote the entire time series
created with a consistent population starting point and methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17698]]
The proposal was available for comment during a 30-day period that
ended on December 22, 2022. The Census Bureau has now reviewed these
comments and responded to them in this final rule.
Summary of Comments and Responses
The Census Bureau received 13 comments during the comment period
pertaining to 11 separate topics. The contents of these recommendation
received can be categorized according to a few main themes: (1)
improving the Population Estimates Challenge process; (2) allowing the
use of more flexible methodologies and a wider range of sources of data
in both preparation of the annual population estimates and in challenge
submissions, while increasing experts' participation such as through
additional involvement from the FSCPE; and (3) investing in continuous
research to improve the accuracy of the population estimates with a
focus on the estimates base and the group quarters population. A
summary of these comments and the detailed responses by the Census
Bureau are provided below:
Comments Theme: Population Estimates Challenge Program Rulemaking
Topic 1. An Expansion of the Scope of the Challenge Program
Several commenters favored a challenge program that actively
encourages participation and is open to considering a wider variety of
data sources than is currently accepted. Many suggested that the
program accept data sources typically available to or curated by
localities, such as (but not limited to) electric utilities, address
lists, public school enrollment data, and local property tax records.
Yet, these commenters also noted that an expanded challenge program
will stretch the capacity of PEP.
Commenters also acknowledged that revisions based on local
government input or alternative methodologies do not always improve
estimation accuracy, and so standards need to be maintained for
accepting data in support of challenges. As an example of such
criteria, it was recommended that the Census Bureau consider whether
the alternative population estimate is developed by ``a methodology
and/or data set that appears in and is used consistently within the
applied demography literature?'' Then, in instances where that is not
the case, ``does the locality provide research on the validity of that
data set and why this methodology works better, and do applied
demographers (at the Census Bureau or elsewhere) agree with the
findings?''
Even if a revision improves accuracy, commenters cited the
potential for it to introduce other issues, such as questions of
equity: challenges are issued seeking a higher population estimate, but
not all jurisdictions have the resources to file a challenge and
identify the necessary supporting evidence. Thus, governments with the
resources to challenge could be in a position to receive greater shares
of population and corresponding funding, possibly to the detriment of
jurisdictions that do not challenge, perhaps due to fewer resources
(e.g., many localities lack the technology, infrastructure, and/or
expertise needed to compile, analyze, and present data in a manner that
meets the foregoing requirements). Commenters emphasized that an
expanded challenge program needs to be mindful of such concerns.
Response 1.
The Census Bureau recognizes that potential expansion of the scope
of the Population Estimates Challenge Program could be beneficial,
although specific changes are contingent on PEP's future research
priorities and findings. Furthermore, PEP not only maintains that
methodologies considered should be consistent with or advance applied
demography literature, but also acknowledges the efficacy of engaging
and sharing findings with outside experts to enhance PEP's challenge
decision-making process. As we define and progress in research
impacting the Challenge Program, this will be a priority for PEP.
PEP is open to expanding the scope of the Challenge Program where
science indicates that such changes support more accurate estimates and
ensure equity for all general-purpose governmental units and the
public. The Census Bureau is also considering alternative data sources,
including administrative records, and methodologies for estimates
production. This work is being led by the Base Evaluation and Research
Team (BERT), which is tasked with researching the feasibility of taking
coverage measures and/or administrative data into account in the
development of the estimates base. Accordingly, the Census Bureau will
explore the issues raised in the comments more closely in the future
and will continue to consider possible ways to improve the Challenge
Program. Until the results of these efforts suggest revisions to our
approach, we foresee no changes in response to these comments at this
time.
Topic 2. Challenge Process Recommendations
Comment 2.1 One commenter expressed concern that the proposed
changes to the Challenge Program would require that jurisdictions file
challenges solely through email and would eliminate the option of
submitting a ``hard copy'' of challenge materials through the U.S.
postal service or some similar delivery option. The commenter urged the
bureau to retain the latter option on behalf of localities that still
lack email access through broadband technology and are thus unable to
electronically send large document files quickly and easily--
particularly in remote or rural areas of the country.
Response 2.1 The Census Bureau will still maintain the ability to
receive a hard copy of challenge materials through the U.S. postal
service, recognizing the need to retain the option of submitting a
physical copy, rather than exclusively accepting digital submissions.
Comment 2.2 Many commenters commended the Census Bureau for
explicitly specifying in the proposed regulations that a phone number
and email address will be provided for questions that localities may
have about the Challenge Program. They also urged the Census Bureau to
ensure that there is sufficient staffing to provide prompt responses
through either of these modes to inquiries made by localities.
Response 2.2 The Challenge Program staff in PEP prioritizes the
experience of localities and the challenge process and routinely
responds to inquiries (i.e., email, written requests, or telephone
calls) in a timely manner. Additionally, as part of our commitment to
continuous improvement, we will seek opportunities to further
streamline the process of responding through all available modes.
Comment 2.3 Several commenters indicated that a more robust and
improved population estimates challenge process would likely result in
a higher volume of requests. Thus, the commenters stated that the
Census Bureau must provide the necessary resources, including adequate
staffing, to meet this need. In any event, the Census Bureau should not
be in a position to use lack of staffing or staffing hours as a reason
for limiting appeals moving forward.
Response 2.3. The Census Bureau concurs that increases in the
challenge process will lead to incremental stresses on existing
capacity. Consistent with our continuous improvement activities,
[[Page 17699]]
we are reviewing both the response process and resource flexibilities
to facilitate the processing and turnaround time of a challenge while
retaining the integrity of the challenge review process.
Comment 2.4 Numerous commenters also recommended a ``change in
nomenclature'' to replace Challenge Program, which described as an
``adversarial term.'' To represent that successful challenges are the
result of a cooperative partnership with local stakeholders to improve
population estimates, a term that reflects the spirit of cooperation
engendered by the new program should be used. One such suggestion was
``Improvement Program.''
Response 2.4 The Census Bureau acknowledges that successful
challenges should be properly viewed as the result of a cooperative
partnership with local stakeholders to improve population estimates.
However, the current name of the Population Estimates Challenge Program
encompasses a longstanding relationship and history, and so
alternatives--as well as the best means to potentially transition to a
new name for the program--must be carefully considered. For example, a
name change might make it difficult for local governments to easily
find the necessary information if they are interested in challenging
their population estimates, particularly the ones with fewer resources.
We will include this possibility in future discussions with
stakeholders and the public to determine the feasibility and benefit of
this proposed change.
Comment 2.5 Commenters were also concerned that the 30-day comment
period on the proposed regulations was too short, preferring at least
60 days for comment on an issue of this significance, arguing that a
longer comment period would have enhanced the quality of feedback and
helped demonstrate a more consistent approach to advancing stakeholder
engagement.
Response 2.5 Although a longer comment period would have been more
convenient for some, it was not possible to extend the comment period
without jeopardizing PEP's ability to process and respond to comments
received and subsequently update program materials accordingly in
advance of the release of the upcoming Vintage 2022 county population
estimates, which will be subject to challenge within 90 days of their
release.
Comment 2.6 Other commenters stated that with more resources and by
embedding the call for feedback on methodology and data sources into
the challenge program, there would be more opportunities to raise
awareness of alternative methods and data sources and implement
methodology changes to improve the estimates program.
Response 2.6 The Census Bureau recognizes the importance of
providing a mechanism for methodological feedback and input on data
sources. So as to enable the Challenge Program staff to focus their
time on processing challenges according to the program guidelines in
place at that time, the Census Bureau is ensuring that this type of
feedback may be shared via other means. In particular, BERT has created
a dedicated email address, census.gov">pop.bert@census.gov, to provide stakeholders
with an avenue for sharing ideas relating to alternative data sources
or methodologies. This email address is currently active and will be
advertised to localities as a destination for data and methodology
suggestions relevant to their specific area.
Comment 2.7 Multiple commenters recommended that the FSCPE members
more directly serve as conduits with local governments in the review of
estimates in a pre-release format and to coordinate challenges. To more
effectively have direct rather than secondary input into the production
and review of the data, it was stated that FSCPE State representatives
should have Special Sworn Status.
Response 2.7 The Census Bureau has already been actively
consulting with the FSCPE member agencies regarding the Challenge
Program. Additionally, PEP encourages the appropriate FSCPE members to
serve as conduits with local governments in the review of pre-release
estimates, to the extent that this is possible given data
confidentiality requirements for pre-release data. A Memorandum of
Agreement governs the partnership between the Census Bureau and the
State agencies. The current agreements are set to expire in 2024, at
which point it is anticipated that the agreements will be revised and
renewed. During that renewal process, PEP will initiate discussions
about the feasibility, expectations and responsibilities of the Census
Bureau and the FSCPE members pertaining to annual data review.
Comment 2.8 Many of the commenters recommended that the Census
Bureau keep external partners apprised of challenge requests that are
occurring, decisions that have been made on challenges, and areas of
concern about the challenge process on a regular basis, suggesting that
this information sharing occurs through presentations to the Census
Scientific Advisory Committee (CSAC). They also advised the Census
Bureau to increase its communications about the challenge process to be
more inclusive of all governmental units (especially small towns and
cities), supporting the recent recommendation by the CSAC that the
Census Bureau conduct webinars on the ability of local governments to
improve statistics by partnering with the Census Bureau in the
Population Estimates Challenge Program and Special Censuses.
Response 2.8 The Census Bureau concurs with this recommendation.
PEP strives to make timely information readily available to its State
partners in the FSCPE via the regular monthly meetings of the Steering
Committee, Research and Methods Subcommittee, and Data Input
Subcommittee, in addition to the twice-yearly meetings with the full
membership. It has been the practice of the Challenge Program to keep
the FSCPE members aware of any challenge requests in their States and
to officially share the challenge outcomes. We plan to continue with
this practice and further expand the outreach to other interested
stakeholders, such as the CSAC via briefings and presentations. Another
venue PEP is exploring to improve communication is the development of a
video which would walk local governments through the process of
submitting a challenge, and which would be supplemental to the
Population Estimates Challenge Program Guide already made available on
its website (www.census.gov).
Topic 3. Subcounty Estimation Formula and Updates to the Persons-per-
Household and Occupancy Rates
At the subcounty level, numerous commenters argued that the Census
Bureau's recent decision to eliminate vacancy [occupancy] and person-
per-household (PPH) rates by combining them into ``average population
per housing unit'' is inconsistent with the literature on how to
produce accurate population estimates. They recommended that the Census
Bureau reverse this decision.
One commenter urged the Census Bureau to ensure that the
replacement in the estimation formula of the PPH and occupancy rate
components with the average household population per housing unit does
not have a detrimental impact on the accuracy of estimates produced for
localities with undercounted populations and inform the public of
analyses that demonstrate that outcome.
Additionally, several commenters recommended that the Census Bureau
should allow cities and other governmental units to challenge the April
1, 2020 population base used for
[[Page 17700]]
the annual estimates with all relevant, reliable data, especially with
respect to housing occupancy/vacancy and PPH rates. Furthermore, many
commenters recommended that the Bureau should accept revisions to these
components as part of the Challenge Program if a locality can provide
reasonable and sufficient evidence of change.
The recommendations suggested some methods that the Census Bureau
may research in order to develop post-Census Day PPH and occupancy
components, such as the expanded, modeled, or indexed use of IRS filer
and exemption data at the sub-county (place or minor civil division)
level; the use of local street address listings or local annual town
Censuses, where available; USPS data; and the use of other State or
local administrative records, including school or program enrollment
information; or other high-quality data sources.
Response 3.
PEP combined the occupancy and PPH components to adhere to the
Census Bureau's modernized disclosure avoidance requirements which are
designed to protect the confidentiality of respondents. By combining
PPH and occupancy into the average population per housing unit, the
number of terms in the distributive housing unit equation subject to
the application of differentially private noise was minimized,
subsequently minimizing the impact of the noise on the estimates and
maximizing their overall accuracy.
Furthermore, whereas PEP recognizes that the ``average household
population per housing unit'' ratio may not be a standard demographic
measure, the new formula is mathematically equivalent to the old
version where the ``Occupied Housing Units total'' in the first
numerator and second denominator in line (2) shown below cancel each
other out. Thus, the formula in use is a simplified version of the
previous formula which no longer requires housing characteristics
measures such as the occupancy and PPH. Replacing the PPH and occupancy
rate with the ``average household population per housing unit'' does
not structurally change the formula; therefore, the replacement will
not introduce additional error to the population estimates.
Where:
SUBCO RESPOPt: Subcounty resident population total at
time t
HUt: Housing unit total at time t
OCC RateBase year: Occupancy Rate at base year
HHPOPt: Household population total at time t
GQPOPt: Group quarters population total at time t
Consequently, there is no foundation for the commenter's concern as
both the previous and updated equations result in the same subcounty
household population value for a specific subcounty area.
Although occupancy rates and PPH no longer factor into the
calculation of subcounty population, PEP will consider conducting
research on whether local PPH and occupancy data may be submitted in a
subcounty challenge as an alternative to the 2020 Census household
population per housing unit ratio used in the distributive household
equation. Pending the research findings, this could be a potential
mechanism to challenge the data in the April 1, 2020 population
estimates base. Beyond that, the possibility of challenging the
estimates base at the subcounty level would be contingent on
identifying alternative sources of data which were of sufficient
quality to serve as replacements for the other population components
drawn from the Census results.
At the county level of geography and above, it is not feasible to
break down the base population into challengeable components, as it is
created by integrating results from the 2020 Census, 2020 Demographic
Analysis estimates, and Vintage 2020 estimates. As such, challenges to
the population estimates base must remain out of scope.
The Census Bureau appreciates the research ideas contributed by the
commenters. To enhance the accuracy and reliability of the subsequent
estimates, and to contribute to a longer-term goal of continuous
improvement in the estimation processing, PEP will explore the
practicability of the suggested research topics.
Topic 4. Re-Evaluate the Use of the County Control and Revisit HUBERT
Research
Numerous commenters recommended that the Census Bureau re-evaluate
the use of the county control (or what some commenters referred to as a
``county cap'') when processing sub-county population estimates
challenges. Some argued that adhering to the control creates a
situation whereby governments with the resources to successfully
challenge receive greater shares of population and resultant funding,
to the detriment of jurisdictions that do not challenge, perhaps
because they have fewer resources.
Various commenters suggested that research led by the Census
Bureau's Housing Unit-Based Research Estimates Team (HUBERT) in 2007 to
2008 be revisited and updated. This research program assessed whether,
for some counties, a housing unit-based method of calculating
population change at the county level was more effective than the
cohort-component method used by the Census Bureau. The commenters
highlighted how the Census Bureau has relied on the HUBERT research for
many of its current decisions about data and methods used in the
production of its annual population estimates.
Pending an update of the HUBERT research, several commenters
recommended that the Census Bureau utilize the findings from the
original HUBERT research to:
identify the 30% of counties that were more accurately
estimated using HUM than the cohort-component approach;
identify the characteristics of the counties that are
better estimated by the HUM; and
use that information to classify all counties and apply
the method that is more accurate for each county type.
Response 4.
The Census Bureau recognizes that more current, in-depth research
is needed to reevaluate the use of the county control for the
incorporation of successful challenges. While no changes in response to
this comment are being made at this time, PEP plans to update HUBERT
research with current data and examine the impact of the county control
to inform future changes to the methodology. When possible, PEP intends
to research the feasibility and logistics of this change to ascertain
if it is methodologically sound, including soliciting input from our
FSCPE partners.
Comments Theme: Population Estimates Program
Topic 5. Investing in the Population Estimates Program and Ongoing
Stakeholder Input
Numerous commenters stated that PEP has limited capacity to execute
much needed, updated research. Therefore, they proposed an expansion
and additional investment in PEP and in the FSCPE partnership. Many
commenters urged the Census Bureau to make improving the population
estimates a high priority and work to increase the resources necessary
by reallocating or requesting additional resources to support a
continuous year-round estimates research program throughout the decade.
Several commenters also advised to build and maintain collaborative
[[Page 17701]]
relationships throughout the decade with State, local and Tribal
governments to take in additional anonymized official datasets to
improve the estimates, and to seek ongoing stakeholder input, both from
government entities as well as from other organizations.
Many commenters recommended that the Department of Commerce provide
a modest level of direct funding to every FSCPE representative so that
every State can participate. At present, the effort is defined by a
Memorandum of Agreement under which some States fund their
participation, while others do not. This arrangement leads to some
States participating actively in the FSCPE and others participating at
extremely low levels or not at all.
Response 5.
The Census Bureau concurs with the importance of ensuring
continuous research on population estimates related topics throughout
the decade. In fact, planning and conducting prioritized research on an
annual basis are ingrained in PEP's mission and construct a vital phase
typically carried out after the conclusion and release of population
estimates series, and before the new estimates production cycle starts.
This yearly research cycle has been and will continue to be a priority
for PEP, allowing for regular enhancement of the current methodologies
used to improve the population estimates' accuracy, while approving a
limited number of research topics to work on annually that are
manageable by PEP and defer the remaining list of research topics to
future years.
The Census Bureau acknowledges the value and significance of the
partnership with FSCPE State agencies and their role in producing high-
quality estimates products. The Census Bureau also concurs that it
would be beneficial to engage with the FSCPE partners to explore
creative and effective means to benefit from their local knowledge and
suggestions, beyond what is currently done. PEP believes that the
efficacy of the partnership is enhanced by robust participation across
the country.
PEP continues to explore ways to enhance outreach and increase
current States' participation through the FSCPE partnership to provide
local data inputs that are consistent with PEP's current methodologies
for use in the annual estimates production such as housing unit
components of change, vital statistics records, and group quarters
reporting. For example, PEP will collaborate with more active States
and seek input from less active States to identify options to encourage
more participation. Additionally, PEP has created an email address
associated with the BERT research_census.gov">pop.bert@census.gov--which could be
advertised to localities as a destination for data and methodology
suggestions relevant to their specific area.
Topic 6. Ways To Improve the Population Estimates
Some commenters recommended that the Census Bureau consider more
flexible methodologies (e.g., allow for probabilistic modeling in
addition to demographic accounting methods) and broader use of
administrative data to ensure meaningful opportunities to improve the
accuracy of the estimates including appropriate improvements to the
estimates base. Several commenters specifically recommended that ``the
Census Bureau move from using just one method to estimate the total
population of States and counties (cohort component method), to using
multiple methods to produce the State and county estimates more
accurately.'' They also suggested that ``the Census Bureau allow
targeted, localized methods that do not apply to the entire country if
they improve local accuracy.'' At the subcounty level, some commenters
recommended the Census Bureau use its new research on Construction
Starts \4\ based on artificial intelligence and satellite imagery as
inputs for the number of housing units in HUM \5\ estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Econ Current Surveys Update Construction Re-engineering
(census.gov).
\5\ HUM: Distributive housing unit-based methodology, which is
used by PEP to produce subcounty population estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters recommended that the Census Bureau conduct research
on the efficacy of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) return data in
reflecting overall migration patterns. They also suggested
``researching the use of United States Postal Service Change of Address
data for permanent moves to be incorporated into the estimated
migration rates.''
Response 6.
The Census Bureau's ability to implement flexible/multiple
methodologies and the use of a broader array of data sources is
contingent upon two major components: first, ensure the capacity to
conduct research on the proposed methodology and adhere to PEP's
scientific and methodological principles; and second, the outcome of
the methodological research. New methods must be found to be sound
(based on solid reasoning respectful of the attributes of the input
data as they relate to the estimation tasks), accountable
(understandable and replicable), robust (insensitive to small
departures from assumptions, reasonably accurate under changing
demographic conditions), parsimonious (reflecting a simpler strategy
versus a more complex one whenever possible), and to produce valid
results.
Given the vast range of individual geographies for which PEP
produces estimates, we prefer methods and data that can be applied to
entities across a geographic or multiple geographic levelsbased on the
principle of parsimony and the accuracy and equity of the results. This
is an important distinction because it underscores how differential
methods across a geographic level are significantly labor-intensive to
incorporate and require substantially longer time so as to enable PEP
to research and test alternative methods and data to ensure equitable
accuracy of population estimates across geographies).
PEP will research the feasibility and logistics of alternative
methods, including investigating how new and current research taking
place at the Census Bureau, such as the efforts underway to modernize
construction indicators, can be leveraged to improve the accuracy and
reliability of the estimates. Accordingly, although no changes in
response to this comment are being made at this time, the Census Bureau
will continue to conduct research and consider possible ways to improve
the Challenge Program and population estimates.
Assessing the quality of the data is of the utmost importance in
PEP's estimates production cycle. Therefore, PEP first evaluates time
series of IRS filing statistics to identify any data quality issues
that need to be addressed. PEP already makes use of the United States
Postal Service (USPS) National Change of Address (NCOA) data as a
benchmark to assess the quality of the IRS-based migration rates, and
to validate permanent moves. Additionally, PEP compares migration
trends between IRS and NCOA data to capture changes in domestic
migration patterns across the country and particularly in disaster-hit
counties.
Topic 7. The Estimation of Group Quarters Population
Some commenters specifically supported PEP's ongoing research on
alternative methods and data sources as it pertains to the estimation
of group quarters populations. One of the commenters echoed the recent
recommendation by the CSAC that the Census Bureau should collect group
quarters lists by individual facility and include capacity and
attendance information from FSCPE members for
[[Page 17702]]
the estimates base and throughout the decade.
Response 7.
The Census Bureau welcomes and concurs with the suggestion of
continuous research on alternative methods and data sources for the
estimation of the group quarters population. For instance, the 2020
Post-Census Group Quarters Review (PCGQR) operation--unique to this
decade--was created in response to public feedback to improve the
counts of specific GQs. This program improves the accuracy of the GQ
population in the estimates base: if the PCGQR review process finds
discrepancies in these population counts supported by sufficient
documentation, approved revisions to the group quarters population are
provided to PEP. These updates are incorporated into the base
population for upcoming vintages of estimates, as the production
schedule allows.
Additionally, the Census Bureau concurs with the recommendation to
coordinate with the FSCPE regarding contents of their future Group
Quarters Report data that they provide to PEP on an annual basis.
Topic 8. Re-Evaluate the ``College Fix'' in Estimates Production
Referencing the current methodology for the annual population
estimates, two commenters encouraged the Census Bureau to re-evaluate
the criteria used for ``College Fix'' counties. PEP's application of a
``college fix'' in the estimates is used to improve the estimates for
counties with high shares of college-enrolled population, which would
otherwise erroneously be ``aged forward'' within the cohort-component
methodology. Instead, the ``college fix'' allows this population to be
replaced each year by the newly incoming students, producing a more
demographically reasonable age structure for that population. The
commenters note that this adjustment is particularly needed because the
sources used to directly capture migration in the estimates, namely IRS
data, have proven less effective for capturing the migration of
college-aged cohorts--``a phenomenon that is easily demonstrated by
looking at Census-to-Census survival of these cohorts as versus
populations estimated using IRS data.''
Response 8.
The Census Bureau concurs with the recommendation to re-evaluate
the College Fix criteria and overall method to ensure the
reasonableness of the resulting population estimates for affected
counties. Therefore, to contribute to a longer-term goal of continuous
improvement in the estimation processing, PEP will seek to include this
research on the College Fix.
Comments Theme: Coverage and Improving Census Base Population
Topic 9. Inaccurate Estimates Due to Undocumented Immigration
The commenter stated that ``the U.S. Census will continue to be
inaccurate as long as there is uncontrolled illegal immigration due to
the wide-open southern border,'' referencing ``thousands of `got-aways'
in 2022 alone.'' The comment asserts that these individuals secure
alternative living situations which result in their omittance from the
census count. Additionally, the commentor maintains that the U.S.
Census limits data collection to ``safe suburban environments'' to the
exclusion of ``urban, violent areas,'' leading to inaccurate population
counts for cities.
Response 9.
The goal of the Census Bureau is a complete and accurate census.
The U.S. Constitution requires the census to count every resident in
the nation. During the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau went to great
lengths to count everyone, including people residing in housing units,
including apartments and mobile homes; people in complex living
situations; people who live or stay in a group living arrangement; and
those experiencing homelessness. This included counting people where
they received services, outdoors, and at other locations where they are
known to sleep. The Census Bureau understood that many noncitizens were
fearful that participating in the census could expose them and their
families to harm, so the bureau continued working with trusted voices
in local communities to encourage people to participate. We also hired
locally, and our staff collectively spoke dozens of languages.
The Census Bureau's Community Partnership and Engagement Program
(CPEP) had 18 distinct initiatives that further enhanced focus on
historically hard-to-count populations. One of those initiatives was
the Foreign-Born and Immigrant Program. The CPEP specialists were
placed locally on the basis of low-response score and population
density. The specialists focused on local engagement and outreach, and
specialized in languages specific to historically hard-to-count
populations in their local community. The 2020 Census was the first
census where everyone could respond online, by phone, or by mail.
Census takers made in-person visits to every household that did not
respond via one of these methods to make sure people who lived there
were counted. These visits were made across the country, in all of the
urban, suburban, and rural areas where people live. The Census Bureau
also conducted a robust Integrated Communications Campaign to reach
everyone living in the United States with information on how the 2020
Census was easy, safe, and important. The cornerstone of this effort
was a research-based communications campaign that covered all levels of
geography.
As a result, the findings from the Census Bureau's official
coverage evaluations indicate that young children aged 0 to 4, the
Black or African American population, the American Indian and Alaska
Native population--especially on reservations--and the Hispanic
population were likely undercounted in the 2020 Census. The Census
Bureau takes these findings very seriously and is working to mitigate
these issues in the 2030 Census. For example, in 2022, the Census
Bureau formed the Young Children Working Group, which focuses on the
coverage of young children and improving data on this population. In
addition, the Census Bureau formed a separate working group in 2023
focused on researching ways to improve the coverage of other
Historically Undercounted Populations (HUPs). The Census Bureau is
actively conducting outreach to stakeholders, partners and community
organizations to expand and strengthen a trusted messenger ecosystem
across the nation.
Topic 10. Persistent Undercounts in 2020 Census, Misallocation of
Federal Funding, and Improving the Census Base
Several of the comments were related to the issue of correcting
undercounts that persisted in the 2020 Census, emphasizing that
undercounts misdirect Federal and State funding. Although the April 1,
2020 population estimates base has been identified as a possible
mechanism for mitigating undercounts, many commenters acknowledged that
the expectation for the estimates to compensate for coverage errors in
a multi-billion-dollar census to achieve a fairer distribution of funds
might be unrealistic.
Various commenters suggested that the Census Bureau should research
the best ways to make coverage adjustments, determine the feasibility
of incorporating administrative data sources while maintaining quality
standards, and build in an opportunity for feedback before final
decisions around the base population are made. Furthermore, numerous
commenters
[[Page 17703]]
expressed support for a continuation of the Census Bureau's efforts to
research population base enhancements, but recommended the research
examine possible adjustments at a more local level (e.g., adjusting age
distributions in the estimates base by county, rather than applying the
same distribution adjustment equally to every county across the
country). Additionally, a few commenters advised the BERT research to
make use of existing administrative records files and the Census
Bureau's Frames Program to improve the accuracy of baseline data. Most
commenters strongly supported the Census Bureau's creation of BERT and
expressed ongoing support of their work.
Other commenters noted that the 2020 Post-Enumeration Survey (PES),
one of the Census Bureau's official coverage measures, is not
sufficiently robust for adjusting undercounts at the local level. They
recommended improving the estimates base by adjusting State-level
counts using PES State-level results and then incorporating
administrative data from programs such as Medicaid; the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); etc. to distribute the
increased or decreased population to the counties within each State.
A collection of commenters also suggested that the total population
in the April 1, 2020 estimates base no longer be restricted by the
total population from the 2020 Census counts, due to the risk of
underestimating children in some locations and inflating estimates of
children in other locations, potentially at the expense of other age
cohorts.
Response 10.
The Census Bureau appreciates the expression of support for BERT
and the team's efforts to build the most accurate estimates base
possible. BERT has specifically been formed to research the feasibility
of taking coverage measures such as the PES, Demographic Analysis (DA)
and other administrative records into account in the development of the
estimates base. Moving forward, BERT's research findings will inform
decisions about what 2020 Census data or administrative sources are
used in the development of the estimates base, and whether there are
adjustments that can be made to the Census data used in the base which
could be applied in equitable, methodologically sound, and
demographically plausible ways. As such, this research entails a
careful evaluation of all data sources which would potentially be used
to enhance or adjust the estimates base so that data (including the
coverage measures from PES and DA) are not used in ways that extend
beyond their design capacity. The research also includes assessing the
impact of the blended estimates base on specific populations, such as
the population of children, to ensure that the way the sources are
combined in the estimates base produces the likeliest distribution by
demographic characteristics.
Moreover, the BERT research includes collaboration with other
administrative records-based projects underway at the Census Bureau,
such as the demographic frame developed by the Frames Program. These
joint efforts will lend insight into the suitability of administrative
data sources for researching coverage issues. This includes the
potential to target specific populations or geographies, including the
possibility of developing differential adjustments at subnational
geographic levels.
The BERT research is a prime example of how we are striving to
mitigate coverage issues, and the work being undertaken by this team is
a major priority for the Census Bureau.
Theme: Other Comments
Topic 11. Availability of BERT's Research Plans and Results
Commenters recommended that the Census Bureau make publicly
available:
a. A detailed research schedule for each BERT subject matter
component.
b. A detailed representation of BERT's short-, medium- and long-
term goals and key decision points.
c. Its evaluations of how specific decisions on population and
housing base adjustments impact final statistics for States and sub-
State areas.
d. Methodological reviews solicited by the Bureau from external
researchers on BERT, PEP, and any potential application of privacy
protection impacting PEP.
Response 11.
The Census Bureau acknowledges the importance of transparency
regarding the work of BERT to the extent possible given the nature of
the research. We will be seizing upon promising findings as our
research progresses, and this will vary from one specific approach to
the next. As such, it is neither advisable nor prudent to adhere to a
strict, detailed research schedule by subject matter component. The
research process will evolve as findings and insights emerge. With this
in mind, BERT has distinct plans to promote transparency and
disseminate information. These include regular public briefings as well
as a dedicated email address, census.gov">pop.bert@census.gov, which provides
stakeholders with a mechanism for sharing ideas relating to data
sources or methodology, or to request information.
Changes From Proposed Rule
The following are changes to the Challenge Program procedures
resulting from the public comments received:
(1) One commenter requested that the Census Bureau provide for some
flexibility in the rule to allow submission of a physical copy of
challenge materials through the U.S. postal service or some similar
delivery option, rather than exclusively accepting digital submissions.
The Census Bureau acknowledged the issue and agreed to implement
appropriate language in Sec. 90.7 to address the request, and specify
in the ``Population Estimates Challenge Review Guide'' a physical
address where local governments could submit challenge materials to the
Census Bureau for review and evaluation.
(2) Many commenters advised to allow the FSCPE members to serve as
conduits with local governments in the review of pre-release estimates.
The Census Bureau encourages the designated FSCPE agency in each State
to serve in that role to the extent possible given data confidentiality
requirements for pre-release data and has added specific language to
Sec. 90.9 to reflect the Census Bureau's intent.
(3) The Census Bureau amended Sec. 90.9 to address local
governments' demand for increased communications about the challenge
process to be more inclusive of all governmental units (especially
small towns and cities).
Summary of Provisions Implemented by This Final Rule
In November of 2022, The Census Bureau resumed the Population
Estimates Challenge Program to provide governmental units the
opportunity to challenge population estimates for 2021 and subsequent
years in forthcoming estimates series, beginning with the Vintage 2022
series that is scheduled to be published in 2023. The Census Bureau now
amends its regulations to: (1) ensure that the regulatory text more
accurately describes how the Population Estimates Challenge Program has
always functioned and is expected to function in the future; (2) update
the regulation's references pertaining to the input data which are used
to produce the official population estimates; and (3) allow the
designated FSCPE agencies in each State to serve as conduits with local
governments in the review of pre-release estimates, to the extent
possible given
[[Page 17704]]
data confidentiality requirements for pre-release data. These changes
are captured in the proposed updates to Sec. Sec. 90.2, 90.7, 90.8,
and 90.9. At this time, the Census Bureau is making no technical
changes to its regulations except in the sections noted below:
Sections 90.2 and 90.7--to ensure that the regulatory text more
accurately describes how the Population Estimates Challenge Program
has always functioned and is expected to function in the future.
This proposed clarification does not reflect any operational
changes.
Section 90.8--to update the challengeable components of change.
Section 90.9--to allow the designated FSCPE agencies in each
State to serve as conduits with local governments in the review of
pre-release estimates, to the extent possible given data
confidentiality requirements for pre-release data.
The Census Bureau in Section Sec. 90.2 revises its policy which is
to provide the most accurate population estimates possible given the
constraints of resources and available statistical techniques. It is
also the policy of the Census Bureau, to the extent feasible, to
provide governmental units the opportunity to seek a review of and
provide additional data for these estimates and to present evidence
relating to the accuracy of the estimates.
The Census Bureau in Sec. 90.7 updates information about where to
file a challenge for the governmental units that would like to initiate
a challenge process after the population estimates are posted on the
Census Bureau's website (www.census.gov). A request for a population
estimates challenge must be prepared in writing by the governmental
unit and filed with the Chief, Population Division, Census Bureau by
sending the request via email to census.gov">POP.challenge@census.gov or to a
physical address that the Census Bureau will specify in the updated
version of the ``Population Estimates Challenge Program Review Guide''
to be posted in the census.gov website. The governmental unit must
designate a contact person who can be reached by telephone or email
during normal business hours should questions arise regarding the
submitted materials. In the event that a county-level governmental unit
or statistical equivalent is not an active general-purpose government,
the FSCPE member agency may serve as sponsor of the challenge and the
governor will serve as the highest elected official.
The Census Bureau also amends Sec. 90.8 by revising paragraphs
(a), (c), and (d) that specify the evidence required for the challenge
process. The types of data that are submitted must be consistent with
the criteria, standards, and regular processes the Census Bureau
employs to generate the population estimate. The Census Bureau will
provide additional Web-based information describing the data that are
required and how the governmental unit may contact the Census Bureau.
The Census Bureau in Sec. 90.9 adds language to allow the
designated FSCPE agencies in each State to serve as conduits with local
governments in the review of pre-release estimates, to the extent
possible given data confidentiality requirements for pre-release data.
The sections that feature changes to the regulations are noted as
``Revised'' in parentheses, for the public's convenience:
The following are the current sections of part 90 procedure for
challenging population estimates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Effective April 24, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 90 PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGING PART 90 PROCEDURE FOR
POPULATION ESTIMATES. CHALLENGING POPULATION
ESTIMATES
90.1 Scope and applicability........... 90.1 Scope and applicability.
90.2 Policy of the Census Bureau....... (Revised) 90.2 Policy of the
Census Bureau.
90.3 Definitions....................... 90.3 Definitions.
90.4 General........................... 90.4 General.
90.5 Who may file a challenge.......... 90.5 Who may file a challenge.
90.6 When a challenge may be filed..... 90.6 When a challenge may be
filed.
90.7 Where to file a challenge......... (Revised) 90.7 Where to file a
challenge.
90.8 Evidence required................. (Revised) 90.8 Evidence
required.
90.9 Review of challenge............... (Revised) 90.9 Review of
challenge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553) or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, however, if
the head of an agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the statute does not
require the agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Pursuant to section 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulation,
Department of Commerce, submitted a memorandum to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy, Small Business Administration, certifying that this final
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Number of Small Entities
This final rule would impact only governmental units, some of which
may be considered a small entity under the RFA. The RFA defines ``small
entity'' as a small business, small organization, or small governmental
jurisdiction. Specifically, the RFA defines ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' as the government of a city, county, town, school
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000.
Using this criterion, the Census Bureau estimates that around 37,000
small governmental jurisdictions would be impacted by this rulemaking.
Economic Impact
The Census Bureau does not anticipate any economic impact as a
result of this final rule. This rulemaking intends to resume the
implementation of the Population Estimates Challenge Program in 2023 to
provide eligible entities the opportunity to file a challenge to
population estimates for 2021 and subsequent years in forthcoming
estimates series, beginning with the Vintage 2022 series that is
scheduled to be published in 2023. There are no direct costs imposed on
governmental entities (units) that wish to initiate a challenge under
the Population Estimates Challenge Program.
[[Page 17705]]
Executive Orders
This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866. This final rule does not contain
policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in
Executive Order 13132.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rulemaking does not contain a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C., Chapter 35.
Robert L. Santos, Director, Census Bureau, approved the publication
of this notification in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 90
Administrative practice and procedure, Census data, Population
census, Statistics.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Census Bureau revises 15 CFR
part 90 to read as follows:
PART 90--PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGING POPULATION ESTIMATES
Sec.
90.1 Scope and applicability.
90.2 Policy of the Census Bureau.
90.3 Definitions.
90.4 General.
90.5 Who may file a challenge.
90.6 When a challenge may be filed.
90.7 Where to file a challenge.
90.8 Evidence required.
90.9 Review of challenge.
Authority: 13 U.S.C. 4 and 181.
Sec. 90.1 Scope and applicability.
Between decennial censuses, the Census Bureau annually prepares
statistical estimates of the number of people residing in States and
their governmental units. In general, these estimates are developed by
updating the population counts produced in the most recent decennial
census with demographic components of change data and/or other
indicators of population change. These rules prescribe the
administrative procedure available to governmental units to request a
challenge to the most current of these estimates.
Sec. 90.2 Policy of the Census Bureau.
It is the policy of the Census Bureau to provide the most accurate
population estimates possible given the constraints of resources and
available statistical techniques. It is also the policy of the Census
Bureau, to the extent feasible, to provide governmental units the
opportunity to seek a review of and provide additional data for these
estimates and to present evidence relating to the accuracy of the
estimates.
Sec. 90.3 Definitions.
As used in this part (except where the context clearly indicates
otherwise) the following definitions shall apply:
(a) Census Bureau means the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of
Commerce.
(b) Population Estimates Challenge means, in accordance with this
part, the process a governmental unit may use to provide additional
input data for the Census Bureau's population estimate and the
submission of substantive documentation in support thereof.
(c) Director means Director of the Census Bureau, or an individual
designated by the Director to perform under this part.
(d) Population estimate means a statistically developed calculation
of the number of people living in a governmental unit to update the
preceding census or earlier estimate.
(e) A governmental unit means the government of a county,
municipality, township, incorporated place, or other minor civil
division, which is a unit of general-purpose government below the
State.
(f) A non-functioning county or statistical equivalent means a sub-
State entity that does not function as an active general-purpose
governmental unit. This situation exists in Connecticut, Rhode Island,
for selected counties in Massachusetts, and for the Census Areas in
Alaska.
(g) For the purposes of this program, an eligible governmental unit
also includes the District of Columbia and non-functioning counties or
statistical equivalents represented by a FSCPE member agency.
Sec. 90.4 General.
This part provides a procedure for a governmental unit to request a
challenge of a population estimate of the Census Bureau. The Census
Bureau, upon receipt of the appropriate documentation, will attempt to
resolve the estimate with the governmental unit.
Sec. 90.5 Who may file a challenge.
A request for a challenge of a population estimate generated by the
Census Bureau may be filed only by the chief executive officer or
highest elected official of a governmental unit. In those instances
where the FSCPE member agency represents a non-functioning county or
statistical equivalent, the governor will serve as the chief executive
officer or highest elected official.
Sec. 90.6 When a challenge may be filed.
(a) A request for a challenge to a population estimate may be filed
any time up to 90 days after the release of the estimate by the Census
Bureau. Publication by the Census Bureau on its website
(www.census.gov) shall constitute release. Documentation requesting a
challenge of any estimate may also be filed any time up to 90 days
after the date the Census Bureau, on its own initiative, revises that
estimate.
(b) If, however, a governmental unit has a sufficiently meritorious
reason for not filing in a timely manner, the Census Bureau has the
discretion to accept the late request.
Sec. 90.7 Where to file a challenge.
A request for a population estimate challenge must be prepared in
writing by the governmental unit and filed with the Chief, Population
Division, Census Bureau by sending the request via email to
census.gov">POP.challenge@census.gov or to a physical address that the Census
Bureau will specify in the updated ``Population Estimates Challenge
Program Review Guide'' to be posted in the census.gov website. The
governmental unit must designate a contact person who can be reached by
telephone or email during normal business hours should questions arise
with regard to the submitted materials.
Sec. 90.8 Evidence required.
(a) The governmental unit shall provide whatever evidence it has
relevant to the request at the time of filing. The Census Bureau may
request further evidence when necessary. The evidence submitted must be
consistent with the criteria, standards, and regular processes the
Census Bureau employs to generate the population estimate. Currently,
the Census Bureau challenge process cannot accept estimates developed
from methods different from those used by the Census Bureau. The Census
Bureau will only accept a challenge when the evidence provided
indicates the use of incorrect data, processes, or calculations in the
estimates.
(b) For counties and statistical equivalents, the Census Bureau
uses a cohort-component of change method to produce population
estimates. Each year, the components of change are updated. These
components include births, deaths, migration, and change in the group
quarters population. The Census Bureau will consider a challenge based
on additional information on one or more of the components of change or
about the group quarters population in a locality.
[[Page 17706]]
(c) For minor civil divisions and incorporated places, the Census
Bureau uses a housing unit method to distribute a county population to
places within its legal boundaries. The components in this method
include housing units estimates, average household population per
housing unit, and an estimate of the population in group quarters. The
estimation formula was simplified to increase the accuracy of the
estimates following the application of differential privacy as per the
Census Bureau's new disclosure avoidance framework. As a result, the
persons per household (PPH) and occupancy rate components were replaced
with the average household population per housing unit. Additionally,
the Census Bureau will consider a challenge based on data related to
changes in an area's housing stock, such as data on demolitions,
condemned units, uninhabitable units, building permits, or mobile home
placements or other housing inventory-based data deemed comparable by
the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau will also consider a challenge
based on additional information about the group quarters population in
a locality.
(d) The Census Bureau will also provide a guide on its website as a
reference for governmental units to use in developing their data as
evidence to support a challenge to the population estimate. In
addition, a governmental unit may address any additional questions by
contacting the Census Bureau at 301-763-2461 or by sending emails to
census.gov">POP.challenge@census.gov or by delivering mail to a physical address
that the Census Bureau will specify in the updated version of the
``Population Estimates Challenge Program Review Guide'' to be posted in
the census.gov website.
Sec. 90.9 Review of challenge.
The Chief, Population Division, Census Bureau, or the Chief's
designee shall review the evidence provided with the request for the
population estimate challenge, shall work with the governmental unit to
verify the data provided by the governmental unit, and evaluate the
data to resolve the issues raised by the governmental unit.
Furthermore, the designated FSCPE agencies are encouraged to serve as
conduits with local governments in the review of pre-release estimates,
to the extent that this is possible given data confidentiality
requirements for pre-release data. Thereafter, the Census Bureau shall
respond in writing with a decision to accept or deny the challenge. In
the event that the Census Bureau finds that the population estimate
should be updated, it will also post the revised estimate on the Census
Bureau's website (www.census.gov).
Dated: March 20, 2023.
Shannon Wink,
Program Analyst, Policy Coordination Office, U.S. Census Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2023-06064 Filed 3-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P