Technology Transfer Network / NAAQS
Ozone Implementation
Changes to the Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas; Notice
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 22, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 51059-51077]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22au00-147]
[[Page 51059]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Office of Management and Budget
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Report and Recommendations From the Metropolitan Area Standards
Review Committee to the Office of Management and Budget Concerning
Changes to the Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas; Notice
[[Page 51060]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Final Report and Recommendations From the Metropolitan Area
Standards Review Committee to the Office of Management and Budget
Concerning Changes to the Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas
AGENCY: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OMB requests comment on the final recommendations it has
received from the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee for
changes to OMB's metropolitan area standards. The committee's
recommendations, which are published in their entirety in the appendix
to this Notice, reflect the comprehensive review of the metropolitan
area concept and the current standards that began in the early 1990s.
These recommendations also reflect consideration of comments received
in response to the committee's initial recommendations as published in
the October 20, 1999 Federal Register (64 FR 56628-56644). The
committee's final recommendations include both modifications and
additions to the initial recommendations.
Decisions on changes to the metropolitan area standards will not
affect the collection, tabulation, and publication of data from Census
2000 and other current Federal data collections for geographic areas
such as states, counties, county subdivisions, and municipalities. In
addition, the Census Bureau will tabulate and publish data from Census
2000 for all metropolitan areas in existence at the time of the census.
DATES: To ensure consideration during the final decision making
process, OMB must receive all written comments no later than October 6,
2000.
ADDRESSES: Please send comments about the committee's final
recommendations to: Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10201 New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503; fax: (202) 395-7245.
Electronic Availability and Addresses: This Federal Register
Notice, and the two previous Notices related to the review of the
metropolitan area standards, are available electronically from the OMB
web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/fedreg/index.html>>. Federal
Register Notices also are available electronically from the U.S.
Government Printing Office web site: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/
aces/aces140.html>>. Maps portraying the extent of areas that would be
defined if the recommended standards were applied to 1990 census data,
as well as lists of those areas, their components, and principal
cities, are available electronically from the Census Bureau's web site:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/masrp.html>>. Paper
copies of these additional materials may be obtained by calling (301)
457-2419.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James D. Fitzsimmons, Chair,
Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee, (301) 457-2419; or E-mail
pop.frquestion@census.gov>>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline of Notice
1. Background
2. Review Process
3. Summary of Comments Received in Response to the October 20, 1999
Federal Register Notice
4. Overview of Final Recommendations From the Metropolitan Area
Standards Review Committee
5. Specific Issues for Comment
Appendix--Final Report and Recommendations From the Metropolitan
Area Standards Review Committee to the Office of Management and
Budget Concerning Changes to the Standards for Defining Metropolitan
Areas
A. Discussion of Final Recommendations
B. Comparison of 1990 Metropolitan Area Standards With the
Recommended 2000 Metropolitan and Micropolitan Area Standards
C. Recommended Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Areas
D. Key Terms
1. Background
The metropolitan area program has provided standard statistical
area definitions for 50 years. In the 1940s, it became clear that the
value of metropolitan data produced by Federal agencies would be
greatly enhanced if agencies used a single set of geographic
definitions for the Nation's largest centers of population and
activity. OMB's predecessor, the Bureau of the Budget, led the effort
to develop what were then called ``standard metropolitan areas'' in
time for their use in 1950 census reports. Since then, comparable data
products for metropolitan areas have been available.
The general concept of a metropolitan area is that of an area
containing a large population nucleus and adjacent communities that
have a high degree of integration with that nucleus. The purpose of the
metropolitan area standards is to provide nationally consistent
definitions for collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal
statistics for a set of geographic areas. OMB establishes and maintains
these areas solely for statistical purposes. In reviewing and revising
the areas, OMB does not take into account or attempt to anticipate any
public or private sector nonstatistical uses that may be made of the
definitions. These areas are not designed to serve as a general purpose
geographic framework applicable for nonstatistical activities or for
use in program funding formulas.
OMB discussed the evolution of the standards for defining
metropolitan areas in detail in its December 21, 1998 Federal Register
Notice, ``Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and
Nonmetropolitan Areas'' (63 FR 70526-70561). Table 1 of that Notice
summarized the evolution of metropolitan area standards since 1950. The
Notice includes the standards that were used to define metropolitan
areas during the 1990s.
OMB published the committee's report on its review and initial
recommendations to OMB as part of the October 20, 1999 Federal Register
Notice entitled, ``Recommendations From the Metropolitan Area Standards
Review Committee to the Office of Management and Budget Concerning
Changes to the Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas' (64 FR 56628-
56644). In that Notice, the committee recommended the creation of a
``Core Based Statistical Area'' (CBSA) classification. That Notice also
included four maps, as well as a table that compared the 1990
metropolitan area standards with the committee's initial
recommendations for revised standards.
2. Review Process
From the beginning, OMB has reviewed the metropolitan area
standards and, if warranted, revised them in the years preceding their
application to new decennial census data. Periodic review of the
standards is necessary to ensure their continued usefulness and
relevance. The current review of the metropolitan area standards--the
Metropolitan Area Standards Review Project--is the fifth such review.
It addresses, as a first priority, users' concerns with the conceptual
and operational complexity of the standards as they have evolved over
the decades. Other key concerns of the review have been whether and
how:
o To modify the standards further to stay abreast of changes
in population distribution and activity patterns;
[[Page 51061]]
o To use advances in computer applications to consider new
approaches to defining areas; and
o To capture a more complete range of U.S. settlement and
activity patterns than the 1990 standards.
The committee has addressed a number of specific, major issues:
o Whether the Federal Government should define metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan statistical areas;
o What geographic units--``building blocks''--should be used
in defining the statistical areas;
o What criteria should be used to group together such
building blocks in defining the statistical areas;
o Whether the statistical areas should account for all
territory of the Nation;
o Whether there should be hierarchies or multiple sets of
statistical areas in the classification;
o What kinds of entities should receive official recognition
in the classification;
o Whether the classification should reflect statistical
rules only or allow a role for local opinion; and
o How frequently statistical areas should be updated.
The review has included several Census Bureau research projects,
open conferences held in November 1995 and January 1999, a
congressional hearing in July 1997, presentations at professional and
academic conferences, and meetings with Federal, state, and local
officials. The December 1998 and October 1999 Federal Register Notices
discuss these activities in detail.
In the fall of 1998, OMB chartered the Metropolitan Area Standards
Review Committee and charged it with examining the 1990 metropolitan
area standards in light of work completed earlier in the decade and
providing recommendations for possible changes to those standards.
Agencies represented on the committee include the Bureau of the Census
(Chair), Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Economic Research Service
(Agriculture), National Center for Health Statistics, and, ex officio,
OMB. The Census Bureau provides research support to the committee.
This is the third Notice that seeks public comment. The December
1998 Federal Register Notice presented four alternative approaches to
defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. The October 1999
Federal Register Notice presented the committee's initial
recommendations to OMB. OMB sought and received comments on the issues,
approaches, and recommendations outlined in these Notices. In
developing the final recommendations set forth in this Notice, the
committee has continued its work based on the earlier research and has
considered all of the comments received in response to previous
Notices, as well as comments received at numerous meetings where the
proposals under consideration were discussed.
Ongoing research projects will improve our understanding of the
Nation's patterns of settlement and activity and the ways in which the
patterns can be portrayed. Research will continue into aspects of all
of the alternative approaches presented in the December 1998 Notice.
For example, Census Bureau staff are investigating the feasibility of
developing a census tract level classification to identify settlement
and land use categories along an urban-rural continuum. The Census
Bureau has a project to conduct additional research on the comparative
density approach outlined in the December 1998 Notice. It also is
continuing research on potential uses of directional commuting
statistics and commodity flow data in defining statistical areas. The
Economic Research Service, in conjunction with the Office of Rural
Health Policy in the Department of Health and Human Services and the
University of Washington, has developed a nationwide census tract level
rural-urban commuting area classification. This classification is
available from the Economic Research Service web site: http://
www.ers.usda.gov:80/briefing/rural/ruca/rucc.htm. In addition, the
Census Bureau is investigating the feasibility of defining statistical
areas that would better describe the functional relationships between
geographic areas within the large, densely settled urban areas. These
research efforts may lead to pilot projects of the Census Bureau or
other agencies.
3. Summary of Comments Received in Response to the October 20, 1999
Federal Register Notice
The October 20, 1999 Federal Register Notice requested comment on
the committee's initial recommendations to OMB concerning revisions to
the standards for defining metropolitan areas. OMB received a total of
673 comments, including some that arrived after the December 30, 1999,
deadline.
OMB received 167 comment letters and 34 E-mail messages on a
variety of issues from individuals (72), municipalities (39),
nongovernmental organizations (38), state governmental agencies (18),
regional governmental and planning organizations (14), Federal agencies
(10), and Members of Congress (10). In addition, it received 404
letters and 68 E-mail messages from individuals and organizations
regarding the situation of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.
Eight commenters addressed the committee's recommendations about
the qualification requirements for areas and central counties. Three
commenters supported the committee's recommendation that areas should
qualify for CBSA status if a core of sufficient size--a Census Bureau
defined urban cluster of at least 10,000 population or an urbanized
area of at least 50,000 population--was present. (In this Notice, the
term ``urban cluster'' replaces the term ``settlement cluster'' that
was used in the October 1999 Federal Register Notice.) Two commenters
expressed concern that some current metropolitan areas that qualify
based on the presence of a city of at least 50,000 population might not
qualify as a macropolitan area under the recommended standards if an
urbanized area is not present. They suggested including criteria in the
new standards that would either (1) allow an area that contains a city
of 50,000 or more population, but not an urbanized area, to qualify as
a macropolitan area or (2) ``grandfather'' current metropolitan
statistical areas. Three commenters questioned the way in which the
recommended standards would use urban clusters and urbanized areas as
cores to qualify central counties, in particular when a core crosses
county lines, but the portion of the core in one county is not
sufficient to qualify that county as central.
Many comments addressed whether core population or total area
population should be used to determine the level to which each CBSA is
assigned. Two commenters supported using total population of the CBSA
to determine the level; one pointed out that by using core population
to assign levels, it would be possible to have a micropolitan area with
a greater total CBSA population than the total population of a
macropolitan area. Two commenters suggested that the level to which a
CBSA is assigned should be based on the population of the largest core
in the area rather than on the total population in all cores. More than
470 commenters suggested that a county with a total population of at
least 100,000 should qualify as a macropolitan area solely on that
basis, even though its core population is less than 50,000; all but one
of these commenters were specifically
[[Page 51062]]
concerned with Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.
OMB received 29 comments about terminology and the number of levels
in the proposed CBSA standards. Six commenters argued that the core
population size range recommended for the macropolitan area level was
too broad and suggested that the standards should include five levels
of areas instead of the recommended four. Six commenters favored use of
the terms ``metropolitan'' and ``nonmetropolitan.'' One commenter
favored using ``metropolitan'' and ``nonmetropolitan,'' but also
supported recognizing micropolitan areas as a subset of nonmetropolitan
areas. Two additional commenters supported using the term
``metropolitan,'' but one of them suggested not using the term
``nonmetropolitan.'' Another commenter supported a metropolitan/
nonmetropolitan breakdown, but suggested classifying metropolitan areas
into small, midsize, and large categories with core population
thresholds of 50,000, 250,000, and 1,000,000, respectively. Two
commenters argued that if the CBSA standards were to include several
levels, these levels should be denoted with a numbering or lettering
system instead of using specific terms. Some of these commenters and
others opposed the use of the terms ``megapolitan,'' ``macropolitan,''
and ``micropolitan'' because they found them confusing. Other
commenters suggested ``community statistical area'' to replace ``core
based statistical area,'' and ``nanopolitan'' to replace ``outside core
based statistical area.'' Three commenters suggested that all territory
in the United States should be classified in the new system, and no
area should be classified as a ``non-'' or ``outside'' area.
Forty-two commenters remarked on the committee's recommendation to
use counties as the building block for CBSAs. Seventeen commenters
supported the use of counties, and 25 favored census tracts or some
other subcounty unit. One commenter suggested that if counties are used
as building blocks, subcounty commuting data should be provided to data
users. Nineteen commenters favored the use of minor civil divisions as
building blocks; 18 of these commenters specifically favored the use of
minor civil divisions as the building block for a primary set of areas
in New England.
Eighteen commenters responded about the use of commuting data in
the standards for qualifying outlying counties as well as mergers and
combinations of adjacent CBSAs. Six commenters supported a 25 percent
commuting threshold for outlying county qualification as the committee
recommended; two suggested a 20 percent threshold. One commenter
questioned the rationale behind raising the commuting threshold to 25
percent from the 15 percent threshold that has been in the standards
since they were developed, arguing that raising the threshold to 25
percent will omit many counties that realistically are within the
core's labor market. Two commenters expressed general support for the
committee's recommendations. Seven commenters, however, expressed
concerns that commuting data alone cannot measure all kinds of social
and economic interactions between areas. One of these commenters
suggested using population density data as an additional measure. One
commenter noted that journey-to-work data alone are not sufficient to
determine whether sufficient ties exist to warrant merging or combining
two adjacent CBSAs.
Two commenters supported the committee's recommendations on mergers
and three supported its recommendations on combinations. Two commenters
suggested that local opinion should play a larger role in determining
whether two adjacent areas should merge or combine.
Seventy-one commenters responded about the recommended criteria for
titling CBSAs. Sixty-four of these 71 commenters remarked specifically
on the impact that these criteria would have on the titles of current
metropolitan areas in North Carolina. Seven commenters responded
regarding the potential title of the current Norfolk-Virginia Beach-
Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Forty-two commenters responded about the lack of recommended
criteria for subdividing the largest CBSAs to form smaller component
groupings of counties. All but one of these commenters favored
development of criteria for subdividing areas. Twenty-six of these
commenters were concerned with New Jersey or Long Island; their remarks
pertained specifically to the perceived need for smaller groupings of
counties within the New York and Philadelphia megapolitan areas to
provide greater detail for data users. One commenter did not favor
subdividing the New York megapolitan area. Sixteen commenters who
favored subdividing CBSAs focused on Massachusetts; their remarks
pertained primarily to the need for subdivisions of the Boston area.
Twenty-three commenters raised questions about the potential impact
of the recommended standards on various nonstatistical programs,
particularly those involving funding. Some commenters suggested that
there should be a study to provide information about the current
nonstatistical programmatic uses of metropolitan areas and the
potential effect of new standards on existing programs.
Five commenters expressed concerns about the comparability of data
provided under the 1990 standards and the proposed standards. They
suggested that statistical areas should be defined for a period after
the 2000 census using both the old and the new standards. Two
commenters remarked on the confusion between the urban/rural and
metropolitan/nonmetropolitan classifications. Both of these commenters
suggested that a single classification that unambiguously identifies
metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, urban, and rural without any overlapping
of these concepts should be developed by OMB. Similarly, one commenter
stated that the classification should include specific criteria for
identifying rural areas.
The committee took all of these comments into account, giving them
careful consideration. As outlined below, it adopted some of these
suggested changes and modified its recommendations to OMB as a result
of the comments. In a number of other cases, however, the committee
concluded that it could not adopt the suggestions made by commenters
without undermining efforts to achieve a consistent, national approach
designed to enhance the value of metropolitan data produced by Federal
agencies.
4. Overview of Final Recommendations From the Metropolitan Area
Standards Review Committee
This Federal Register Notice makes available for comment the
committee's final recommendations to OMB on how the current
metropolitan area standards should be revised. These recommendations
are presented in their entirety in the ``Final Report and
Recommendations From the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee
to the Office of Management and Budget Concerning Changes to the
Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas,'' provided in the appendix
to this Notice. Section C of the appendix presents for public comment
the specific standards recommended by the committee for adoption by
OMB.
The committee recommends a classification based on densely settled
concentrations of population called ``cores.'' The cores for this
classification would be Census Bureau defined
[[Page 51063]]
urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population and smaller urban clusters
of 10,000 to 49,999 population that will be identified using Census
2000 data. Defining a CBSA would require the presence of at least one
core of 10,000 or more population. The recommended CBSA classification
has two categories of areas: (1) Metropolitan areas defined around at
least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population; and (2)
micropolitan areas defined around at least one urban cluster of 10,000
to 49,999 population. The recommendation to identify micropolitan areas
extends the classification to smaller population centers that in
earlier decades would have been in a ``nonmetropolitan residual.'' The
title for the new classification would be ``Standards for Defining
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas.''
These recommendations include a change from the committee's initial
recommendation to identify ``megapolitan areas,'' based on one or more
cores with a total core population of at least one million, and
``macropolitan areas,'' based on one or more cores with a total core
population of 50,000 to 999,999. The committee recommends that
additional research be undertaken to study the analytical utility of
various categories based on population size, and more specifically, to
determine meaningful size thresholds for such categories. In addition,
these recommendations include a change from the committee's initial
recommendation to base categories of areas on the total population in
all cores within a CBSA.
The committee recommends the use of counties and equivalent
entities as the building block for CBSAs throughout the United States,
Puerto Rico, and Island Areas, including the use of counties as
building blocks for CBSAs in New England. The committee also recommends
that minor civil divisions be used as building blocks for a set of
statistical areas conceptually similar to CBSAs for the New England
states only.
The committee recommends identifying principal cities within CBSAs.
It also recommends that component entities comprising one or more
counties be identified within CBSAs that contain a single core with 2.5
million or more population. These component entities would be termed
``metropolitan divisions.'' (The committee's recommendations would
extend this practice to the minor civil division based areas in New
England.) This recommendation is an addition to the initial
recommendations. The committee recommends titling each metropolitan
division using the names of up to three principal cities within the
metropolitan division, in order of descending city population size. If
there are no principal cities located within a metropolitan division,
the committee recommends including in the title the names of up to
three counties in order of descending population size.
The committee recommends combining adjacent CBSAs when their
employment interchange rate is at least 15. The areas that combine also
would retain their identities as separate metropolitan and micropolitan
areas.
5. Specific Issues for Comment
With this Notice, OMB requests comment on all of the final
recommendations of the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee
concerning revisions to the current standards for defining metropolitan
areas. The standards recommended to OMB for adoption appear in Section
C of the appendix to this Notice. Section A of the appendix provides a
discussion of the recommendations on the various issues considered by
the committee. Section B of the appendix presents a comparison of the
1990 metropolitan area standards with the recommended Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Area Standards.
OMB notes that there were several issues on which comment was
received, but on which the committee has not changed its initial
recommendations, including the use of population in cores (in contrast
to total area population) as a means of determining a CBSA's category
(metropolitan or micropolitan), and the use only of the name of the
largest principal city in each of up to three CBSAs that combine to
title Combined Areas.
OMB particularly seeks comment on those final recommendations that
differ from the committee's initial recommendations published in the
October 20, 1999 Federal Register. These are the recommendations about
the:
o Number of categories of CBSAs and the terms by which they
would be identified (see Section A.1);
o Categorization of CBSAs on the basis of population in
cores (Section A.1);
o Identification of New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs)
to indicate that NECTAs are conceptually similar to CBSAs (Section
A.2);
o Criteria for qualifying a central county (Section A.3);
o Identification of metropolitan divisions within CBSAs with
a core of 2.5 Million or more population and NECTA divisions within
NECTAs that have a core of that size (Section A.7); and
o Criteria for titling Combined Areas, which would now
require that the second- and third-largest CBSAs in a Combined Area
each have at least one-third the population of the largest area for
their single largest principal cities to appear in the title (Section
A.9).
OMB would appreciate receiving views and comments on any aspects of
the recommended standards.
John T. Spotila,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Appendix--Final Report and Recommendations From the Metropolitan Area
Standards Review Committee to the Office of Management and Budget
Concerning Changes to the Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas
Transmittal Memorandum
July 6, 2000.
Memorandum for Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of
Management and Budget
From: Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee
Subject: Transmittal of Final Report and Recommendations Concerning
Changes to the Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas
We are pleased to transmit to you the attached report presenting
this committee's final recommendations for modifying the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB's) standards for defining metropolitan
areas. They represent our best technical and professional advice for
how the standards could better account for and describe changes in
settlement and activity patterns throughout the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Island Areas, yet still meet the data reporting needs and
requirements of Federal agencies and the public. In developing these
final recommendations, we have continued our review of work completed
over the past several years, and we have considered and discussed
comments that were received in response to our initial recommendations
published in the October 20, 1999 Federal Register. In addition to a
discussion of our final recommendations, we are providing a comparison
of the standards we propose with the 1990 metropolitan area standards.
We also are providing the specific standards recommended by the
committee and definitions of key terms used in this report.
[[Page 51064]]
We hope that OMB will find these final recommendations informative
and helpful in making its decision on what changes, if any, to adopt in
the standards for defining geographic areas for collecting, tabulating,
and publishing Federal statistics.
Attachment--Final Report and Recommendations from the Metropolitan
Area Standards Review Committee to the Office of Management and
Budget Concerning Changes to the Standards for Defining
Metropolitan Areas
A. Discussion of Final Recommendations
1. Recommendations Concerning Categories and Terminology for a Core
Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Classification to Be Titled ``Standards
for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas''
The Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee recommends
adoption of a CBSA classification that uses densely settled
concentrations of population (cores) for the qualification of areas.
The classification would be titled ``Standards for Defining
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas.'' The committee recommends a
minimum population size of 10,000 for a core that would qualify a CBSA.
Those CBSAs that are associated with at least one core of 50,000 or
more population (an urbanized area) should be categorized as
metropolitan areas. Those CBSAs that are associated with at least one
core of 10,000 to 49,999 population (an urban cluster), but no single
core of 50,000 or more population, should be categorized as
micropolitan areas. Under these recommended standards, nearly 90
percent of the U.S. population would reside in micropolitan and
metropolitan areas.
Territory not included in CBSAs should be referred to as being
``outside core based statistical areas.'' The committee suggests that
additional research be done to identify methods for defining and
categorizing territory outside CBSAs to attain an area classification
that applies to the entire Nation.
The committee considered the following sometimes incompatible
concerns as it developed size categories and terminology:
o Eliminating the current metropolitan/nonmetropolitan
dichotomy and replacing it with a range of categories that more
meaningfully represent the settlement and activity patterns of the
Nation;
o Introducing specific terms for areas containing cores of
1,000,000 or more persons and cores of 250,000 to 999,999 persons,
respectively;
o Evaluating advantages and disadvantages of retaining the
1990 metropolitan area standards' core population threshold of 50,000;
o Assessing advantages and disadvantages of retaining the
metropolitan/nonmetropolitan terminology of the 1990 standards; and
o Maintaining simplicity.
Broad agreement existed in favor of establishing a micropolitan
area category as a means of distinguishing between (1) areas integrated
with smaller centers of population and activity and (2) territory not
integrated with any particular population center. Defining micropolitan
areas represents a response to comments that a revised classification
should cover a broader range of population and economic activity
patterns than the 1990 standards. The committee also considered various
combinations of population distribution and economic activity pattern
measures to classify counties not included in a CBSA, but none offered
a satisfactory method of meaningfully accounting for these counties in
the recommended classification.
The categories and terminology recommended here constitute a change
from the committee's initial recommendations as reported in the October
20, 1999 Federal Register Notice. The changes in terminology are a
response to public comment that urged retention of the term
``metropolitan'' in the revised standards because of its familiarity
and broad usage among data users and the general public.
The committee considered two issues when discussing the basis for
categorizing CBSAs as either metropolitan or micropolitan. The first of
these issues was whether to base categorization on the total CBSA
population or on core population. The committee agreed that since cores
are the organizing entities of CBSAs, categorization should be on the
basis of the population in cores, reasoning that the range of services
and functions provided within an area largely derive from the size of
the core.
The second issue was whether to categorize areas based on the
population of the most populous (or ``dominant'') core or on the total
population of all (or ``multiple'') cores within a CBSA. The
committee's initial recommendation suggested categorizing areas on the
basis of the total population in all cores within a CBSA. In reaching
this decision, the committee reasoned that because all cores play a
role in determining the extent of a CBSA, all should be taken into
account when categorizing that CBSA. Although commuting is measured
from county to county, most workers commute to specific cores. When
there are multiple cores within a CBSA, each core plays a role in the
qualification of outlying counties. Some committee members argued,
however, that a single core of 50,000 or more population provides a
wider variety of functions and services than does a group of smaller
cores, even when such a group may have a collective population greater
than 50,000. These committee members were concerned that CBSAs
categorized as metropolitan on the basis of the population in all cores
would not bear the same kinds of characteristics as CBSAs categorized
as metropolitan areas on the basis of a single core of 50,000 or more
population.
In reaching the decision to categorize CBSAs on the basis of the
population in the largest core, the committee agreed that this is a
complex issue that, in part, is reflected in the ongoing debate
regarding the current nature of urbanization and urban systems. In the
past, metropolitan areas tended to be dominated by a single core,
consisting largely of a populous city and its adjacent densely settled
suburbs. The dispersal of residential locations and economic activities
that has occurred in some areas over the past 50 years, however, has
resulted in multiple cores, each of which may provide specialized
functions that contribute to the social and economic well-being of the
entire area. The extent of the spheres of influence of the various
cores may vary and overlap depending on the kinds of functions or
services provided. One core may play a greater, or more dominant, role
in organizing and influencing the social and economic activity of a
particular CBSA. At the same time, its influence could be supplemented
or possibly matched by additional cores within the same CBSA. The
committee recommends further research on the functional integration of
multiple, noncontiguous cores.
While recognizing the usefulness of standard size categories for
CBSAs for tabulating data, the committee was less certain regarding the
significance of specific population thresholds as a means of
identifying functional differences between different sizes of areas.
The committee therefore does not recommend delineations of categories
of CBSAs with core populations greater than 50,000 and has dropped the
``megapolitan'' and ``macropolitan'' area categories set forth in its
initial recommendations. The committee
[[Page 51065]]
recommends retaining the population threshold of 50,000 to distinguish
between micropolitan and metropolitan areas, primarily to maintain
comparability with previous definitions of metropolitan areas. The
committee concluded that additional research is needed to identify
optimal population thresholds for categories of CBSAs. In the meantime,
users can group the areas that would be defined as ``metropolitan'' by
size to meet their particular research needs.
2. Recommendations Concerning the Geographic Unit to Be Used as the
Building Block for Defining CBSAs
Counties and equivalent entities should be used as building blocks
for CBSAs throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island
Areas. Minor civil divisions should be used as the building block for a
set of areas, similar in concept to CBSAs, in New England only. Using
counties and equivalent entities throughout the United States and
Puerto Rico continues current practice, except in New England, where
historically metropolitan areas have been defined using minor civil
divisions.
The choice of a geographic unit to serve as the building block can
affect the geographic extent of a statistical area and its relevance or
usefulness in describing economic and demographic patterns. The choice
also has implications for the ability of Federal agencies to provide
data for statistical areas and their components. The December 1998
Federal Register Notice, ``Alternative Approaches to Defining
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas,'' presented advantages and
disadvantages of five potential building blocks. Each of these units
was evaluated in terms of its consistency in delineation across the
Nation, data availability, boundary stability, and familiarity.
The advantages of using counties and their equivalents are that
they are available for the entire country, have stable boundaries, and
represent familiar geographic entities. In addition, more Federal
statistical programs produce data at the county level than at any
subcounty level. The committee decided that the well-known
disadvantages of counties as the building block for statistical areas--
the large geographic size of some counties and the lack of geographic
precision that follows from their use--were outweighed by the
advantages offered by counties.
In reaching its recommendation to use counties as the building
block for CBSAs in New England, the committee attached priority to the
use of a consistent geographic unit nationwide. Use of a consistent
geographic building block offers improved usability to producers and
users of data; data for CBSAs in all parts of the country would be
directly comparable. In addition, some statistical programs, such as
those providing nationwide economic data and population estimates,
regard the metropolitan area program's use of minor civil divisions in
New England as a hindrance. They have sometimes used the currently
available alternative county based areas for New England, known as the
New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs), or have minimized the
number of data releases for metropolitan areas. Under the current
metropolitan area program, then, data producers and users typically
choose between (1) adhering to the preferred Metropolitan Statistical
Areas, Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and Primary
Metropolitan Statistical Areas throughout the country and having data
that limit comparisons between some areas, and (2) using alternative
areas in New England and having more comparable data. The committee's
recommendation eliminates the need for this choice.
Demographic and economic data for minor civil divisions in New
England are more plentiful, however, than are such data for subcounty
entities in the rest of the Nation. In recognition of the importance of
minor civil divisions in New England, the wide availability of data for
them, and their long-term use in the metropolitan area program, the
committee recommends also using minor civil divisions as building
blocks for a set of areas for the six New England states. These New
England City and Town Areas (NECTAs) would be intended for use in the
collection, tabulation, publication, and analysis of statistical data,
whenever feasible and appropriate, for New England. Data providers and
users desiring areas defined using a nationally consistent geographic
building block should consider using the county based CBSAs in New
England; however, counties are less well-known in New England than
cities and towns.
3. Recommendations Concerning Cores of CBSAs and Central Counties
Census Bureau defined urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population
and Census Bureau defined urban clusters of at least 10,000 population
should be used as the cores of CBSAs. Identification of ``central
counties'' should be based on the locations of the cores.
The recommended use of urbanized areas as cores is consistent with
current practice. To extend the classification to areas based on cores
of 10,000 to 49,999 population, the committee recommends the use of
urban clusters, which the Census Bureau will identify following Census
2000. This change would permit a fuller accounting of the distribution
of population and economic activity across the territory of the Nation
than is provided by the current metropolitan area standards. Following
from this recommendation, an urban area of at least 10,000 population
would be required for qualifying a CBSA.
The locations of urbanized areas and urban clusters (referred to
collectively as ``urban areas'') should provide the basis for
identifying central counties of CBSAs, which are the counties to and
from which ties are measured in determining the extent of areas. The
committee recommends identifying central counties as those counties
that:
(a) Have at least 50 percent of their population in urban areas
(urbanized area or urban cluster) of at least 10,000 population; or
(b) Have within their boundaries a population of at least 5,000
located in a single urban area (urbanized area or urban cluster) of at
least 10,000 population.
The committee has revised its recommendation concerning criteria
for identifying central counties since its initial recommendations were
published in the October 20, 1999, Federal Register Notice. If a single
urban area of at least 10,000 population has at least 5,000 population
in a county, the committee recommends that the county qualify as a
central county. This recommendation recognizes that a county may
contain a portion of an urbanized area or urban cluster of sufficient
size to act as an employment center for surrounding populations, but of
insufficient size to have accounted for at least 50 percent of the
population of a single urbanized area or urban cluster as required
under the committee's initial recommendation. The choice of 5,000 as
the threshold for central county qualification is consistent with the
initial recommendation's minimum requirement for qualification as a
central county of the smallest permissible core (i.e., 5,000 is 50
percent of the 10,000 population minimum core size).
4. Recommendations Concerning Criteria for Inclusion of Outlying
Counties
Commuting data should be used as the basis for grouping counties
together to form CBSAs (i.e., to qualify ``outlying
[[Page 51066]]
counties''). Measures of settlement structure, such as population
density, should not be used to qualify outlying counties for inclusion
in CBSAs. Three priorities guided the committee in reaching these
recommendations. The data used to measure connections among counties
should (1) describe those connections in a straightforward and
intuitive manner, (2) be collected using consistent procedures
nationwide, and (3) be readily available to the public. These
priorities pointed to the use of data gathered by Federal agencies and,
more particularly, to commuting data from the Census Bureau. Commuting
to work is an easily understood measure that reflects the social and
economic integration of geographic areas.
The recommendation not to use measures of settlement structure
represents a change from the 1990 standards. In those standards,
varying levels of population density, percentage of total population
that is urban, presence of an urbanized area population, and population
growth rate are used in combination with varying levels of commuting to
determine qualification of outlying counties for inclusion in a
metropolitan area. Settlement and commuting patterns, however, have
changed over time as a result of improvements to public transportation;
more and better-maintained roads; and increasing flexibility of some
employers who permit irregular work weeks, flextime, and opportunities
to work at home. The Internet, satellite hookups, and other technology
also have played a role. The committee concluded that, as changes in
settlement, commuting patterns, and communications technologies have
occurred, settlement structure no longer is as reliable an indicator of
metropolitan character as was previously the case.
An outlying county should qualify on the basis of the percentage of
employed residents of the county who work in the CBSA's central county
or counties, or on the basis of the percentage of employment in the
potential outlying county accounted for by workers who reside in the
CBSA's central county or counties. A 25 percent minimum threshold for
each of these measures should be used.
The committee observed that the percentage of a county's employed
residents who commute to the central county or counties is an
unambiguous, clear measure of whether a potential outlying county
should qualify for inclusion. The percentage of employment in the
potential outlying county accounted for by workers who reside in the
central county or counties is similarly a straightforward measure of
ties. Including both criteria addresses the conventional and the less
common reverse commuting flows.
The committee also noted changes in daily mobility patterns and
increased interaction between communities as indicated by increases in
inter-county commuting over the past 40 years. The percentage of
workers in the United States who commute to places of work outside
their counties of residence has increased from a national average of
approximately 15 percent in 1960 (when nationwide commuting data first
became available from the decennial census) to a national average of
nearly 25 percent in 1990. The committee concluded that raising the
commuting percentage required for qualification of outlying counties
from the 15 percent minimum of the 1990 standards to 25 percent was
appropriate against this background of increased overall inter-county
commuting coupled with the removal of all settlement structure measures
from the outlying county criteria. The 25 percent threshold also stood
out as a noticeable divide when reviewing 1990 census data on the
percentage of workers who commute outside their counties of residence.
Counties should qualify for inclusion in a CBSA as outlying
counties on the basis of commuting ties with the central county (or
counties) of that one area only. The committee concluded that outlying
counties should not qualify based on total commuting to central
counties of multiple CBSAs, because that would result in inconsistent
grounds for qualification in an individual area. Throughout its
history, the purpose of the metropolitan area program has been to
identify individual statistical areas, each containing a core plus any
surrounding territory integrated with that core as measured by
commuting ties. The committee saw no reason to depart from that
approach in defining CBSAs.
5. Recommendation Concerning Merging Adjacent CBSAs
Adjacent CBSAs should be merged to form a single CBSA when the
central county or counties of one area qualify as outlying to the
central county or counties of another. The committee determined that
when the central county or counties (as a group) of one CBSA qualify as
outlying to the central county or counties (as a group) of another
area, the two CBSAs should be merged. Because a merger recognizes ties
similar to the ties between an outlying county and the central counties
of a CBSA, the committee recommends that the minimum commuting
threshold similarly be set at 25 percent, measured with respect to all
central counties of one CBSA relative to all central counties of the
other.
6. Recommendations Concerning Identification of Principal Cities
Principal cities in CBSAs should be identified and used to title
the areas. Because the procedures recommended by the committee use
urbanized areas and urban clusters as the organizing entities for
CBSAs, the identification of central cities as required by the 1990
standards for qualifying and defining areas is no longer necessary for
that purpose. Also, while still important, central cities have become
less dominant in the local context over time. Nevertheless, the
committee recognizes that specific cities within individual CBSAs are
important for analytical purposes as centers of employment, trade,
entertainment, and other social and economic activities. The committee
therefore recommends criteria for identifying principal cities and
using the principal cities for titling areas.
The committee recommends that the principal city (or cities) of a
CBSA include:
(a) The largest incorporated place or census designated place in
the CBSA;
(b) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place
with a population of at least 250,000 or in which 100,000 or more
persons work; and
(c) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place
with a population that is at least 10,000 and one-third the size of the
largest place, and in which employment meets or exceeds the number of
employed residents.
The committee recommends using the term ``principal city'' rather
than ``central city.'' The term ``central city'' has come to connote
``inner city'' and thus sometimes causes confusion.
7. Recommendation Concerning Identification of Components within
Metropolitan Areas and NECTAs that Contain at Least One Core of 2.5
Million or More Population
Within metropolitan areas that have at least one core with 2.5
million or more population, metropolitan divisions, consisting of one
or more counties, should be identified. Urbanized areas with very large
populations can extend across multiple counties and even across state
boundaries, and can contain several distinct employment and settlement
centers. Although these centers are part of a single agglomeration of
population and
[[Page 51067]]
activity, the degrees of functional integration between them can vary.
The provision of data for only the entire metropolitan area based on
such large urbanized areas may mask demographic and economic variations
that are important for data users and analysts. To represent the social
and economic variations found within the largest metropolitan areas,
the committee recommends adopting criteria that would identify
components called ``metropolitan divisions,'' which would comprise
counties or groups of counties that function as distinct areas within
the metropolitan area. (Designation of metropolitan divisions would
have no effect on the previously defined central counties of the
metropolitan area; these counties would remain central to the
metropolitan area, regardless of any additional designation they might
be given within metropolitan divisions.)
The committee recommends identifying a county as a ``main county''
of a metropolitan division if:
(a) More than 50 percent of its employed residents work within the
county;
(b) The ratio of the number of jobs located in the county to the
number of employed residents of the county is at least .75; and
(c) The highest rate of out-commuting from the county to any other
county is less than 15 percent.
After all main counties have been identified, each additional
county that already has qualified for inclusion in the metropolitan
area should be included in the metropolitan division associated with
the main county to which the county at issue sends the highest
percentage of its out-commuters. Counties within a metropolitan
division should be contiguous.
Differences in geographic scale between minor civil divisions and
counties necessitate the use of a different set of criteria when
identifying meaningful divisions within NECTAs that contain at least
one core of 2.5 million or more population.
The committee recommends the following criteria for NECTA
divisions:
(a) A city or town is identified as a ``main city or town'' of a
NECTA division if the city or town at issue has a population of 50,000
or more and its highest rate of out-commuting to any other city or town
is less than 20 percent.
(b) After all main cities and towns have been identified, each
additional city and town that already has qualified for inclusion in
the NECTA should be included in the NECTA division associated with the
city or town to which the one at issue sends the highest percentage of
its out-commuters.
The committee also recommends that each NECTA division should
contain a total population of 100,000 or more. Cities and towns at
first assigned to areas with less than 100,000 population subsequently
should be assigned to the qualifying NECTA division associated with the
city or town to which the one at issue sends the highest percentage of
its out-commuters. Cities and towns within a NECTA division should be
contiguous.
In recommending these criteria, the committee recognizes that
cities and towns of 50,000 or more population represent significant
centers around which to organize NECTA divisions; the 50,000 population
threshold is consistent with population thresholds used in current and
past classifications to identify population centers around which
metropolitan area level entities are defined.
These recommendations for identifying metropolitan divisions and
NECTA divisions are additions to the committee's initial
recommendations.
8. Recommendations Concerning Combining Adjacent CBSAs
CBSAs should be combined when entire adjacent areas are linked
through commuting ties. The committee recommends that ties between
adjacent CBSAs that are less intense than those captured by mergers
(see Section A.5), but still significant, be recognized by combining
those CBSAs. Because a combination thus defined represents a
relationship of moderate strength between two CBSAs, the areas that
combine should retain separate identities within the combined area.
Potential combinations should be evaluated by measuring commuting
between entire adjacent CBSAs--commuting of all counties, as a group,
within one CBSA relative to all counties, as a group, in the adjacent
area.
The committee recommends basing combinations on the employment
interchange rate between two CBSAs, defined as the sum of the
percentage of commuting from the CBSA with the smaller total population
to the CBSA with the larger total population and the percentage of
employment in the CBSA with the smaller total population accounted for
by workers residing in the CBSA with the larger total population. The
committee recommends a minimum threshold of 15 for the employment
interchange rate but recognizes that this threshold may result in
combinations where the measured ties are perceived as minimal by
residents of the two areas. The committee therefore recommends
combinations of CBSAs, based on an employment interchange rate of at
least 15 but less than 25, only if local opinion (as discussed in
recommendation 10) in both areas favors the combination. If the
employment interchange rate equals or exceeds 25, combinations should
occur automatically.
9. Recommendations Concerning Titles of CBSAs, Metropolitan Divisions,
NECTA Divisions, and Combined Areas
Each CBSA should be titled using the name of its principal city
with the largest population, as well as the names of the second-and
third-largest principal cities, if multiple principal cities are
present.
Each metropolitan division should be titled using the name of the
principal city with the largest population, as well as the names of the
second- and third-largest principal cities, if multiple principal
cities are present. If there are no principal cities located in the
metropolitan division, the title of the metropolitan division should
include the names of up to three counties in order of descending
population size.
Each NECTA division should be titled using the name of the
principal city with the largest population, as well as the names of the
second- and third-largest principal cities, if multiple principal
cities are present. If there are no principal cities located in the
NECTA division, the title of the NECTA division should include the name
of the city or town with the largest population.
Combined areas should be titled using the name of the largest
principal city in the CBSA with the largest total population that
combines, followed by the name of the largest principal city in each of
up to two additional CBSAs that combine, provided that the second and
third CBSAs in the combined area each have at least one-third of the
total population of the largest CBSA.
Titles provide a means of uniquely identifying individual CBSAs,
metropolitan divisions, NECTA divisions, and combined areas so that
each is recognizable to a variety of data users. As such, the title of
a CBSA, metropolitan division, NECTA division, or combined area should
contain the names of geographic entities located in the area that are
prominent and provide data users with a means of easily identifying the
general location of the CBSA, metropolitan division, or NECTA division
or extent of the combined area.
Finally, any state in which the CBSA, metropolitan division, NECTA
division, or combined area is located also should be included in the
title.
[[Page 51068]]
10. Recommendation Concerning Use of Statistical Rules and the Role of
Local Opinion
Limited use should be made of local opinion in the definition
process. Applying only statistical rules when defining areas minimizes
ambiguity and maximizes the replicability and integrity of the process.
The committee recommends consideration of local opinion only in cases
of CBSA combinations where adjacent CBSAs have an employment
interchange rate of at least 15 but less than 25.
Local opinion should be obtained through the appropriate
congressional delegation. Members of the congressional delegation
should be urged to contact a wide range of groups in their communities,
including business or other leaders, chambers of commerce, planning
commissions, and local officials, to solicit comments on the specific
combination at issue. The committee also recommends the use of the
Internet to make available information pertaining to the potential
combination on which local opinion is sought. After a decision has been
made, OMB should not request local opinion again on the same issue
until the next redefinition of CBSAs.
11. Recommendation Concerning Settlement Structure within the Core
Based Statistical Area Classification
The terms ``urban,'' ``suburban,'' ``rural,'' ``exurban,'' and so
forth, should not be defined within the CBSA classification. The
committee recognizes that formal definitions of settlement types such
as inner city, inner suburb, outer suburb, exurb, and rural would be of
use to the Federal statistical system as well as to researchers,
analysts, and other users of Federal data. Such types, however, are not
necessary for the delineation of statistical areas in this
classification that describes the functional ties between geographic
entities. These types would more appropriately be included in a
separate classification that focuses exclusively on describing
settlement patterns and land uses.
The committee recommends continuing research by the Census Bureau
and other interested Federal agencies on settlement patterns below the
county level to describe further the distribution of population and
economic activity throughout the Nation.
12. Recommendations Concerning ``Grandfathering'' of Current
Metropolitan Areas
The definitions of current metropolitan areas should not be
automatically retained (``grandfathered'') in the implementation of the
recommended ``Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Areas.'' The current status of individual counties as metropolitan or
nonmetropolitan should not be considered when re-examining all counties
using the recommended standards.
In this context, ``grandfathering'' refers to the continued
designation of an area even though it does not meet the standards
currently in effect. The 1990 standards permit changes in the
definitions, or extent, of individual metropolitan areas through the
addition or deletion of counties on the basis of each decennial census,
but those standards do not permit the disqualification of metropolitan
areas that previously qualified on the basis of a Census Bureau
population count. To maintain the integrity of the classification, the
committee favors the objective application of the recommended standards
rather than continuing to recognize areas that do not meet the
standards that currently are in effect. The committee recommends that
the current status of a county as either metropolitan or
nonmetropolitan play no role in the application of the recommended
standards.
13. Recommendations Concerning the Schedule for Updating CBSAs
New CBSAs should be designated between decennial censuses on the
basis of Census Bureau population estimates or special censuses for
places. CBSAs should be updated on the basis of commuting data from the
Census Bureau's American Community Survey, scheduled to be available
for all counties beginning in 2008. CBSAs should not be reclassified
among categories between decennial censuses.
The frequency with which new statistical areas are designated and
existing areas updated has been of considerable interest to data
producers and users. If revised standards are adopted by OMB, the first
areas to be designated using the revised standards and Census 2000 data
could be announced in 2003. The sources and future availability of data
for updating these areas figured prominently in the committee's
discussions. The availability of population totals and commuting data
affects the ability to identify new CBSAs, reclassify existing areas
among categories (that is, from micropolitan area to metropolitan area,
metropolitan area to micropolitan area, or micropolitan area to outside
CBSA), and update the extent of existing areas.
The 1990 standards provided for the designation of a new
metropolitan area on the basis of a population estimate or a special
census count for a city. The use of city special census counts or
population estimates for designating new areas between decennial
censuses, on an annual basis, would continue to provide the most
consistent and equitable means of qualifying new CBSAs in the future
because annual population estimates for existing and potential
urbanized areas and urban clusters are not currently produced. The
committee therefore recommends that a new CBSA should be designated if
a city that is outside any existing CBSA has a Census Bureau population
estimate of 10,000 or more for two consecutive years, or a Census
Bureau special census count of 10,000 or more population. A new CBSA
also should be designated if a special census results in delineation of
an intercensal urban area of 10,000 or more population that is outside
an existing CBSA.
The use of annual population estimates for cities, however, offers
an unsatisfactory approach for reclassifying existing CBSAs from one
category to another because it does not account for population growth
in the unincorporated portions of an urbanized area or urban cluster or
in unincorporated territory outside the boundary of an urbanized area
or urban cluster. Growth in these settings is likely to be more
important around existing, larger areas than around areas of
approximately 10,000 population that are on the verge of qualifying as
CBSAs; in some instances such growth could account for a large portion
of an existing individual urbanized area's or urban cluster's growth.
Because patterns of annexation and incorporation vary by state, the
amount of incorporated territory within or adjacent to an urbanized
area or urban cluster can vary from one state to another. Any approach
that would move CBSAs from one category to another based on population
estimates for incorporated places, rather than the population of cores
in their entirety, would be biased in favor of CBSAs in states in which
it is easier for municipalities to incorporate and to annex additional
territory.
Adoption of a nationally equitable approach for reclassifying CBSAs
from one category to another would require the preparation of
population estimates at more detailed levels of geographic resolution
(such as census blocks) than are currently produced. Further work is
needed to develop methodologies for collecting information necessary
for such estimates, and for preparing the estimates.
[[Page 51069]]
The composition of all existing CBSAs should be updated in 2008
using commuting data for each county from the Census Bureau's American
Community Survey, averaged over five years and centered on 2005.
B. Comparison of 1990 Metropolitan Area Standards With the Recommended
2000 Metropolitan and Micropolitan Area Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended 2000
1990 Metropolitan metropolitan and
area standards micropolitan area
standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Levels/Categories and Identification of Identification of
Terminology. metropolitan areas Core Based
comprising Statistical Areas
metropolitan (CBSAs) comprising
statistical areas, two categories:
consolidated metropolitan areas,
metropolitan based around at
statistical areas, least one Census
and primary Bureau defined
metropolitan urbanized area of
statistical areas. 50,000 or more
Metropolitan population, and
statistical areas micropolitan areas,
and primary based around at
metropolitan least one urban
statistical areas cluster of 10,000
are identified as to 49,999
level A, B, C, or D population. A
areas based on metropolitan area
total populations with a single core
of at least of at least
1,000,000, 250,000 2,500,000
to 999,999, 100,000 population can be
to 249,999, and subdivided into
less than 100,000, component
respectively. metropolitan
Metropolitan divisions. Counties
statistical areas that are not
of 1,000,000 or included in a CBSA
more population can are referred to as
be designated as ``Outside CBSAs.''
consolidated New England City and
metropolitan Town Areas (NECTAs)
statistical areas also defined for
if local opinion is the New England
in favor and states
component primary
metropolitan
statistical areas
can be identified.
New England County
Metropolitan Areas
(NECMAs) also
defined for the New
England states.
Building Blocks............. Counties and Counties and
equivalent entities equivalent entities
throughout the U.S. throughout the
and Puerto Rico, U.S., Puerto Rico,
except in New and the Island
England, where Areas. City and
cities and towns town based areas,
are used to define conceptually
metropolitan areas. similar to the
County based county based areas,
alternative provided for the
provided for the New England states.
New England states.
Qualification of Areas...... City of at least Census Bureau
50,000 population, defined urban area
or Census Bureau of at least 10,000
defined urbanized population
area of at least
50,000 population
in a metropolitan
area of at least
100,000 population.
Qualification of Central Any county that Any county in which
Counties. includes a central at least 50% of the
city or at least population is
50% of the located in urban
population of a areas of at least
central city that 10,000 population,
is located in a or that has within
qualifier urbanized its boundaries a
area. Also any population of at
county in which at least 5,000 located
least 50% of the in a single urban
population is area of at least
located in a 10,000 population
qualifier urbanized
area.
Qualification of Outlying Combination of At least 25% of the
Counties. commuting and employed residents
measures of of the county work
settlement in the central
structure. county/counties of
o 50% or more a CBSA; or at least
of employed workers 25% of the
commute to the employment in the
central county/ county is accounted
counties of a for by workers
metropolitan residing in the
statistical area central county/
and: 25 or more counties of the
persons per square CBSA.
mile (ppsm), or at
least 10% or 5,000
of the population
lives in a
qualifier urbanized
area; OR.
o 40% to 50%
of employed workers
commute to the
central county/
counties of a
metropolitan
statistical area
and: 35 or more
ppsm, or at least
10% or 5,000 of the
population lives in
a qualifier
urbanized area; OR.
o 25% to 40%
of employed workers
commute to the
central county/
counties of a
metropolitan
statistical area
and: 35 ppsm and
one of the
following: (1) 50
or more ppsm, (2)
at least 35% urban
population, (3) at
least 10% or 5,000
of population lives
in a qualifier
urbanized area; OR.
o 15% to 25%
of employed workers
commute to the
central county/
counties of a
metropolitan
statistical area
and: 50 or more
ppsm and two of the
following: (1) 60
or more ppsm, (2)
at least 35% urban
population, (3)
population growth
rate of at least
20%, (4) at least
10% or 5,000 of
population lives in
a qualifier
urbanized area; OR.
[[Page 51070]]
o 15% to 25%
of employed workers
commute to the
central county/
counties of a
metropolitan
statistical area
and less than 50
ppsm and two of the
following: (1) at
least 35% urban
population, (2)
population growth
rate of at least
20%, (3) at least
10% or 5,000 of
population lives in
a qualifier
urbanized area; OR.
o At least
2,500 of the
population lives in
a central city
located in a
qualifier urbanized
area of a
metropolitan
statistical area.
If a county A county that
qualifies as qualifies as
outlying to two or outlying to two or
more metropolitan more CBSAs is
areas, it is included in the
assigned to the area with which it
area to which has the strongest
commuting is commuting tie.
greatest; if the
relevant commuting
percentages are
within 5 points of
each other, local
opinion is
considered.
Merging Statistical Areas... If a county Two adjacent CBSAs
qualifies as a are merged to form
central county of one CBSA if the
one metropolitan central county/
statistical area counties (as a
and as an outlying group) of one CBSA
county on the basis qualify as outlying
of commuting to a to the central
central county of county/counties (as
another a group) of the
metropolitan other
statistical area,
both counties
become central
counties of a
single metropolitan
statistical area.
Central Cities/Principal Central cities Principal cities
Cities. include the largest include the largest
city in a incorporated place
metropolitan or census
statistical area/ designated place in
consolidated a CBSA AND each
metropolitan place of at least
statistical area 250,000 population
AND each city of at or in which at
least 250,000 least 100,000
population or at persons work AND
least 100,000 each place with a
workers AND each population that is
city of at least at least 10,000 and
25,000 population 1/3 the size of the
and at least 75 largest place, and
jobs per 100 in which employment
workers and less meets or exceeds
than 60% out the number of
commuting AND each employed residents.
city of at least
15,000 population
that is at least 1/
3 the size of
largest central
city and meets
employment ratio
and commuting
percentage above
AND the largest
city of 15,000
population or more
that meets
employment ratio
and commuting
percentage above
and is in a
secondary
noncontiguous
urbanized area AND
each city in a
secondary
noncontiguous
urbanized area that
is at least 1/3 the
size of largest
central city in
that urbanized area
and has at least
15,000 population
and meets
employment ratio
and commuting
percentage above.
Primary Metropolitan Primary metropolitan Metropolitan
Statistical Areas/ statistical areas divisions consist
Metropolitan Divisions and outside New England of one or more
NECTA Divisions. consist of one or counties within
more counties metropolitan areas
within metropolitan that have a single
areas that have a core of 2.5 million
total population of or more population.
1 million or more. A county is
Specifically, these identified as a
primary main county of a
metropolitan metropolitan
statistical areas division if: (a)
consist of: (A) One greater than 50
or more counties percent of its
designated as a employed residents
standard work within the
metropolitan county; (b) the
statistical area on ratio of its
January 1, 1980, employment to its
unless local number of employed
opinion does not residents is at
support continued least 0.75; and (c)
separate the highest rate of
designation. (B) out-commuting from
One or more the county to any
counties for which other county is
local opinion less than 15
strongly supports percent.
separate After all main
designation, counties have been
provided one county identified, each
has: (1) at least additional county
100,000 population; that already has
(2) at least 60 qualified for the
percent of its metropolitan area
population urban; is included in the
(3) less than 35 metropolitan
percent of its division associated
resident workers with the main
working outside the county to which the
county; and (4) county at issue
less than 2,500 sends the highest
population of the percentage of its
largest central out-commuters.
city in the Counties within a
metropolitan metropolitan
statistical area. division must be
(C) A set of two or contiguous.
more contiguous
counties for which
local opinion
strongly supports
separate
designation,
provided at least
one county also
could qualify as a
primary
metropolitan
statistical area in
section (B), and
(1) each county
meets requirements
(B)(1), (B)(2), and
(B)(4) and less
than 50 percent of
its resident
workers work
outside the county;
(2) each county has
a commuting
interchange of at
least 20 percent
with the other
counties in the
set; and (3) less
than 35 percent of
the resident
workers of the set
of counties work
outside the area.
[[Page 51071]]
Each county in the
metropolitan area
not included within
a central core
under sections (A)
through (C), is
assigned to the
contiguous primary
metropolitan
statistical area to
whose central core
commuting is
greatest, provided
this commuting is:
(1) at least 15
percent of the
county's resident
workers; (2) at
least 5 percentage
points higher than
the commuting flow
to any other
primary
metropolitan
statistical area
central core that
exceeds 15 percent;
and.
(3) larger than the
flow to the county
containing the
metropolitan area's
largest central
city.
If a county has
qualifying
commuting ties to
two or more primary
metropolitan
statistical area
central cores and
the relevant values
are within 5
percentage points
of each other,
local opinion is
considered.
Primary metropolitan New England City and
statistical areas Town Area (NECTA)
in New England Divisions consist
consist of groups of one or more
of cities and towns cities and towns
within metropolitan within NECTAs that
areas that have a have at least one
total population of core of 2.5 million
1 million or more. or more population.
Specifically, these A city or town is
primary identified as a
metropolitan main city or town
statistical areas of a NECTA Division
consist of:. if the city or town
(D) Any group of at issue has a
cities and towns population of
designated as a 50,000 or more and
standard its highest rate of
metropolitan out-commuting to
statistical area on any other city or
January 1, 1980, town is less than
unless local 20 percent.
opinion does not After all main
support its cities and towns
continued have been
designation. identified, each
(E) Any additional additional city and
group of cities and/ town that already
or towns for which has qualified for
local opinion inclusion in the
strongly supports NECTA should be
separate included in the
designation, NECTA Division
provided: (1) the associated with the
total population of city or town to
the group is at which the one at
least 75,000;. issue sends the
(2) the group highest percentage
includes at least of its out-
one city with a commuters. Each
population of NECTA Division must
15,000 or more, an contain a total
employment/ population of
residence ratio of 100,000 or more.
at least 0.75, and Cities and towns at
at least 40 percent first assigned to
of its employed areas with less
residents working than 100,000
in the city;. population
(3) the group subsequently will
contains a core of be assigned to the
communities, each qualifying NECTA
of which has at Division associated
least 50 percent of with the city or
its population town to which the
living in the one at issue sends
urbanized area, and the highest
which together have percentage of its
less than 40 out-commuters.
percent of their Cities and towns
resident workers within a NECTA
commuting to jobs Division must be
outside the core; contiguous.
and (4) each
community in the
core also has: (a)
at least 5 percent
of its resident
workers working in
the component core
city identified in
section (E)(2), or
at least 10 percent
working in the
component core city
or in places
already qualified
for this core; this
percentage also
must be greater
than that to any
other core or to
the largest city of
the metropolitan
area, and (b) at
least 20 percent
commuting
interchange with
the component core
city together with
other cities and
towns already
qualified for the
core; this
interchange also
must be greater
than with any other
core or with the
largest city of the
metropolitan area.
(F) Any group of
cities and towns
resulting from
merging contiguous
component central
cores. Such a
merging of cores
may take place if:
(1) section E would
qualify the
component core city
of one core for
inclusion in the
other core, and (2)
there is
substantial local
support for
treating the two as
a single core.
[[Page 51072]]
Each city or town in
the metropolitan
area not included
in the core under
sections D through
F is assigned to
the contiguous
primary
metropolitan
statistical area to
whose core its
commuting is
greatest, if: (1)
this commuting is
at least 15 percent
of the place's
resident workers;
and (2) the
commuting
interchange with
the core is greater
than with the
metropolitan area's
largest city.
If a city or town
has qualifying
commuting ties to
two or more cores
and the relevant
values are within 5
percentage points
of each other,
local opinion is
considered before
the place is
assigned to any
primary
metropolitan
statistical area.
If primary
metropolitan
statistical areas
have been
recognized within a
metropolitan area
under the above
provisions, the
balance of the
metropolitan area,
which includes its
largest central
city, also is
recognized as a
primary
metropolitan
statistical area.
Definitions of
primary
metropolitan
statistical areas
are based on these
standards and a
review of local
opinion..
Combining Statistical Areas. Two adjacent Two adjacent CBSAs
metropolitan are combined if the
statistical areas employment
are combined as a interchange rate
single metropolitan between the two
statistical area areas is at least
if: (A) the total 25. The employment
population of the interchange rate is
combination is at the sum of the
least one million percentage of
and (1) the employed residents
commuting of the CBSA with
interchange between the smaller total
the two population who work
metropolitan in the CBSA with
statistical areas the larger total
is equal to at population and the
least 15% of the percentage of
employed workers employment in the
residing in the CBSA with the
smaller smaller total
metropolitan population that is
statistical area, accounted for by
or equal to at workers residing in
least 10% of the the CBSA with the
employed workers larger total
residing in the population.
smaller Adjacent CBSAs that
metropolitan have an employment
statistical area interchange rate of
and the urbanized at least 15 and
area of a central less than 25 may
city of one combine if local
metropolitan opinion in both
statistical area is areas favors
contiguous with the combination. The
urbanized area of a combining CBSAs
central city of the also retain
other metropolitan separate
statistical area or recognition.
a central city in
one metropolitan
statistical area is
included in the
same urbanized area
as a central city
in the other
metropolitan
statistical area;
AND (2) at least
60% of the
population of each
metropolitan
statistical area is
urban. (B) the
total population of
the combination is
less than one
million and (1)
their largest
central cities are
within 25 miles of
one another, or the
urbanized areas are
contiguous; AND (2)
there is definite
evidence that the
two areas are
closely integrated
economically and
socially; AND (3)
local opinion in
both areas supports
combination..
[[Page 51073]]
Titles...................... Titles of Titles of CBSAs
metropolitan include the names
statistical areas of up to three
include the names principal cities in
of up to three order of descending
central cities in population size.
order of descending Titles of
population size. metropolitan
Local opinion is divisions include
considered under the names of up to
specified three principal
conditions. cities in the
Titles of primary metropolitan
metropolitan division in order
statistical areas of descending
include the names population size. If
of up to three there are no
cities in the principal cities,
primary the title includes
metropolitan the names of up to
statistical area three counties in
that have qualified the metropolitan
as central cities. division in order
If there are no of descending
central cities, the population size.
title will include Titles of combined
the names of up to areas include the
three counties in name of the largest
the primary principal city in
metropolitan the largest CBSA
statistical area in that combines,
order of descending followed by the
population size. names of the
Titles of largest principal
consolidated city in each of up
metropolitan to two additional
statistical areas CBSAs that combine,
include the names provided that the
of up to three second and third
central cities or CBSAs in the
counties in the combined area each
consolidated have at least one-
metropolitan third the
statistical area. population of the
The first name will first.
be the largest
central city in the
consolidated
metropolitan
statistical area;
the remaining two
names will be the
first city or
county name that
appears in the
title of the
remaining primary
metropolitan
statistical area
with the largest
total population
and the first city
or county name that
appears in the
title of the
primary
metropolitan
statistical area
with the next
largest total
population.
Regional
designations can be
substituted for the
second and third
names if there is
strong local
support.
Local Opinion............... Consulted when: Consulted when two
o A county CBSAs qualify for
qualifies as combination with an
outlying to two employment
different interchange rate of
metropolitan at least 15 but
statistical areas less than 25.
and the relevant
commuting
percentages are
within 5 points of
each other;.
o A city or
town in New England
qualifies as
outlying to two
different
metropolitan
statistical areas
and has relevant
commuting
percentages within
5 points of each
other;
o A city or
town in New England
qualifies as
outlying to a
metropolitan
statistical area
but has greater
commuting to a
nonmetropolitan
city or town and
the relevant
commuting
percentages are
within 5 points of
each other;
o Combining
metropolitan
statistical areas
whose total
population is less
than 1,000,000;
o Assigning
titles of
metropolitan
statistical areas,
consolidated
metropolitan
statistical areas,
and primary
metropolitan
statistical areas;
and
Designating primary
metropolitan
statistical areas.
Grandfathering.............. A metropolitan Areas that do not
statistical area meet the standards
designated on the for designation do
basis of census not qualify.
data according to
standards in effect
at the time of
designation will
not be disqualified
on the basis of
lacking a city of
at least 50,000
population or an
urbanized area of
at least 50,000 or
a total population
of at least
100,000.
[[Page 51074]]
Intercensal Updating........ A new metropolitan A new CBSA can be
area can be designated if a
designated city has a Census
intercensally if a Bureau population
city has a Census estimate of 10,000
Bureau population or more for two
estimate or special consecutive years
census count of at or a Census Bureau
least 50,000 or if special census
a county containing count of 10,000 or
an urbanized area more. The
has a Census Bureau geographic extent
population estimate of each CBSA would
or special census be re-examined in
count of at least 2008 using
100,000. Outlying commuting data from
counties are added the Census Bureau's
to existing American Community
metropolitan Survey.
statistical areas
intercensally only
when (1) a central
city located in a
qualifier urbanized
area extends into a
county not included
in the metropolitan
statistical area
and the population
of that portion of
the city in the
county is at least
2,500 according to
a Census Bureau
population count or
(2) an
intercensally
designated
metropolitan
statistical area
qualifies to
combine with an
existing
metropolitan
statistical area.
New central cities
can be designated
intercensally on
the basis of a
special census
count..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Recommended Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Areas
These standards are for use in defining Core Based Statistical
Areas (CBSAs) of which there are two categories: Metropolitan Areas and
Micropolitan Areas. A CBSA is a statistical geographic entity
associated with at least one core of 10,000 or more population, plus
adjacent territory having a high degree of social and economic
integration with the core as measured by commuting ties.
The purpose of the Metropolitan and Micropolitan Area Standards is
to provide a nationally consistent set of area definitions suitable for
collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics. CBSAs are
not designed to serve as a general purpose geographic framework
applicable to nonstatistical activities, programs, or funding formulas.
CBSAs consist of counties and equivalent entities throughout the
United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas. Because of the
importance of cities and towns as the primary units of local government
in New England, a set of geographic areas similar in concept to the
county based CBSAs also will be defined for that region using cities
and towns. These New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs) are intended
for use with statistical data, whenever feasible and appropriate, for
New England. Data providers and users desiring areas defined using a
nationally consistent geographic building block should consider using
the county based CBSAs in New England.
The following criteria apply to both the nationwide county based
CBSAs and to NECTAs, with the exceptions of Sections 7 and 9, in which
separate criteria are applied when identifying and titling divisions
within NECTAs that contain at least one core of 2.5 million or more
population. Wherever the word ``county'' or ``counties'' appears in the
following criteria (except in Sections 7 and 9), the words ``city and
town'' or ``cities and towns'' should be substituted, as appropriate,
when defining NECTAs.
1. Population Size Requirements for Qualification of Core Based
Statistical Areas
Each CBSA must have a Census Bureau defined urbanized area of at
least 50,000 population or a Census Bureau defined urban cluster of at
least 10,000 population. (Urbanized areas and urban clusters are
collectively referred to as ``urban areas.'')
2. Central Counties
The central county or counties of a CBSA are those counties that:
(a) Have at least 50 percent of their population in urban areas of
at least 10,000 population; or
(b) Have within their boundaries a population of at least 5,000
that is located in a single urban area of at least 10,000 population.
A central county is associated with the urbanized area or urban
cluster that accounts for the largest portion of the county's
population. The central counties associated with a particular urbanized
area or urban cluster are grouped to form a single cluster of central
counties for purposes of measuring commuting to and from outlying
counties.
3. Outlying Counties
An outlying county is included in a CBSA if it meets the following
commuting requirements:
(a) At least 25 percent of the employed residents of the county
work in the central county or counties of the CBSA; or
(b) At least 25 percent of the employment in the county is
accounted for by workers who reside in the central county or counties
of the CBSA.
A county may be included in only one CBSA. If a county qualifies as
a central county of one CBSA and as outlying in another, it will be
included in the CBSA in which it is a central county. A county that
qualifies as outlying to multiple CBSAs will be included in the CBSA
with which it has the strongest commuting tie, as measured by either
(a) or (b) above. The counties included in a CBSA must be contiguous;
if a county is not contiguous with other counties in the CBSA, it will
not be included in the CBSA.
4. Merging of Adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas
Two adjacent CBSAs will be merged to form one CBSA if the central
county or counties (as a group) of one CBSA qualify as outlying to the
central county or counties (as a group) of the other CBSA using the
measures and thresholds stated in 3(a) and 3(b) above.
5. Identification of Principal Cities
The principal city (or cities) of a CBSA will include:
[[Page 51075]]
(a) The largest incorporated place or census designated place in
the CBSA;
(b) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place
with a population of at least 250,000 or in which 100,000 or more
persons work; and
(c) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place
with a population that is at least 10,000 and one-third the size of the
largest place, and in which the number of jobs meets or exceeds the
number of employed residents.
6. Categories and Terminology
A CBSA will be assigned a category based on the population of the
largest urban area (urbanized area or urban cluster) within the CBSA.
Categories of CBSAs are: Metropolitan Areas, based around urbanized
areas of 50,000 or more population, and Micropolitan Areas, based
around urban clusters of at least 10,000 population but less than
50,000 population.
Counties that are not included in CBSAs will be referred to as
being ``Outside Core Based Statistical Areas.''
7. Divisions of Metropolitan Areas and New England City and Town Areas
Metropolitan Areas containing at least one core with a population
of at least 2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of
counties referred to as Metropolitan Divisions.
A county will be identified as a main county of a Metropolitan
Division if:
(a) Greater than 50 percent of its employed residents work within
the county;
(b) The ratio of the number of jobs located within that county to
its number of employed residents is at least 0.75; and
(c) The highest rate of out-commuting from the county to any other
county is less than 15 percent.
After all main counties have been identified, each remaining county
in the Metropolitan Area will be included in the Metropolitan Division
associated with the main county to which the county at issue sends the
highest percentage of its out-commuters. Counties within a Metropolitan
Division must be contiguous.
NECTAs containing at least one core with a population of at least
2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of cities and
towns referred to as NECTA Divisions.
A city or town is identified as a ``main city or town'' of a NECTA
Division if:
(a) The city or town at issue has a population of 50,000 or more;
and
(b) Its highest rate of out-commuting to any other city or town is
less than 20 percent.
After all main cities and towns have been identified, each
remaining city and town in the NECTA will be included in the NECTA
Division associated with the city or town to which the one at issue
sends the highest percentage of its out-commuters.
Each NECTA Division must contain a total population of 100,000 or
more. Cities and towns first assigned to areas with populations less
than 100,000 will be assigned to the qualifying NECTA Division
associated with the city or town to which the one at issue sends the
highest percentage of its out-commuters. Cities and towns within a
NECTA Division must be contiguous.
8. Combining Adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas
Any two adjacent CBSAs will form a Combined Area if the employment
interchange rate between the two areas is at least 25. The employment
interchange rate between two CBSAs is defined as the sum of the
percentage of employed residents of the CBSA with the smaller total
population who work in the area with the larger total population and
the percentage of employment in the CBSA with the smaller total
population that is accounted for by workers residing in the CBSA with
the larger total population. Adjacent CBSAs that have an employment
interchange rate of at least 15 and less than 25 will be combined if
local opinion, as reported by the congressional delegations in both
areas, favors combination. The CBSAs that combine retain separate
identities within the larger Combined Areas.
9. Titles of Core Based Statistical Areas, Metropolitan Divisions, New
England City and Town Area Divisions, and Combined Areas
The title of a CBSA will include the name of its principal city
with the largest Census 2000 population. If there are multiple
principal cities, the names of the second largest and third largest
principal cities will be included in the title in order of descending
population size.
The title of a Metropolitan Division will include the name of the
principal city with the largest Census 2000 population located within
the Metropolitan Division. If there are multiple principal cities, the
names of the second largest and third largest principal cities will be
included in the title in order of descending population size. If there
are no principal cities located within the Metropolitan Division, the
title of the Metropolitan Division will include the names of up to
three counties in order of descending population size.
The title of a NECTA Division will include the name of the
principal city with the largest Census 2000 population located within
the NECTA Division. If there are multiple principal cities, the names
of the second largest and third largest principal cities will be
included in the title in order of descending population size. If there
are no principal cities located within the NECTA Division, the title of
the NECTA Division will include the name of the city or town with the
largest population.
The title of a Combined Area will include the name of the largest
principal city in the largest CBSA that combines, followed by the
largest principal city in each of up to two additional CBSAs that
combine, provided that the second and third CBSAs in the Combined Area
each have at least one-third the population of the largest CBSA in the
combination.
CBSA, Metropolitan Division, NECTA Division, and Combined Area
titles also will include the names of any state in which the area is
located.
10. Update Schedule
CBSAs based on Census 2000 data are scheduled to be defined in
2003. Subsequently, new CBSAs will be designated intercensally if:
(a) A city that is outside any existing CBSA has a Census Bureau
special census count of 10,000 or more population, or Census Bureau
population estimates of 10,000 or more population for two consecutive
years, or
(b) A Census Bureau special census results in the delineation of a
new urban area (urbanized area or urban cluster) of 10,000 or more
population that is outside of any existing CBSA.
In the years through 2007, outlying counties of intercensally
designated CBSAs will be qualified, according to the criteria in
Section 3 above, on the basis of Census 2000 commuting data.
The definitions of all existing CBSAs will be reviewed in 2008
using commuting data from the Census Bureau's American Community
Survey. The central counties of CBSAs identified on the basis of a
Census 2000 population count, or on the basis of population estimates
or a special census count in the case of intercensally defined areas,
will constitute the central counties for purposes of the 2008 CBSA
definition review. New CBSAs will be designated in 2008 and 2009 on the
basis of Census Bureau special census counts or population estimates as
described above; outlying county qualification in these years will be
based on 2008 commuting data from the American Community Survey.
[[Page 51076]]
11. Local Opinion
Local opinion, as used in these standards, is the reflection of the
views of the public and is obtained through the appropriate
congressional delegations. Under the Metropolitan and Micropolitan Area
Standards, local opinion is sought only when two adjacent CBSAs qualify
for combination based on an employment interchange rate of at least 15
but less than 25 (see Section 8). The two CBSAs will be combined only
if there is evidence that local opinion in both areas favors the
combination. After a decision has been made regarding the combination
of CBSAs, the Office of Management and Budget will not request local
opinion again on the same question until the next redefinition of
CBSAs.
D. Key Terms
(An asterisk (*) denotes new terms defined for the purposes of the
Metropolitan Area Standards Review Project. Two asterisks (**) denote
terms whose definitions have changed for purposes of the Metropolitan
Area Standards Review Project.)
Census designated place--A statistical geographic entity that is
equivalent to an incorporated place, defined for the decennial census,
consisting of a locally recognized, unincorporated concentration of
population that is identified by name.
Central city--The largest city of a metropolitan statistical area
or a consolidated metropolitan statistical area, plus additional cities
that meet specified statistical criteria in the 1990 metropolitan area
standards.
** Central county--The county or counties of a core based
statistical area containing a substantial portion of an urbanized area
or urban cluster or both, and to and from which commuting is measured
to determine qualification of outlying counties.
* Combined area--A geographic entity consisting of two or more
adjacent core based statistical areas (CBSAs) with employment
interchange rates of at least 15. CBSAs with employment interchange
rates of at least 25 combine automatically. CBSAs with employment
interchange rates of at least 15 but less than 25 may combine if local
opinion in both areas favors combination.
** Core--A densely settled concentration of population, comprising
either an urbanized area (of 50,000 or more population) or an urban
cluster (of 10,000 to 49,999 population) defined by the Census Bureau,
around which a core based statistical area is defined.
* Core based statistical area (CBSA)--A statistical geographic
entity consisting of the county or counties associated with at least
one core (urbanized area or urban cluster) of at least 10,000
population, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of social and
economic integration with the core as measured through commuting ties
with the counties containing the core. Metropolitan and micropolitan
areas are two categories of core based statistical areas.
* Employment interchange rate--A measure of ties between two
adjacent core based statistical areas (CBSAs) used when determining
whether they qualify to be combined. The employment interchange rate is
the sum of the percentage of employed residents of the smaller CBSA who
work in the larger CBSA and the percentage of employment in the smaller
CBSA that is accounted for by workers who reside in the larger CBSA.
Geographic building block--The geographic unit, such as a county,
that forms the basic geographic component of a statistical area.
* Main city or town--A city or town that acts as an employment
center within a New England city and town area that has a core with a
population of at least 2.5 million. A main city or town serves as the
basis for defining a New England city and town area division.
* Main county--A county that acts as an employment center within a
core based statistical area that has a core with a population of at
least 2.5 million. A main county serves as the basis for defining a
metropolitan division.
** Metropolitan area--A collective term, established by OMB and
used for the first time in 1990, to refer to metropolitan statistical
areas, consolidated metropolitan statistical areas, and primary
metropolitan statistical areas. Also, as introduced for this Notice, a
core based statistical area associated with at least one urban area
that has a population of 50,000 or more; the metropolitan area
comprises the central county or counties containing the core, plus
adjacent outlying counties having a high degree of social and economic
integration with the central county as measured through commuting.
* Metropolitan division--A county or group of counties within a
core based statistical area that contains a core with a population of
at least 2.5 million. A metropolitan division consists of one or more
main counties that represent an employment center or centers, plus
adjacent counties associated with the main county or counties through
commuting ties.
Metropolitan statistical area--A geographic entity, defined by OMB
for statistical purposes, containing a large population nucleus and
adjacent communities having a high degree of social and economic
integration with that nucleus. Under the 1990 metropolitan area
standards, qualification of an MSA required a city with 50,000
population or more, or an urbanized area of 50,000 population or more
and a total population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England).
MSAs are composed of entire counties, except in New England where the
components are cities and towns.
* Micropolitan area--A core based statistical area associated with
at least one urban area that has a population of at least 10,000 but
less than 50,000. The micropolitan area comprises the central county or
counties containing the core, plus adjacent outlying counties having a
high degree of social and economic integration with the central county
as measured through commuting.
Minor civil division--A type of governmental unit that is the
primary legal subdivision of a county, created to govern or administer
an area rather than a specific population.
New England county metropolitan area (NECMA)--Under the 1990
metropolitan area standards, a county based statistical area defined by
OMB to provide an alternative to the city and town based metropolitan
statistical areas and consolidated metropolitan statistical areas in
New England.
* New England city and town area (NECTA)--A statistical geographic
entity that is defined using cities and towns as building blocks and
that is conceptually similar to the core based statistical areas in New
England (which are defined using counties as building blocks).
* New England city and town area (NECTA) division--A city or town
or group of cities and towns within a NECTA that contains a core with a
population of at least 2.5 million. A NECTA division consists of a main
city or town that represents an employment center, plus adjacent cities
and towns associated with the main city or town, or with other cities
and towns that are in turn associated with the main city or town,
through commuting ties.
** Outlying county--A county that qualifies for inclusion in a core
based statistical area on the basis of commuting ties with the core
based statistical area's central county or counties.
[[Page 51077]]
* Outside core based statistical areas--Counties that do not
qualify for inclusion in a core based statistical area.
* Principal city--The largest city of a core based statistical
area, plus additional cities that meet specified statistical criteria.
Urban area--The generic term used by the Census Bureau to refer
collectively to urbanized areas and urban clusters.
Urban cluster--A statistical geographic entity to be defined by the
Census Bureau for Census 2000, consisting of a central place(s) and
adjacent densely settled territory that together contain at least 2,500
but less than 50,000 people, generally with an overall population
density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. For purposes of
defining core based statistical areas, only those urban clusters of
10,000 more population are considered. (Previous Notices referred to
urban clusters as ``settlement clusters.'')
Urbanized area--A statistical geographic entity defined by the
Census Bureau, consisting of a central place(s) and adjacent densely
settled territory that together contain at least 50,000 people,
generally with an overall population density of at least 1,000 people
per square mile.
[FR Doc. 00-20951 Filed 8-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-U