Technology Transfer Network / NAAQS
Ozone Implementation
Changes to Standards for
Defining Metropolitan Areas
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: October 20, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 56627-56644]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20oc99-128]
[[Page 56627]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Office of Management and Budget
_______________________________________________________________________
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 56628]]
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
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 comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OMB requests comments on recommendations that it has received
from the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee (MASRC) for
changes to OMB's metropolitan area (MA) standards. MASRC's report and
recommendations, which are published in their entirety in the Appendix,
are the result of a comprehensive review of the MA concept and current
(1990) standards that began earlier this decade. The review will
culminate in publication prior to Census 2000 of standards for the
first decade of the next century.
DATES: To ensure consideration during the final decision making
process, written comments must be received no later than December 20,
1999.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the recommendations should be submitted
to James D. Fitzsimmons, U.S. Bureau of the Census, IPC-Population
Division, Washington, DC 20233-8860; fax (301) 457-3034.
Electronic Data Availability: This Federal Register Notice is
available electronically from the OMB home page: <<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>>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James D. Fitzsimmons, Chair,
Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee, (301) 457-2419; or E-mail
<<pop.frquestion@ccmail.census.gov>>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline of Notice
1. Background
2. Review Process
3. Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Federal Register
Notice of December 21, 1998
4. Overview of MASRC Report
5. Issues for Comment
Appendix--Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the Review
of the Metropolitan Area Standards and Recommendations for Standards
for Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas for the First Decade of the
21st Century
A. Formation of the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee
B. Public Participation and Comment
C. Review Process
D. Principles Guiding Review and Development of Recommendations
E. Issues Under Review
F. Comparison of the Current Metropolitan Area Standards with the
Recommended Core-Based Statistical Area Standards
G. Recommended Standards for Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas
for the First Decade of the 21st Century
H. Key Terms
1. Background
The metropolitan area (MA) program has provided standard
statistical area definitions at the metropolitan level for 50 years. In
the 1940s, it became clear that the value of data produced at that
level by Federal Government agencies would be greatly enhanced if
agencies used a single set of geographic definitions for the Nation's
metropolitan areas. The Office of Management and Budget's (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, vast numbers of directly comparable
MA data products have been made available to government, business,
scholars, citizens' organizations, and others interested in studying
various aspects of MAs.
The general concept of an MA is that of an area containing a large
population nucleus and adjacent communities that have a high degree of
integration with that nucleus. This general concept has remained
essentially the same since MAs were first defined before the 1950
census. The purpose of MAs also is unchanged from when they were first
defined: the classification provides a nationally consistent set of
definitions for collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal
statistics for geographic areas. Stated differently, OMB establishes
and maintains MAs solely for statistical purposes. In reviewing and
revising MAs, OMB does not take into account or attempt to anticipate
any public or private sector nonstatistical uses that may be made of
the definitions.
The evolution of the standards for defining MAs was discussed in
detail in OMB's Federal Register Notice of December 21, 1998,
``Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan
Areas'' (63 FR 70526-70561). Table 1 of the December Notice summarized
the evolution of MA standards since 1950. (The December Notice is
available on the OMB web site.)
2. Review Process
The MA standards are reviewed and, if warranted, revised in the
years preceding each decennial census. Periodic review of the MA
standards is necessary to ensure their continued usefulness and
relevance. The current review of the MA standards--the Metropolitan
Area Standards Review Project (MASRP)--is the sixth such review; it has
been especially thorough, reflecting as a first priority users'
concerns with the conceptual and operational complexity of the
standards that have evolved over the decades. Other key concerns behind
the particularly thorough nature of MASRP's efforts have been: (1)
whether modifications to the standards over the years have permitted
them to stay abreast of changes in population distribution and activity
patterns; (2) whether advances in computer applications permit
consideration of new approaches to defining areas; and (3) whether
there is a practicable way to capture a more complete range of U.S.
settlement and activity patterns than the current MA standards capture.
Specific, major issues addressed by MASRP have included:
o Whether the Federal Government should define metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan statistical areas;
o The geographic units--``building blocks''--that should be
used in defining the statistical areas;
o The criteria that should be used to aggregate the 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 The kinds of entities that 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.
This decade's 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.
In fall 1998, OMB chartered the Metropolitan Area Standards Review
[[Page 56629]]
Committee (MASRC) and charged it with the tasks of examining the
current MA standards and providing recommendations for possible changes
to those standards. Agencies represented on MASRC include the Census
Bureau (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 has provided research support to MASRC.
MASRC's report summarizes the research and review process that led to
the committee's recommendations (see Appendix, Section C).
This Notice is the second of three Notices related to the review of
the standards. The first was published by OMB in the Federal Register
of December 21, 1998. A summary of comments received in response to
that Notice is provided in Section 3 below. OMB expects to publish the
final standards in the third Notice prior to census day (April 1) 2000.
Ongoing research projects, although not intended to provide
additional information for formulating final standards for the next
decade, will further understanding of patterns of settlement and
activity of the Nation's population and provide information for use in
future reviews of the standards. Research will continue into aspects of
all of the alternative approaches (and variations thereof) presented in
the December 1998 Federal Register 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 also has a project to
conduct additional research on the comparative density approach
outlined in the December 1998 Federal Register Notice and is continuing
research on potential uses of directional commuting statistics in
defining statistical areas. Outcomes of this work may be featured in
pilot projects of the Census Bureau or other agencies during the next
decade.
3. Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Federal Register
Notice of December 21, 1998
The December 21, 1998 Federal Register Notice (63 FR 70526-70561)
called for comments on: (1) the suitability of the current standards,
(2) the principles that should govern any proposed revisions to the
standards, (3) reactions to the four approaches outlined in the Notice,
and (4) proposals for alternative ways to define metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan areas. The December Notice also called for comments on
the following questions: (1) What geographic unit should be used as the
``building block'' for defining areas for statistical purposes? (2)
What criteria should be used to aggregate the geographic building
blocks into statistical areas? (3) What criteria should be used to
define a set of statistical areas of different types that together
classify all the territory of the Nation?
A total of 40 comments were received from individuals (ten),
municipalities (eight), State government agencies (seven),
nongovernmental organizations (seven), Federal agencies (four),
chambers of commerce (two), and regional government organizations
(two).
Among commenters, the largest number (ten) preferred the commuting-
based, county-level approach (presented in Part IV, Section A of the
December Notice). Four commenters preferred the commuting-based, census
tract-level approach (Part IV, Section B). The directional commuting,
census tract-level approach (Part IV, Section C) was the choice of one
commenter, and two stated a preference for the comparative density,
county-level approach (Part IV, Section D). Two commenters preferred
adoption of both the commuting-based, county-level and the commuting-
based, census tract-level approaches. Twenty-one commenters did not
indicate a preference for any of the four alternative approaches
presented. Comment letters generally emphasized specific issues rather
than overall approaches for classifying areas.
The issue of what geographic entity to use as a building block for
defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas drew the largest number
of comments. Thirty-five of the 40 commenters specifically indicated
building block preferences. Of these, 25 preferred continued use of
counties, five preferred use of census tracts, and two preferred use of
minor civil divisions (MCDs). Three commenters indicated a preference
for dual classifications--one using counties as building blocks and the
other using census tracts. Three commenters favored continued use of
MCDs as building blocks for statistical areas in New England.
Of the 40 commenters, 24 remarked on the kind of measure to be used
in aggregating entities to define metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
areas. Twenty-one favored use of commuting (journey-to-work) data as
the primary means of determining the geographic extent of metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan areas. A few commenters, however, expressed concern
that commuting data do not describe all patterns of activity and,
therefore, cannot portray all social and economic linkages between
entities. With respect to specific commuting criteria to be used in
qualifying entities for inclusion within metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan areas, one commenter suggested a 30 to 35 percent
minimum commuting requirement; another suggested a 25 percent minimum
commuting requirement. No other comments were received regarding
specific commuting thresholds.
Central city identification received little attention. Of the four
commenters who did respond on this issue, three favored continued
identification of central cities; one favored discontinuing this
practice. Four comments were received in response to the related issue
of identifying urban, suburban, rural, and other settlement categories
as part of the standards. Three commenters favored identification of
such categories as part of the standards; one commented negatively,
noting that identification of these categories is a separate issue that
should be addressed in a classification system that focuses on
settlement form (i.e., what can be seen on the land) and not functional
ties (i.e., interactions of people and activities among places).
Fifteen comments were received on whether and how a statistical
area classification should account for all territory in the United
States. Twelve favored development of a classification that accounted
for all of the territory of the Nation, but they varied considerably on
how to do so. Three commenters endorsed defining MAs only.
The role of local opinion in defining metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan areas drew two comments: one favored a limited use of
local opinion, such as in naming areas; the other noted that local
opinion should be solicited in a timely manner.
Although some commenters did offer alternative proposals for
geographic entities to be used as building blocks, means of measuring
the extent of areas, and ways of identifying settlement categories
within the classification system, no additional proposals for
alternative approaches to defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
areas were received.
4. Overview of MASRC Report
This Federal Register Notice makes available for comment MASRC's
recommendations to OMB for how the current MA standards should be
revised. These recommendations are presented in their entirety in
MASRC's ``Report to the Office of Management
[[Page 56630]]
and Budget on the Review of the Metropolitan Area Standards and
Recommendations for Standards for Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas
for the First Decade of the 21st Century,'' provided in the Appendix to
this Notice. Section G of the Appendix presents for public comment the
specific standards recommended by MASRC for adoption by OMB. This
overview summarizes MASRC's recommendations to OMB, with particular
attention to recommendations that represent noteworthy conclusions and
changes to the current standards or pertain to issues of special
importance to users and providers of data for metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan areas.
MASRC has recommended a Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)
Classification to replace the current MA classification. The cores
(i.e., the densely settled concentrations of population) for this
classification would be Census Bureau-defined urbanized areas and
smaller densely settled ``settlement clusters'' identified in Census
2000. CBSAs would be defined around these cores. This CBSA
Classification has three types of areas based on the total population
of all cores in the CBSA: (1) Megapolitan Areas defined around cores of
at least 1,000,000 population; (2) Macropolitan Areas defined around
cores of 50,000 to 999,999 population; and (3) Micropolitan Areas
defined around cores of 10,000 to 49,999 population. The identification
of Micropolitan Areas extends concepts underlying the core-based
approach to smaller population centers previously included in a
``nonmetropolitan residual.''
MASRC has recommended use of counties and equivalent entities as
the building blocks for statistical areas throughout the United States
and Puerto Rico, including the use of counties as the primary building
blocks for statistical areas in New England. This recommendation does
not preclude the potential adoption of a sub-county entity as the
building block for statistical areas in the future. MASRC also has
recommended that MCDs be used as building blocks for an alternative set
of statistical areas for the New England States only.
MASRC has recommended adoption of a single commuting threshold of
25 percent to establish qualifying linkages between outlying counties
and counties containing CBSA cores. In addition, MASRC recommends
eliminating the use of measures of settlement structure, such as
population density and percent of population that is urban, in
conjunction with commuting when considering whether outlying counties
qualify for inclusion. This change reduces the conceptual and
operational complexity of the standards but may affect the geographic
extent of some existing areas defined according to the current MA
standards.
5. Issues for Comment
With this Notice, OMB requests comments on the recommendations it
has received from MASRC concerning revisions to the current standards
for defining MAs. The standards recommended to OMB for adoption are
presented in Section G of MASRC's report. The complete report is
included in the Appendix to this Notice to provide information on the
review process and a context for MASRC's recommendations. In
particular, Section E of the report provides a discussion of the
recommendations on the various issues considered by MASRC. Section F
presents a comparison of the current MA standards with the recommended
CBSA Classification. OMB would appreciate receiving views and comments
on any aspects of the recommended standards.
John T. Spotila,
Adminstrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Appendix--Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the
Review of the Metropolitan Area Standards and Recommendations for
Standards for Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas for the First
Decade of the 21st Century
Prepared by the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee
[Transmittal Memorandum]
September 20, 1999
Memorandum for Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of
Management and Budget
From: Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee
Subject: Transmittal of Report and Recommendations for Standards for
Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas
We are pleased to transmit to you the attached report presenting
this committee's recommendations for modifying the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB's) standards for defining metropolitan areas. The
recommendations are outlined and discussed in Section E of the report.
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 and Puerto Rico yet
still meet the data reporting needs and requirements of Federal
agencies and the public.
Our recommendations for a Core-Based Statistical Area
Classification are the product of a ten-year review process. During
that time, a research program was designed and implemented to determine
whether the current (1990) standards were in need of revision as well
as to identify and evaluate alternative approaches to defining
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Section A of our report
discusses the formation of the Metropolitan Area Standards Review
Committee (MASRC) and outlines the tasks assigned by OMB. Section B
reports on the means by which the public participated in the review
process and provided comments. Sections C and D, respectively, report
on research efforts that have been conducted as part of this review and
the principles that have guided the development of recommendations.
Section E outlines the issues that have been under review and reports
on decisions reached by MASRC, based on our evaluation of research
results and consideration of related public comments. Section F
provides a comparison of the current metropolitan area standards with
the standards recommended by MASRC. Section G presents the specific
standards recommended by MASRC. Finally, Section H provides definitions
of key terms used in the report.
We hope that OMB will find this report with its accompanying
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
Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the Review of the
Metropolitan Area Standards and Recommendations for Standards for
Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas for the First Decade of the
21st Century
A. Formation of the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee
In fall 1998, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
reconstituted the Federal Executive Committee on Metropolitan Areas as
the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee (MASRC). Agencies
represented on MASRC include the Census Bureau (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.
OMB charged MASRC with the tasks of examining the current (1990)
[[Page 56631]]
metropolitan area (MA) standards and alternative approaches to
statistical definitions of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and
providing recommendations to OMB for possible changes to the current
standards. Completion of this charge required: (1) Identifying current
statistical uses of MAs and assessing whether and how those uses might
better be met; (2) reviewing the conceptual underpinnings of the
current MA standards and their continued usefulness; (3) assessing the
extent to which any changes in the standards should reflect changes in
computing technology on how MAs are or can be defined and maintained;
(4) developing and empirically testing potential changes in the
standards; and (5) ensuring ample opportunity for widespread public
participation in the review process.
B. Public Participation and Comments
Public participation and comments, obtained through a variety of
formats, have provided important guideposts for the review of the MA
standards. Beginning early in the decade, OMB and Census Bureau staff
received comments and suggestions from Federal, State, and local
officials; representatives of the private sector; researchers; and
other data users through meetings, responses to presentations at
academic and professional conferences, and at a Congressional hearing
held in July 1997.
OMB requested formal public comment on MA concepts and standards
through the Federal Register Notice ``Alternative Approaches to
Defining Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas,'' that was published
on December 21, 1998. During the public comment period for the Notice,
a seminar and open forum were held in Alexandria, Virginia, on January
21 and 22, 1999. Comments received in response to the Notice and at the
seminar and open forum were considered by MASRC during its development
of recommendations.
Between January and August 1999, Census Bureau staff also
participated in, and offered presentations at, some 20 meetings and
conferences around the country attended by Federal statistical program
participants, State and local officials, and experts in academia and
private survey and research firms. Many individuals also have contacted
OMB and Census Bureau staff to discuss issues pertaining to this
review. Although comments received in these ways were not part of the
official set of written responses to the December 1998 Federal Register
Notice, MASRC was apprised of and considered these less formal comments
in its deliberations.
C. Review Process
1. Metropolitan Area Standards Review Project
The MA standards are reviewed and, if warranted, revised in the
years preceding each decennial census to ensure their continued
usefulness and relevance. The current review of the MA standards--the
Metropolitan Area Standards Review Project (MASRP)--is the sixth such
review. This review has been especially thorough, reflecting as a first
priority users' concerns with the conceptual and operational complexity
of the standards that have evolved over the decades. Other key concerns
of MASRP have been: (1) Whether modifications to the standards over the
years have permitted them to stay abreast of changes in population
distribution and activity patterns; (2) whether advances in computer
applications permit consideration of new approaches to defining areas;
and (3) whether there is a practicable way to capture a more complete
range of U.S. settlement and activity patterns than the current MA
standards capture.
Specific, major issues addressed by MASRP have included:
o Whether the Federal Government should define metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan statistical areas;
o The geographic units--``building blocks''--that should be
used in defining the statistical areas;
o The criteria that should be used to aggregate the 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 The kinds of areas that 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.
As in previous decades, the Census Bureau has worked closely with
OMB in support of the MA program. In 1990, the Census Bureau
commissioned four studies by scholars to sketch out and evaluate
alternative approaches to defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
areas. The reports produced through these studies were published in a
Census Bureau working paper, which later served as the focus of
discussion at an open conference in November 1995 that was hosted by
the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS)
and attended by representatives of Federal, State, and local government
agencies; the private sector; universities; and citizens'
organizations.
The Census Bureau has conducted research into a variety of issues
related to metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area concepts and criteria
as part of MASRP. The first phase of this research culminated in
publication of the four alternative approaches to defining metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan areas presented for public comment in the Federal
Register Notice of December 21, 1998. The second phase of the research
extended the earlier work, but with a particular focus on providing
information directly to MASRC and answering specific questions raised
during MASRC's review of the standards.
In addition to research conducted or contracted by the Census
Bureau, other researchers both inside and outside the Federal
Government have investigated alternative methods for defining
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas during the past decade.
Researchers in the Department of Agriculture's Economic Research
Service (ERS) investigated the feasibility of using census tracts as
building blocks for MAs in conjunction with current (1990) MA
standards. Researchers at the University of Washington, in a project
jointly funded by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office
of Rural Health Policy and ERS, have contributed further to development
of an alternative method of defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
areas using census tracts as building blocks. Researchers at the
University of Minnesota continued investigation of the comparative
density approach first proposed early in this decade and presented at
the 1995 conference.
2. 1995 Conference on New Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and
Nonmetropolitan Areas
Discussion at the 1995 conference considered widely ranging views,
but there was general agreement on the following issues:
o The Federal Government should define standard areas at the
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area level.
o Because of data availability and familiarity, areas should
be defined using the county as the fundamental unit. To foster greater
precision and to meet special-purpose needs, areas based on sub-county
entities also should be defined. There were suggestions that multiple
sets of areas using different units should be provided, along with
documentation on appropriate uses.
[[Page 56632]]
o Statistical areas defined following Census 2000 should
cover the entire territory of the country and should better account for
the full range of settlement patterns than do the current MAs and their
nonmetropolitan ``residual.''
o Areas should be defined using a consistent set of rules
for the entire country.
o Familiar components of settlement, such as major
population and employment centers as represented by current MA
definitions, should be in evidence in the new system.
o Commuting (journey-to-work) data from the Census Bureau
should continue as the principal measure for determining the extent of
areas. Other data--including electronic media and newspaper market
penetration data, local traffic study data, and wholesale distribution
data'are available and usable for specific purposes. Population and
housing unit density also were viewed as potential measures for some
purposes, and employment density received mention.
A detailed summary of the conference appears as Appendix C in the
December 21, 1998 Federal Register Notice; the summary also is
available from the Census Bureau at (301) 457-2419.
3. January 1999 Seminar and Open Forum: Metropolitan and
Nonmetropolitan Areas for a New Decade
During the comment period following publication of the December
1998 Federal Register Notice, COPAFS hosted a seminar and open forum
focusing on the four alternative approaches to defining metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan areas presented in that Notice. The two-day
seminar/open forum provided a venue for disseminating information and
receiving comments related to the review of the standards.
On the first day, one session was devoted to each of the four
approaches. Census Bureau staff presented an overview of the approach;
outside experts then described benefits and potential problems.
Discussion periods provided opportunities for all attendees to offer
comments and raise questions. On the second day, prepared statements
were provided by several individuals, and participants engaged in a
general discussion of the standards review.
There was agreement at the seminar/open forum that MAs are widely
recognized and used (although the specifics of MA standards are less
clear to many individuals), and that OMB should continue to define MAs.
Some participants expressed a preference for a single classification
system (as opposed to multiple systems, as suggested at the 1995
conference) to avoid confusion among users and to ensure that the
classification is useful to as many data users as possible.
The relative merits of using counties versus census tracts as the
building blocks for statistical areas were key to the discussion. Some
Federal agencies, researchers, and others noted growing interest in
identifying metropolitan and nonmetropolitan territory and population
with greater geographic resolution than can be achieved with the
current, largely county-based MAs. Many commenters supported the
continued use of counties when defining metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan areas because of the range and quality of data
available for counties and the relative ease in comparing county-level
data over time.
In addition, many participants agreed that commuting, despite its
inability to account for all patterns of activity, remains the
preferred means of measuring integration of areas and should continue
to be the measure used to determine the geographic extent of entities.
Although other measures have been used in the past or considered in
MASRP, most seminar/open forum participants agreed that Census Bureau
commuting information currently provides the most reliable and
exhaustive source of data for this purpose. Interest was expressed in
the use of directional commuting as a means of measuring the
integration of entities, but some participants suggested that it was
too complicated for use in defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
areas.
A complete summary of the seminar/open forum is available from the
Census Bureau at (301) 457-2419.
D. Principles Guiding the Review and Development of Recommendations
Several guiding principles framed discussion of the issues under
review and formulation of specific recommendations. MASRC sought to
develop a classification that would capture and portray effectively the
distribution of population and economic activity across the United
States and Puerto Rico. This classification must meet the needs of both
producers and users of data. Also, the criteria used to define the
areas must be applicable nationwide using publicly available data.
Finally, MASRC sought to prepare criteria that were simpler than those
in the current MA standards.
E. Issues Under Review
MASRC's review and its recommendations to OMB have drawn upon
previous research conducted by the Census Bureau, other agencies, and
individuals. The review also has benefited from discussions at the
November 1995 conference and the January 1999 seminar/open forum, and
from comments received in response to OMB's December 21, 1998 Federal
Register Notice. This section presents MASRC's recommendations to OMB
for changing the MA standards. It also presents a discussion of the
major issues considered during the review.
Summary of Recommendations
MASRC recommends adoption of a Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)
Classification that includes Megapolitan, Macropolitan, and
Micropolitan Areas, with each area containing one or more population
cores of at least 10,000 persons (see Section E.1). Census Bureau-
defined urbanized areas (UAs) and a proposed new geographic entity for
Census 2000--Census Bureau-defined settlement clusters (SCs)--are these
cores. UAs are continuously built-up areas comprising a central place
(or places) and the densely settled surrounding territory that together
have a population of at least 50,000 and, generally, an overall
population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. SCs will
extend the UA concept to smaller concentrations of at least 10,000
population. Territory outside of Megapolitan, Macropolitan, and
Micropolitan Areas should be termed ``Outside CBSAs.''
MASRC recommends using counties and equivalent entities as building
blocks of CBSAs throughout the United States and Puerto Rico (Section
E.2). Minor civil divisions (MCDs) should be used as building blocks
for an alternative set of areas in New England only.
Those counties containing the cores, MASRC recommends, should
become the central counties of CBSAs (Section E.3). MASRC also
recommends that only commuting data should be used to aggregate
counties beyond central counties--the outlying counties--to form CBSAs.
A single minimum commuting threshold of 25 percent should be used to
qualify a county for inclusion as outlying in a particular CBSA
(Section E.4).
Mergers of adjacent CBSAs to form a single CBSA should take place
when commuting data indicate that strong ties exist between the two
areas' central counties (Section E.6). Combinations of
[[Page 56633]]
adjacent CBSAs should take place when there are weaker but still
important commuting ties between entire CBSAs. The CBSAs that are
combined should retain separate identities in addition to being
recognized as parts of Combined Areas (Section E.7).
MASRC recommends identifying the city with the largest population
in each CBSA, as well as any additional cities with large population or
employment totals, as principal cities (Section E.8). The title of each
CBSA should include the name of the largest principal city. If there
are multiple principal cities in a CBSA, the names of the second
largest and third largest principal cities should be included in the
title, in order of descending population size (Section E.9).
These recommendations and others are described in greater detail
below.
Notes on Data and Maps
In carrying out its work, MASRC used 1990 census data to model the
possible outcomes of its recommendations for geographic area
definitions. The four maps accompanying this section were developed
using 1990 census data and the recommended standards. Because SCs are
proposed new geographic areas for presentation of Census 2000 data,
incorporated places and census designated places (CDPs) of 10,000 to
49,999 population were used for research purposes. The maps are for
illustrative purposes only and are not intended to portray the extent
of areas that would be defined using Census 2000 data and the
recommended standards.
Detailed Recommendations
1. Recommendations Concerning Levels of Statistical Areas Recognized
Within the Core-Based Statistical Area Classification
MASRC recommends a Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)
Classification to replace the current MA classification. MASRC
recommends the following terms and levels, based on the total
population in the cores of CBSAs (and not based on the total population
of a CBSA):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core-Based Statistical Areas Population in Cores
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Megapolitan Areas......................... 1,000,000 and above
Macropolitan Areas........................ 50,000 to 999,999
Micropolitan Areas........................ 10,000 to 49,999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Territory not included in CBSAs should be designated as Outside
Core-Based Statistical Areas.
MASRC addressed several, sometimes incompatible, concerns as it
developed terminology and size levels:
(1) 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;
(2) Introducing specific terms for areas containing cores of
1,000,000 or more persons and cores of 250,000 to 999,999 persons,
respectively;
(3) Evaluating advantages and disadvantages of retaining the
current MA standards' core population threshold of 50,000;
(4) Assessing advantages and disadvantages of retaining the current
MA standards' metropolitan/nonmetropolitan terminology; and
(5) Maintaining simplicity.
With regard to the first two considerations, there was broad
agreement within MASRC that the 1,000,000-person threshold was a
significant delimiter between large urban areas and other areas. Under
the proposed standards, 35 areas, each containing one or more cores
that together have 1990 decennial census populations of 1,000,000 or
more, would account for about 45 percent of the 1990 U.S. population.
Broad agreement also existed in favor of establishing a
micropolitan category as a means of distinguishing between (1) areas
integrated with smaller population centers and (2) territory not
integrated with any particular population center. Defining Micropolitan
Areas represents a response to comments that a new classification
should cover a broader range of population and economic activity
patterns than the current MA standards do. MASRC 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 new classification.
The large core population range (50,000 to 999,999) of the
macropolitan level could limit its utility for analytical and
statistical purposes. An option would be to split this level into two
categories, one identifying areas with cores that together have
populations of 50,000 to 249,999 (``mesopolitan areas'') and the other
identifying areas with cores that together have populations of 250,000
to 999,999 (``macropolitan areas''). Although there was support for
this option, there also was concern that the use of five levels
(including ``Outside CBSAs'') might make the system too complex.
Some members of MASRC expressed the view that the 50,000-person
threshold used in the current MA standards held greater significance
when first adopted by the Census Bureau for defining ``metropolitan
districts'' in 1930 than it does now. The national population has more
than doubled since 1930, and these members reasoned that the resulting
increase in the number of places of 50,000 population or more has
reduced the meaning of this threshold in identifying areas of
metropolitan character. Changes in economic structure also have made
places of this size less self-reliant than they were in the past. On
the other hand, MASRC members observed that retaining the 50,000 person
threshold would offer maximum continuity with current and previous
definitions of MAs.
Some MASRC members favored retaining metropolitan/nonmetropolitan
terminology for use with CBSAs, identifying Megapolitan and
Macropolitan Areas as metropolitan and identifying Micropolitan Areas
and counties Outside CBSAs as nonmetropolitan. The reasoning behind
this position was that identification of metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan areas within the CBSA Classification would provide
continuity with areas defined under the current standards and might be
of benefit to some producers and users of data. Members favoring this
position noted that the top two levels, when combined, approximate the
MAs defined under the current standards and that the lower two levels,
when combined, approximate areas currently referred to as
nonmetropolitan. Others argued that continued identification of areas
as metropolitan and nonmetropolitan might reduce the value of the
levels provided by the CBSA classification, in elaborating on the
current metropolitan/nonmetropolitan dichotomy. Members also suggested
that some data users might find value in analyzing the distribution of
population and economic activities across Megapolitan, Macropolitan,
and Micropolitan Areas as a group and that separation of these levels
by a metropolitan/nonmetropolitan dichotomy would discourage such uses.
2. Recommendations Concerning the Geographic Unit To Be Used as the
Building Block for Defining CBSAs
MASRC recommends using counties and equivalent entities as building
blocks for CBSAs throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.
Using counties and equivalent entities throughout the United States
and Puerto Rico continues current practice, except
[[Page 56634]]
in New England, where MCD-based areas currently constitute the official
MAs.
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 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.
Counties and their equivalents are major and familiar geographic
units of government, performing a wide range of functions, and a wide
range of statistically reliable data is available for them. Far more
Federal statistical programs produce data at the county level than at
any sub-county level. In addition, the use of counties eases comparison
with current and past MA definitions. MASRC decided that the well-known
disadvantages of counties as building blocks 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.
MASRC recommends using MCDs as building blocks for an alternative
set of areas identified in New England only.
At a time when development and maintenance of nationwide data bases
have long since become routine, use of consistent geographic building
blocks in all parts of the country offers improved usability to
producers and users of data. Some statistical programs regard the
current MA program's use of MCDs--cities and towns--in New England as a
hindrance; others avoid difficulties posed by the MCD-based areas by
using the current alternative county-based areas for New England, known
as the New England County Metropolitan Areas. Demographic and economic
data for MCDs in New England, however, are more plentiful than for sub-
county entities in the rest of the Nation. Cities and towns are the
primary units of local government in New England (counties in
Connecticut and Rhode Island, and some counties in Massachusetts, no
longer possess legal or functional status). In reaching its
recommendation to extend the use of counties as building blocks for the
primary set of statistical areas in New England, MASRC attached
priority to the desire for use of a single, consistent geographic unit
nationwide. In recognition of the importance of MCDs in New England,
the wide availability of data for them, and their long-term use in the
MA program, MASRC recommends using MCDs as building blocks for an
alternative set of areas for the six New England states.
3. Recommendations Concerning Cores of CBSAs and Central Counties
MASRC recommends using Census Bureau-defined UAs of 50,000 or more
population and Census Bureau-defined SCs of at least 10,000 population
as cores of CBSAs. MASRC also recommends identifying ``central
counties'' based on the locations of the cores.
The recommended use of UAs as cores is consistent with current
practice. The use of SCs proposed for Census 2000 reflects MASRC's
recommendation to extend the classification to areas based on cores of
10,000 to 49,999 population. This change would permit a fuller
accounting for the distribution of population and economic activity
across the territory of the Nation than is provided by the current MA
standards. Following from this recommendation, the presence of a core
(UA or SC) of at least 10,000 population should be required for
defining a CBSA.
The locations of UAs and SCs should provide the basis for
identifying central counties of CBSAs--the counties to and from which
ties are measured in determining the extent of areas. MASRC recommends
identifying central counties as those counties:
(a) That have at least 50 percent of their population in UAs or SCs
or both; or
(b) That have within their boundaries at least 50 percent of the
population of a UA or SC that crosses county boundaries.
4. Recommendations Concerning Criteria for Inclusion of Outlying
Counties
MASRC recommends using commuting data as the basis for aggregating
counties to form CBSAs (i.e., to qualify ``outlying counties''). MASRC
recommends not using measures of settlement structure, such as
population density, to qualify outlying counties for inclusion in
CBSAs.
Three priorities guided the committee in reaching these
recommendations. First, the data used to measure connections among
counties should describe those connections in a straightforward and
intuitive manner. Second, data for the measure should be collected
using consistent procedures nationwide. Third, the data should 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 between
geographic areas.
The recommendation not to use measures of settlement structure
represents a change from the current MA standards. In those standards,
varying levels of population density, percentage of total population
that is urban, presence of UA population, and population growth rate
are used in combination with varying levels of commuting to determine
qualification of outlying counties for inclusion in an MA. MASRC
concluded that as changes in settlement and commuting patterns as well
as changes in communications technologies have occurred, settlement
structure no longer is as reliable an indicator of metropolitan
character as was previously the case.
MASRC recommends qualifying an outlying county 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. MASRC recommends
using a 25 percent minimum threshold for both measures.
MASRC 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 a similarly straightforward measure of ties. Including both
criteria addresses both the conventional and the less common reverse
commuting flows.
The percentage of workers in the United States who commute to
places of work outside their counties of residence has increased from
approximately 15 percent in 1960 (when nationwide commuting data first
became available from the decennial census) to nearly 25 percent in
1990. In addition, the 25 percent threshold stood out as a noticeable
divide when reviewing 1990 census data concerning the percentage of
workers who commute outside their counties of residence. MASRC
concluded that the pattern in commuting rates and increases in
intercounty commuting over the past 40 years warranted a comparable
increase from the 15 percent minimum commuting threshold currently used
to
[[Page 56635]]
qualify counties--under specified circumstances--for inclusion in MAs.
MASRC recommends that counties 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.
MASRC 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 MA 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. MASRC saw no reason to depart from that approach in
defining CBSAs.
5. Recommendation Concerning Use of Statistical Rules and the Role of
Local Opinion
MASRC recommends limited use 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.
MASRC recommends consideration of local opinion only in cases of CBSA
combinations where adjacent CBSAs meet specified requirements (see E.7
below).
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. MASRC also recommends that OMB use 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.
6. Recommendation Concerning Merging Adjacent CBSAs
MASRC recommends ``merging'' adjacent CBSAs 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.
MASRC 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.
Given the strong ties demonstrated in a merger, the individual areas
should not retain separate identities within the merged entity; rather,
the merged entity should be recognized as a single CBSA.
Because a merger recognizes ties similar to the ties between an
outlying county and the central counties of a CBSA, MASRC 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.
7. Recommendation Concerning Combining Adjacent CBSAs
MASRC recommends ``combining'' CBSAs when entire adjacent areas are
linked through commuting ties.
MASRC recommends that ties between adjacent CBSAs that are less
intense than those captured by mergers (see Section E.6), 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 larger 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.
MASRC recommends basing combinations on the employment interchange
rate between two CBSAs, defined as the sum of the percentage of
commuting from the smaller area to the larger area and the percentage
of employment in the smaller area accounted for by workers residing in
the larger area. MASRC 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. Therefore, MASRC recommends combinations
of CBSAs, based on an employment interchange rate of at least 15 but
less than 25, only if local opinion in both areas favors the
combination. If the employment interchange rate equals or exceeds 25,
combinations should occur automatically.
8. Recommendation Concerning Identification of Principal Cities Within
the Core-Based Statistical Area Classification
MASRC recommends identifying principal cities in CBSAs.
Because the procedures recommended by MASRC identify UAs and SCs as
the organizing entities for CBSAs, the identification of central
cities--required by the current MA standards for defining areas--is no
longer necessary. Also, while still important, central cities have
become less dominant in the local context over time. Nevertheless,
MASRC recognizes that specific cities within individual CBSAs are
important for analytical purposes as centers of employment, trade,
entertainment, and other social and economic activities. MASRC,
therefore, includes in the recommended standards criteria for
identifying principal cities and using the principal cities for titling
areas.
MASRC recommends that the principal city (or cities) of a CBSA
should include: (1) the largest incorporated place or census designated
place (CDP) in the CBSA; (2) any additional incorporated place or CDP
with a population of at least 250,000 or in which 100,000 or more
persons work; and (3) any additional incorporated place or CDP 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.
MASRC 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.
9. Recommendations Concerning Titles of Core-Based Statistical Areas
and Combined Areas
MASRC recommends titling each CBSA 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. MASRC also recommends titling each Combined Area using the
name of the largest principal city in each of up to three CBSAs that
combine, in descending order of CBSA population size.
Titles provide a means of uniquely identifying individual CBSAs and
Combined Areas so that each is recognizable to a variety of data users.
As such, the title of a CBSA or Combined Area should contain the name
or names of geographic entities located within the area that are
prominent and provide data users with a means of easily identifying the
general location of the CBSA. Use of the names of principal cities also
provides a link to the (named) UAs and SCs that form the cores of
CBSAs. Finally, the State(s) in which the CBSA or Combined Area is
located also should be included in the title.
[[Page 56636]]
10. Recommendation Concerning Categories Describing Settlement
Structure Within the Core-Based Statistical Area Classification
MASRC recommends not defining urban, suburban, rural, exurban, and
so forth, within the CBSA Classification.
MASRC recognizes that formal definitions of categories such as
inner city, inner suburb, outer suburb, exurban, and rural would be of
use to the Federal statistical system as well as to researchers,
analysts, and other users of Federal data. Such categories, however,
are not necessary for the delineation of statistical areas that
describe the functional ties between geographic entities. These
additional categories would more appropriately be included in a
separate classification that focuses exclusively on describing
settlement patterns and land uses.
MASRC recommends continuing research by the Census Bureau and other
interested Federal agencies on sub-county settlement patterns to
describe further the distribution of population and economic activity
throughout the Nation.
11. Recommendations Concerning ``Grandfathering'' of Current
Metropolitan Areas
MASRC recommends that the definitions of current MAs not be
automatically retained (``grandfathered'') in the CBSA Classification.
MASRC also recommends that the current status of individual counties as
metropolitan or nonmetropolitan 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 current (1990) MA standards permit changes in
the definitions, or extent, of individual MAs through the addition or
deletion of counties on the basis of each decennial census, but the
standards do not permit the disqualification of MAs that previously
qualified on the basis of a Census Bureau population count. To maintain
the integrity of the classification, MASRC 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. MASRC recommends that the current status of a county as either
metropolitan or nonmetropolitan play no role in the application of the
recommended standards.
12. Recommendations Concerning Intercensal Update Schedule
MASRC recommends designating new CBSAs intercensally on the basis
of Census Bureau population estimates or special censuses for places.
MASRC also recommends updating the extent of CBSAs on the basis of
commuting data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey,
available for all counties beginning in 2008.
The frequency with which new statistical areas are designated and
existing areas updated has been of considerable interest among
producers and users of data for MAs. The sources and future
availability of data for updating areas figured prominently in MASRC's
discussions. The availability of population totals and commuting data
affects the ability to identify new statistical areas, move existing
areas between categories, and update the extent of existing areas.
The current standards provide for the designation of a new MA on
the basis of a population estimate or a special census count for a
city. This approach for designating new areas intercensally would
continue to provide the most consistent and equitable means of
qualifying new CBSAs in the future. 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. (Currently,
population estimates for existing and potential UAs and SCs are not
produced.) A new CBSA also should be designated if a special census
results in delineation of an intercensal UA or SC of 10,000 or more
population.
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. This
update would affect only counties identified as outlying.
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
[[Page 56637]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20OC99.010
[[Page 56638]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20OC99.011
[[Page 56639]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20OC99.012
[[Page 56640]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20OC99.013
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
[[Page 56641]]
F. Comparison of Current Metropolitan Area Standards with the
Recommended Core-Based Statistical Area Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current standards Recommended standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms and Levels................. Identification of Metropolitan Areas Identification of Core-Based
(MAs) comprising Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CBSAs) comprising
Statistical Areas (MSAs), Megapolitan Areas, Macropolitan
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and Micropolitan Areas.
Areas (CMSAs), and Primary Counties that are not included in a
Metropolitan Statistical Areas Megapolitan, Macropolitan, or
(PMSAs). MSAs and PMSAs are Micropolitan Area are classified as
identified as level A, B, C, or D Outside CBSAs. CBSAs are not
areas. MSAs of 1,000,000 or more subdivided into component parts.
population can be designated as CMSAs
if local opinion is in favor and
component PMSAs can be identified.
Building Blocks.................. Counties and equivalent entities Counties and equivalent entities
throughout U.S. and Puerto Rico, throughout U.S. and Puerto Rico.
except in New England where cities City-and-town-based alternative
and towns are used to define MAs. provided for New England States.
County-based alternative provided for
New England States.
Qualification of Areas........... City of at least 50,000 population, or Census Bureau-defined settlement
Census Bureau-defined urbanized area cluster (SC) of at least 10,000
(UA) of at least 50,000 population in population or UA of at least 50,000
an MA of at least 100,000 population. population.
Qualification of Central Counties Any county that includes a central Any county in which at least 50% of
city or at least 50% of the the population is located in UAs and
population of a central city that is SCs, or that has within its
located in a qualifier UA. Also any boundaries at least 50% of the
county in which at least 50% of the population of a UA or SC that
population is located in a qualifier crosses county boundaries.
UA.
Qualification of Outlying Combination of commuting and measures At least 25% of the employed
Counties. of settlement structure residents of the county work in the
o 50% or more of employed central county/counties of a CBSA;
workers commute to the central county/ or at least 25% of the employment in
counties of an MSA and: 25 or more the county is accounted for by
persons per square mile (ppsm), or at workers residing in the central
least 10% or 5,000 of the population county/counties of the CBSA.
lives in a qualifier UA; OR A county that qualifies as outlying
o 40% to 50% of employed to two or more CBSAs will be
workers commute to the central county/ included in the area with which it
counties of an MSA and: 35 or more has the strongest commuting tie.
ppsm, or at least 10% or 5,000 of the
population lives in qualifier UA; OR
o 25% to 40% of employed
workers commute to the central county/
counties of an MSA 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 qualifier UA;
OR
o 15% to 25% of employed
workers commute to the central county/
counties of an MSA 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
qualifier UA; OR
o 15% to 25% of employed
workers commute to the central county/
counties of an MSA 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 qualifier UA.
If a county qualifies as outlying to
two or more MAs, it is assigned to
the area to which commuting is
greatest; if the relevant commuting
percentages are within 5 points of
each other, local opinion is
considered.
Local Opinion.................... Consulted when: Consulted only when two CBSAs qualify
a county qualifies as outlying to two for combination with an employment
different MSAs and the relevant interchange rate of at least 15 and
commuting percentages within 5 points less than 25.
of each other;
o a city or town in New England
qualifies as outlying to two
different MSAs and has relevant
commuting percentages within 5 points
of each other;
o a city or town in New England
qualifies as outlying to an MSA but
has greater commuting to a
nonmetropolitan city or town and the
relevant commuting percentages are
within 5 points of each other;
o combining MSAs whose total
population is less than 1,000,000;
o assigning titles of MSAs,
CMSAs, and PMSAs;
o designating PMSAs.
Merging Statistical Areas........ If a county qualifies as a central Two adjacent CBSAs will be merged to
county of one MSA and as an outlying form one CBSA if the central county/
county on the basis of commuting to a counties (as a group) qualify as
central county of another MSA, both outlying to the central county/
counties become central counties of a counties (as a group) of the other
single MSA. CBSA.
[[Page 56642]]
Combining Statistical Areas...... Two adjacent MSAs are combined as a Two adjacent CBSAs will be combined
single MSA if: (A) the total if the employment interchange rate
population of the combination is at between the two areas is at least
least one million and (1) the 25. The employment interchange rate
commuting interchange between the two is the sum of the percentage of
MSAs is equal to at least 15% of the employed residents of the CBSA with
employed workers residing in the the smaller total population who
smaller MSA, or at least 10% of the work in the CBSA with the larger
employed workers residing in the population and the percentage of
smaller MSA and the UA of a central employment in the CBSA with the
city of one MSA is contiguous with smaller total population that is
the UA of a central city of the other accounted for by workers residing in
MSA, or a central city in one MSA is the CBSA with the larger total
included in the same UA as a central population. Adjacent CBSAs that have
city in the other MSA; AND (2) at an employment interchange rate of at
least 60% of the population of each least 15 and less than 25 may
MSA is urban. (B) the total combine if local opinion in both
population of the combination is less areas favors combination.
than one million and (1) their
largest central cities are within 25
miles of one another, or the UAs 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.
Central Cities................... Central cities include the largest Principal cities include the largest
city in an MSA/CMSA AND each city of incorporated place or census
at least 250,000 population or at designated place in a CBSA AND each
least 100,000 workers AND each city place of at least 250,000 population
of at least 25,000 population and at or in which at least 100,000 persons
least 75 jobs per 100 workers and work AND each place with a
less than 60% out commuting AND each population that is at least 10,000
city of at least 15,000 population and \1/3\ the size of the largest
that is at least \1/3\ the size of place, and in which employment meets
largest central city and meets or exceeds the number of employed
employment ratio and commuting residents.
percentage above AND largest city of
15,000 population or more that meets
employment ratio and commuting
percentage above and is in a
secondary noncontiguous UA AND each
city in a secondary noncontiguous UA
that is at least \1/3\ the size of
largest central city in that UA and
has at least 15,000 population and
meets employment ratio and commuting
percentage above.
Titles........................... Names of up to three central cities in Names of up to three principal cities
descending order of population size. in descending order of population
Local opinion considered under size.
specified conditions.
Grandfathering................... An MSA designated on the basis of Areas that do not meet the minimum
census data according to standards in standards for designation do not
effect at the time of designation qualify.
will not be disqualified on the basis
of lacking a city of at least 50,000
population or a UA of at least 50,000
or a total population of at least
100,000.
Intercensal Updating............. A new MA can be designated A new CBSA can be designated if a
intercensally if a city has a Census city has a Census Bureau population
Bureau population estimate or special estimate of 10,000 or more for two
census count of at least 50,000 or if consecutive years, or a Census
a county containing a UA has a Census Bureau special census count of
Bureau population estimate or special 10,000 or more. The geographic
census count of at least 100,000. extent of each CBSA will be re-
Outlying counties are added to examined in 2008 using commuting
existing MSAs intercensally only when data from the Census Bureau's
(1) a central city located in a American Community Survey.
qualifier UA extends into a county
not included in the MSA 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 MSA
qualifies to combine with an existing
MSA. New central cities can be
designated intercensally on the basis
of a special census count.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Recommended Standards for Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas
for the First Decade of the 21st Century
A Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) is a geographic entity
consisting of the county or counties containing one or more cores of at
least 10,000 population each, plus adjacent counties having a high
degree of social and economic integration with the core(s) as measured
by commuting ties.
1. Requirements for Qualification of Core-Based Statistical Areas
Each CBSA must include a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (UA)
of at least 50,000 population or a Census Bureau-defined settlement
cluster (SC) of at least 10,000 population.
2. Central Counties
The central county or counties of a CBSA are those counties:
(a) That have at least 50 percent of their population in UAs or SCs
or both, or
(b) That have within their boundaries at least 50 percent of the
population of a UA or SC that crosses county boundaries.
A central county of one CBSA may not be the central county of any
other CBSA, but a CBSA may have multiple central counties.
3. Outlying Counties
A county is an outlying county of a CBSA if:
(a) At least 25 percent of the employed residents of the county
work
[[Page 56643]]
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 not be included in more than one CBSA. If a county
qualifies as a central county in 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 to 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 Section 3 above.
5. Terminology and Levels
A CBSA will be assigned a level based on the total population of
all the UAs and SCs within the CBSA (not on the total CBSA population).
Levels of CBSAs are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population in All
Core-Based Statistical Areas Cores
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Megapolitan Areas......................... 1,000,000 and above.
Macropolitan Areas........................ 50,000 to 999,999.
Micropolitan Areas........................ 10,000 to 49,999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties that are not included in CBSAs will be designated as
Outside Core-Based Statistical Areas.
6. Identification of Principal Cities
The principal city (or cities) of a CBSA will 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.
7. Titles of Core-Based Statistical Areas
The title of a CBSA will include the name of the 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 descending order of
population.
The title also will include the name of the State in which the CBSA
is located. If the CBSA extends into multiple States, the State names
will be included in the title in descending order of population size
within the CBSA.
8. Identification of Combined Areas
Any two adjacent CBSAs will be combined if the employment
interchange rate between the two areas is at least 25. The employment
interchange rate between two areas is defined as the sum of the
percentage of employed residents of the area with the smaller total
population who work in the area with the larger total population and
the percentage of employment in the area with the smaller total
population that is accounted for by workers residing in the area 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. CBSAs
that are combined will retain their identities as CBSAs within Combined
Areas.
9. Titles of Combined Areas
The title of a Combined Area will include the name of the largest
principal city in each of up to three CBSAs involved in the combination
in descending order of CBSA population size based on Census 2000
population.
The title also will include the name of the State in which the
Combined Area is located. If the Combined Area extends into multiple
States, the State names will be included in the title in descending
order of population size within the Combined Area.
10. Intercensal Update Schedule
A new CBSA will be designated intercensally if (1) 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 (2) a Census
Bureau special census results in the delineation of a new UA or SC of
10,000 or more population that is outside of any existing CBSA. In the
years up to 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, population estimates, or a special census
count will constitute the central counties for purposes of the 2008
CBSA definition review.
11. General Procedures
Local Opinion. Local opinion is the reflection of the views of the
public and is obtained through the appropriate congressional
delegations. Under the CBSA standards, local opinion is sought only
when two adjacent CBSAs qualify for combination based on an employment
interchange rate of at least 15 and 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.
New England City and Town Areas. The New England City and Town
Areas (NECTAs) provide an alternative to the county-based CBSAs in the
six New England States for the convenience of data users who desire
city-and-town-based areas comparable to previous MA definitions for
this region.
NECTAs will be defined by applying the standards outlined in
Sections 1 through 4 and 6 through 10 above for county-based CBSAs to
data for cities and towns. Levels for NECTAs will not be determined.
Cities and towns not included in a NECTA will be designated ``Outside
NECTAs.''
H. Key Terms
(An asterisk (*) denotes new terms proposed for the purposes of
this report. Two asterisks (**) denote terms whose definitions have
changed for purposes of this report from previous definitions.)
Census designated place (CDP)--A statistical entity equivalent to
an incorporated place, defined for each 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.
**Central county--The county or counties of a Core-Based
Statistical Area containing a substantial portion of an urbanized area
or settlement cluster or
[[Page 56644]]
both, to and from which commuting is measured to determine
qualification of outlying counties.
**Core--A densely settled concentration of population, comprising
either an urbanized area or settlement cluster (of 10,000 or more
population) defined by the Census Bureau, around which a Core-Based
Statistical Area is defined.
*Core-Based Statistical Area--A geographic entity consisting of the
county or counties containing one or more cores (urbanized areas or
settlement clusters or both) that together have at least 10,000
population, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of social and
economic integration with the core(s) as measured through commuting.
*Employment interchange rate--A measure of ties between two
adjacent 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.
*Macropolitan area--A Core-Based Statistical Area containing one or
more cores (urbanized areas or settlement clusters or both) that
together have at least 50,000 population and less than 1,000,000
population, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of social and
economic integration with the core(s).
*Megapolitan area--A Core-Based Statistical Area containing one or
more cores (urbanized areas or settlement clusters or both) that
together have at least 1,000,000 population, plus adjacent counties
having a high degree of social and economic integration with the
core(s).
Metropolitan area (MA)--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.
Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)--A geographic entity, defined
by OMB for statistical purposes, containing a core area with a large
population center and adjacent communities having a high degree of
social and economic integration with that center. Qualification of an
MSA requires a city with 50,000 population or more, or an urbanized
area 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 containing one or
more cores (settlement clusters of at least 10,000 population) that
together have less than 50,000 population, plus adjacent counties
having a high degree of social and economic integration with the
core(s).
Minor civil division (MCD)--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. MCDs are recognized by the
Census Bureau as the county subdivisions of 28 States and the District
of Columbia.
New England county metropolitan area (NECMA)--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 proposed city- and town-
based statistical area defined to provide an alternative to the county-
based Core-Based Statistical Areas in New England.
**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.
*Outside core-based statistical areas--Counties that do not qualify
for inclusion in a Megapolitan, Macropolitan, or Micropolitan Area.
*Principal city--The largest city of a Core-Based Statistical Area,
plus additional cities that meet specified statistical criteria.
*Settlement cluster (SC)--A statistical geographic area proposed
for definition by the Census Bureau for Census 2000, consisting of a
central place(s) and adjacent densely settled territory that together
contain at least 10,000 people, generally with an overall population
density of at least 1,000 people per square mile.
Urbanized area (UA)--A statistical geographic area 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. 99-27351 Filed 10-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P