[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70526-70561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33676]



[[Page 70525]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Office of Management and Budget





_______________________________________________________________________



Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 
Areas; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 1998 / 
Notices  

[[Page 70526]]



OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and 
Nonmetropolitan Areas

AGENCY: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to review the standards currently used to 
define metropolitan areas and to propose standards for defining 
nonmetropolitan areas following the 2000 census.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OMB defines metropolitan areas (MAs) in the United States and 
Puerto Rico for statistical purposes, following published standards. 
Statistical purposes include the collection, tabulation, and 
publication of data by Federal agencies for geographic areas. Decisions 
related to the criteria used to define MAs are made by OMB in 
consultation with members of the Metropolitan Area Standards Review 
Committee (MASRC), a group representing various statistical agencies 
within the Federal Government. The last revision of the MA standards 
was issued in 1990 (see Appendix A). OMB currently is conducting a full 
review of the MA concept and standards.
    This Notice describes potential revisions to the MA standards based 
on findings from the ongoing review. The Notice begins with a brief 
history of the standards and a discussion of why they may need to be 
revised. It then lists the findings of the review process to date, 
distinguishing between points of general agreement and questions still 
needing to be resolved. The Notice presents four approaches to defining 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas that answer in varying ways the 
unresolved questions.
    Issues for Comment: OMB is interested in receiving comments from 
the public on (1) the suitability of the current standards, (2) 
principles that should govern any proposed revisions to the standards, 
(3) reactions to the four approaches outlined in this Notice, and (4) 
proposals for other ways by which to define metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas. In particular, OMB seeks responses to the 
following key questions that will determine how metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas will be defined in the future:
     What geographic unit should be used as the ``building 
block'' for defining areas for statistical purposes?
     What criteria should be used to aggregate the geographic 
building blocks into statistical areas?
     What criteria should be used to define a set of 
statistical areas of different types that together classify all the 
territory of the Nation?

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 12, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to James D. 
Fitzsimmons, Population Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 
20233-8800; fax (301) 457-2644.
    Electronic Data Availability and Comments: This Federal Register 
Notice is available electronically from the OMB home page on the World 
Wide Web: <<http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/fedreg.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>>. Questions about accessing the Federal 
Register online via GPO Access may be directed by telephone to (202) 
512-1530 or toll free to (888) 293-6498; by fax to (202) 512-1262; or 
by E-mail to <<[email protected]>>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James D. Fitzsimmons, Chair, 
Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee, (301) 457-2419, or E-mail 
<<[email protected]>>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline of Notice

Part I.  Background
    A.  What Is a Metropolitan Area?
    B.  What Is the Purpose of Defining Metropolitan Areas?
    C.  How Has the Metropolitan Area Concept Evolved?
    D.  Why Should the Metropolitan Area Standards Be Reviewed for 
Possible Revision?
Part II.  Issues Posed by the Review
    A.  Points of General Agreement
    B.  Questions Remaining to Be Resolved
Part III.  Form and Function in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 
Area Definitions
    A.  Functional Integration
    B.  Metropolitan Character
    C.  Central Cores
    D.  Geographic Building Blocks for Metropolitan and 
Nonmetropolitan Areas
Part IV.  Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and 
Nonmetropolitan Areas
    A.  A Commuting-Based, County-Level Approach to Defining 
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas
    B.  A Commuting-Based, Census Tract-Level Approach to Defining 
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas
    C.  A Directional Commuting, Census Tract-Level Approach to 
Defining Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas
    D.  A Comparative Density, County-Level Approach to Defining 
Statistical Areas
Part V.  Additional Issues for Consideration
    A.  Accounting for Residual Areas
    B.  Development of Multiple Sets of Statistical Areas
    C.  Settlement Types Within Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 
Areas
Part VI.  Sources Cited
Part VII.  Frequently Used Terms
Appendices
    A.  Revised Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas in the 
1990s
    B.  OMB Memorandum M-94-22, ``Use of Metropolitan Area 
Definitions''
    C.  Summary of the Conference on New Approaches to Defining 
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

Part I. Background

A. What Is a Metropolitan Area?

    Currently, an MA consists of a core area containing a large 
population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high 
degree of social and economic integration with that core. MAs generally 
include a city or a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (UA) with 
50,000 or more inhabitants. The county or counties that contain the 
large city or the UA are the central counties of the MA. Additional 
outlying counties are included in the MA if the counties meet specified 
requirements of commuting to or from the central counties and other 
selected requirements of metropolitan character. The term 
``metropolitan area'' is a collective term that refers to metropolitan 
statistical areas (MSAs), consolidated metropolitan statistical areas 
(CMSAs), and primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs). The 
current (1990) standards for defining MAs are included as Appendix A of 
this Notice.

B. What Is the Purpose of Defining Metropolitan Areas?

    MAs are a Federal statistical standard designed solely for the 
preparation, presentation, and comparison of data. Before the MA 
concept was introduced in 1949 with Standard Metropolitan Areas (SMAs), 
inconsistencies between statistical area boundaries and units made 
comparisons of data from Federal agencies difficult. Thus, MAs are 
defined according to specific, quantitative criteria (standards) to 
help government agencies, researchers, and others achieve uniform use 
and comparability of data on a national scale.
    OMB recognizes that some Federal and state agencies are required by 
statute to use MAs for allocating program funds, setting program 
standards, and implementing other aspects of their programs. In 
defining MAs, however, OMB does not take into account or attempt to 
anticipate any of these nonstatistical uses that may be

[[Page 70527]]

made of MAs or their associated data. Agencies that elect to use MAs 
for such nonstatistical purposes are advised that the standards are 
designed for statistical purposes only and that any changes to the 
standards may affect the implementation of programs. This policy was 
documented in OMB memorandum M-94-22, dated May 5, 1994, entitled ``Use 
of Metropolitan Area Definitions'' (see Appendix B).

C. How Has the Metropolitan Area Concept Evolved?

    As early as the first years of the twentieth century, the Federal 
Government recognized the need to identify large cities and their 
surrounding areas as single geographic entities and to provide data at 
that scale for social and economic analysis. Before the adoption of the 
MA concept in the late 1940s, several other kinds of related geographic 
areas were defined. These areas were based on different criteria and 
used by Federal agencies for data reporting purposes. Among these areas 
were the following:
    Industrial Districts. Perhaps the first extensive attempt by the 
Federal Government to define areas based on a metropolitan concept was 
the identification of industrial districts for the 1905 Census of 
Manufactures. The Census Bureau published manufacturing and population 
data for 13 industrial districts composed of minor civil divisions 
(MCDs).
    Metropolitan Districts. When adopted by the Census Bureau in 1910, 
each metropolitan district generally comprised a central city of at 
least 200,000 persons and all adjacent MCDs with population densities 
of at least 150 persons per square mile. Beginning in 1930, 
metropolitan districts were defined for all cities of at least 50,000 
persons, with the additional requirement that each metropolitan 
district have a population of at least 100,000. Metropolitan districts 
were defined in terms of population density; measures of functional 
integration (such as commuting) were not used.
    Industrial Areas. Industrial areas were introduced by the Census 
Bureau in the late-1920s for the Census of Manufactures to provide a 
coherent, integrated unit for reporting data related to industrial 
activity. Each industrial area comprised a county containing an 
important manufacturing city and adjacent counties with significant 
concentrations of manufacturing industries. Each of these areas usually 
employed at least 40,000 factory wage earners. In 1931, there were 33 
recognized industrial areas.
    Labor Market Areas. Before 1950, labor market areas (LMAs) were 
defined by the Bureau of Employment Security and consisted of counties 
and MCDs. Since 1950, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been 
responsible for defining LMAs. Current LMA definitions use MAs as 
starting points and consist of aggregations of counties (see below).
    Lack of geographic comparability limited the use of data reported 
for these and other areas. In the mid-1940s, initial efforts to 
reconcile metropolitan districts and industrial areas failed, in part 
because of tensions between two groups, demographic data providers and 
economic data providers. The former wanted to continue using sub-county 
geographic building blocks to achieve greater precision and to maintain 
historical comparability with metropolitan districts. The latter had 
difficulty identifying precise locations of establishments below the 
county level and also had concerns about the availability and 
confidentiality of sub-county data.
    The Interagency Committee on Standard Metropolitan Areas decided in 
March 1948 that counties would form the building blocks for SMAs. The 
Committee cited the greater availability of data for counties and 
concluded that use of a unit other than the county would restrict the 
amount of information available for SMAs and, consequently, would 
reduce the usefulness of the concept.
    SMAs were first used for reporting data from the 1947 Census of 
Manufactures. The conceptual basis for the SMA was a community of 
nonagricultural workers who resided in and around a large city and were 
socially and economically linked with the central city as measured by 
commuting flows and telephone calls.
    Changes to the standards since their adoption for the 1950 
decennial census are detailed in Table 1. Few significant changes were 
made through the 1960s; those that were made affected the designation 
of central cities forming the cores of MAs. The standards became more 
complex in the 1970s and 1980s, in part to recognize the increasing 
variation in patterns of urban settlement. Requirements for central 
cities were adjusted for the 1980s, with the result that more cities 
were designated as central. Additional changes at that time meant MAs 
included fewer outlying counties, which needed to satisfy commuting 
requirements as well as a number of other criteria, including: 
population growth rate, percent urban population, percent of population 
living inside a UA, and overall population density. The 1990 (current) 
standards differ only modestly from those of the previous decade.
    Since their adoption in the late 1940s, the MA standards have 
acknowledged that within states in New England, cities and towns are 
administratively more important than counties, and that a wide variety 
of data are compiled for these areas. For these reasons, cities and 
towns have been used as the building blocks of MAs in New England. The 
nonagricultural worker requirement that was present in the earlier 
standards was not applied in New England. Also, population density 
requirements differed between New England and elsewhere.
    The standards for New England MAs remain different from the 
standards for the rest of the country. New England County Metropolitan 
Areas'county-based alternatives to the city-and town-based MAs of that 
region--were introduced in 1975 to facilitate comparisons between areas 
in New England and elsewhere.
    In addition to MAs, other statistical area classifications 
currently are in use. These include:
    Labor Market Areas. BLS currently defines LMAs, which are used for 
a variety of purposes, including reporting local area unemployment 
statistics. LMAs follow county boundaries except in New England, where 
towns and cities are the geographic building blocks. BLS defines major 
LMAs based on MSAs and PMSAs as defined by OMB. Outside of MAs, BLS 
defines small LMAs by aggregating counties (or towns) on the basis of 
commuting. LMAs are non-overlapping and geographically exhaustive.
    Economic Areas. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) defines 
economic areas (EAs) for reporting geographically detailed economic 
data and for regional economic analysis. In delineating EAs, BEA 
identifies economic nodes. These nodes consist of 310 MSAs and PMSAs 
(NECMAs in New England) plus 38 nonmetropolitan counties. Each county 
not included in these nodes is analyzed to determine the node with 
which it is most closely associated. Measures such as commuting 
patterns and regional newspaper circulation are used to aggregate 
counties into ``component economic areas,'' which are then aggregated 
to form the final EAs. EAs are county-based, nonoverlapping, and 
geographically exhaustive.
    In sum, the MA concept is part of an historical lineage of 
statistical geographic areas and is one of several

[[Page 70528]]

current areas used by Federal agencies for reporting data.

D. Why Should the Metropolitan Area Standards Be Reviewed for Possible 
Revision?

    The MA standards, like other statistical standards, require review 
to ensure their continued usefulness. Previous reviews and revisions of 
the MA standards were completed in 1958, 1971, 1975, 1980, and 1990.
    Comments received in recent years indicate there are four widely 
held opinions regarding the current MA standards that argue for their 
revision:
     Many users believe the current standards are overly 
complex and burdened with ad hoc criteria. Simplifying the standards 
would improve the chances that the system and its associated data would 
be understood.
     The MA concept has not changed significantly since 1950, 
yet population distribution and activity patterns in the United States 
have changed as a result of changes in transportation and other 
technologies, home/workplace relationships, and patterns of retail and 
other commercial location. Revised MA standards may better represent 
increasingly decentralized settlement and activity patterns.
     Computer-related advances in data collection, storage, and 
analysis, especially in technologies related to data geocoding (data 
linked to its geographic location of occurrence), make it feasible to 
consider a sub-county unit as the basic geographic building block for 
constructing statistical areas to represent settlement.
     MAs do not exhaustively classify the territory of the 
United States. As a result, social and economic linkages within the 
residual, nonmetropolitan territory are not taken into account 
appropriately in statistical data series.

[[Page 70529]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.042



[[Page 70530]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.043



[[Page 70531]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.044



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70532]]

Part II. Issues Posed by the Review

    The MA standards are reviewed for possible revisions before each 
decennial census. The current review began early in this decade and 
already has included commissioned research, publications, 
presentations, discussions, and a conference (see Appendix C for notes 
from the 1995 ``Conference on New Approaches to Defining Metropolitan 
and Nonmetropolitan Areas''). This review process has elicited the 
views of Federal Government data providers, data users in the private 
and academic sectors, and other analysts who use MA data and 
definitions. Results to date include both points of general agreement 
and questions remaining to be resolved.

A. Points of General Agreement

    There seems to be general agreement on the following:
     The Federal Government should continue to define standard 
statistical areas at the metropolitan level.
     Familiar components of settlement, such as those 
represented by today's MA definitions, should be in evidence in a new 
system.
     Revised standards should broaden territorial coverage by 
including and officially recognizing nonmetropolitan components of the 
settlement system.
     These statistical areas should be defined according to 
simplified standards that are applied consistently in all parts of the 
country using the same geographic building blocks.
     If the revised standards define metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas using sub-county building blocks, an associated, 
alternative set of county-based areas also is desired.

B. Questions Remaining to Be Resolved

1. What criteria should be used to define areas that exhaust the 
territory of the Nation?
    One criticism of the current MA standards is that they do not 
account for all of the territory of the United States. Although 
tremendous variation in settlement patterns exists throughout the 
country, the current system defines individual MAs and leaves all 
territory outside MAs simply as ``nonmetropolitan.'' It has been 
suggested that all parts of the U.S. territory, from the most to the 
least populated, should be assigned to a statistical area at the 
metropolitan or nonmetropolitan level. One approach to account for more 
of the country's territory would define statistical areas around cores 
of some minimum size that contain less than the 50,000 population 
minimum required by current MAs. Reducing the required core population 
threshold for statistical areas, however, probably still would leave 
some residual territory, the amount dependent on the core size 
requirement.
    Another approach would be to classify areas based on a measure of 
settlement form such as population density. This approach would account 
for all of the territory of the country, although some of the resulting 
statistical areas probably would be small in geographic extent, 
population size, or both.
    A related issue is the classification of types of locales, such as 
inner city, suburban, exurban, and rural, and whether such types should 
be identified within metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. The 
definitions of MAs in the past have not included such categories.
    2. What geographic unit should be used as the building block for 
defining statistical areas?
    MAs currently consist of entire counties, except in New England 
where towns and cities form the building blocks. Problems with using 
counties in this capacity have been apparent since the earliest 
discussions of MAs, as revealed in this 1946 comment on the relative 
merits of the MCD-based metropolitan district program:
    * * * [T]he metropolitan district, based on small subdivisions of a 
county, comes much closer to representing the central concept of a 
metropolis and its satellite territory than does the metropolitan 
county or group of counties. The metropolitan county arose as a mere 
approximation to the metropolitan district, made necessary by the fact 
that intercensus population data were compiled on a county rather than 
on a minor civil division basis. The use of smaller territorial units 
than metropolitan counties * * * leads to a much more precise analysis 
of labor and housing markets (Bureau of the Census 1946).
    These observations are still pertinent today. Wide regional 
variation in county size presents a problem when comparing data for 
different MAs. Further, the large size of some counties can mask 
smaller, densely populated clusters of settlement, so that patterns of 
social and economic linkages within counties are difficult to 
recognize. The use of smaller geographic building blocks, such as 
county subdivisions or census tracts, might help alleviate these 
problems.
    Although there were critical comments, a key advantage to using 
counties as the geographic building block also was apparent in the 
1940s: a wide range of data is available for counties, with the result 
that areas composed of counties also have considerable data available 
for them. (The range of Federal Government data available at the county 
level that also is, or could be, available for smaller areas is under 
review.) Counties also are familiar to data users, and their relatively 
small number may be seen as an advantage. These issues are taken up in 
more detail in Part III.D.
3. What criteria should be used to aggregate the geographic units into 
statistical areas?
    The current MA system is based on the observation that large urban 
centers have both form and function. The form, or structural 
component--what we see on the landscape--is measured using such 
variables as population size and density. Settlement form largely 
determines the identification of central cities and central counties. 
The functional component--interactions of people and activities among 
places as measured by daily commuting flows--is key to the 
identification of qualified outlying counties. Substantial agreement 
exists that population density (or possibly housing unit density) and 
daily commuting continue to be the best means for defining areas 
consistently nationwide. At the same time, however, many observers 
concur that both the structural and functional components of cities and 
their surroundings have changed significantly since MAs were first 
defined. These components also have grown increasingly complex and 
difficult to measure. Part IV presents a classification based solely on 
measures of form (see Part IV.D), as well as other classifications (see 
Parts IV.A, B, and C) based on a combination of measures of form (to 
identify central cores) and measures of function (to identify outlying 
areas integrated with the core).
4. Should the definition process follow strictly statistical rules, or 
should it take into account local opinion? 
    The current standards take local opinion into account in specified 
circumstances. Application of strictly statistical rules for definition 
purposes would have the advantage of minimizing ambiguity and making 
definition of areas less time-consuming. Consideration of local 
opinion, however, can provide room for accommodating some issues of 
local significance without impairing the integrity of the system.

[[Page 70533]]

5. What should be the frequency of updating?
    In the past, many observers have argued for minimizing changes in 
area definitions during the course of a decade to ensure that data 
bases can be maintained consistently and economically. The counter-
argument is that definitions should be updated to reflect changed 
conditions as rapidly as the data permit. The frequency of updating 
depends in part on decisions concerning basic geographic units, 
criteria for aggregation, and, ultimately, data availability. Recent 
practice has been to review areas annually on the basis of Census 
Bureau population estimates and special censuses.

Part III. Form and Function in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 
Area Definitions

    Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas have characteristics that 
are structural, relating to population settlement form (population 
density, for instance, is a structural measure), and functional, 
reflecting geographic patterns of social and economic linkages that 
contribute to the development of an entire area (examples include daily 
commuting patterns and shopping trips). If a metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan classification is purely structural, such as would be 
the case with areas based solely on population density (and as was the 
case with metropolitan districts before 1950), then only the degree of 
settlement is considered. Settlement form sometimes corresponds to 
patterns of activity and can serve as a surrogate for functional 
elements. If a system is purely functional and defined solely by 
measuring activity, then there is no clear depiction of the urban 
center from which influences arise and around which activity takes 
place. Current MAs make use of both structural and functional measures.
    This portion of the Notice addresses the topics of functional 
integration, metropolitan character (structural characteristics), 
central cores, and geographic units used to define metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas. Throughout this discussion, the phrase 
``metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas'' means those areas defined 
around urban centers of varying size and complexity. ``Metropolitan'' 
refers to those areas defined around larger cores (current MAs have 
cores with at least 50,000 population); ``nonmetropolitan'' refers to 
areas defined around smaller cores. These terminology conventions are 
for the immediate purposes of this discussion.

A. Functional Integration

1. Introduction
    MAs have represented areas of urban influence extending beyond city 
limits. The concept of the MA--a core area containing a large 
population nucleus, together with adjacent areas that have substantial 
measurable interactions with that core--relies heavily on the notion of 
functional integration in determining geographic extent. This section 
discusses metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area functional integration, 
identifying commuting as the most appropriate indicator of functional 
integration.
2. Increasing Complexity of Commuting Patterns
    The functional measure used in the MA standards has been the daily 
journey to work. Commuting identifies the extent of each MA in an 
equitable and uncomplicated way. By establishing place-to-place links 
between workers' homes and places of employment, commuting has provided 
a measure of the economic interactions within an area. MAs are units 
with distinctive identities based, in part, on where people live and 
where they go to work.
    Recently, however, some scholars have suggested that as the United 
States becomes more interdependent, both internally and with the rest 
of the world, the concept of metropolitan functional integration needs 
to be examined more closely (Berry 1995). In addition, the increasing 
popularity of working at home raises questions about the relevance of 
commuting in defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
    Researchers (Fisher and Mitchelson 1981, Lewis 1983, Gordon and 
Richardson 1996, Dear and Flusty 1998) have commented on the growing 
complexity of metropolitan form and commuting patterns. Harvey (1989) 
and Fishman (1990) have noted changes in urban form that reflect larger 
economic forces. These changes call into question the dominance of a 
large population center over adjacent communities that have high levels 
of social and economic interactions with the center. Others, like 
Pressman (1985) and Castells (1989), have identified a new, broader 
functional integration, citing a variety of technological innovations, 
including: (1) the expansion of cellular phone and Internet use; (2) 
the global supremacy of American entertainment, news, and advertising; 
(3) the market swings driven by political events in distant countries; 
(4) the migration of factory out-sourcing and back-office operations to 
low-wage countries; and (5) the speed and flexibility of global finance 
and ability to move large sums of money around the world 
instantaneously. All of these developments suggest a change whereby 
individual places and areas become less important than the network 
structure itself, and small places become single nodes in a complex 
system of social and economic linkages created and organized under 
constantly shifting economic and political circumstances. These 
innovations point to the growing interdependence of places in general 
and some blurring of individual place identities.
    It is equally clear, however, that the Nation remains the sum of 
many economic and social parts. Local and regional economies and labor 
markets continue to show different specialities and levels of 
performance. Local and regional character still exists, built in part 
upon identification of place of residence or work and awareness of the 
locality's history and geography.
    The challenge in defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is 
to select appropriate functions or activities that capture economic and 
social integration within areas and the differences between areas. 
Before reconsidering commuting as a measure of functional integration, 
the following section discusses alternative measures of spatial 
interaction.
3. Alternative Measures
     The Internet provides the newest major medium for 
information flows across the United States. The aspatial nature of the 
Internet, however, poses difficulties for measuring functional 
integration, which assumes the ability to identify the origins and 
destinations of flows. The origin of each Internet session--the 
location of the user--generally is identifiable, but the destination is 
unclear: is it the location of the service provider, the location of 
the server on which a web page resides, or the physical location of the 
owner of the web page? Although Internet use generally involves a 
telephone call to a specific provider location, this is only to gain 
access to the wider web; the distance between the user and the location 
of the owner of the accessed web page is unimportant. Because the link 
between a user and a web page recedes into the background, such 
linkages defy identification as measures of functional integration 
between communities.
     Telephone traffic patterns were used in early MA 
definitions until commuting data became more widely

[[Page 70534]]

available and standardized. Issues concerning telephone service 
coverage largely have disappeared in recent decades.
     Cellular telephone systems provide a measure of the 
functional extent of metropolitan and some nonmetropolitan areas and 
highlight the role played by highway corridors. Coverage is uneven, 
however, due to competition between companies and the spatial 
segregation of different companies' customers. Standardizing the 
rapidly changing information about users and coverage areas is 
difficult.
     Media markets, or penetration patterns, offer an image of 
regions to marketers and advertisers, but many of the data are 
proprietary and exhibit uneven coverage. The advent of the Internet, 
national editions of newspapers, and cable and satellite television 
blurs the traditionally local flavor of media markets.
     Consumer spending could, in principle, provide a view of 
the functional extent of regional and metropolitan areas. Consumer 
expenditure surveys, however, do not provide much data for individual 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas because of limited sample sizes.
    In general, these alternative measures of functional integration 
are not as useful as commuting patterns because they: (1) sometimes 
depend on data that are not collected by Federal agencies and that may 
be subject to errors of unknown kind and magnitude; (2) sometimes are 
not generally accessible by the public (i.e., the measures are 
proprietary, sometimes copyrighted or for sale); (3) are without 
observations that are evenly distributed across the U.S. territory; and 
(4) are not measurable in terms of specific, common geographic units.
4. Continued Usefulness of Commuting Patterns as a Measure
    Notwithstanding criticism of continued reliance on information 
about the daily journey to work, it remains the most reliable and 
broadly available measure of functional integration for two principle 
reasons:
     Commuting to work is still a significant activity for the 
vast majority of workers. Recent years have seen a rise in alternative 
work-residence arrangements. Shortened or irregular work weeks, 
flextime, full-and part-time work at home, and telecommuting some or 
all of the time are gaining in importance. The Census Bureau reported a 
55 percent increase in those working at home between 1980 and 1990, 
from 2.2 million to 3.4 million workers. Still, those working at home 
represented only three percent of all workers in 1990. Ninety-seven 
percent of workers still commute to work and have separate location 
spheres for place-of-work and place-of-residence. This long-term 
pattern reflects the nature of many jobs, for instance, where service 
provision is location-specific or product manufacture occurs in a fixed 
location.
     The spatial patterns of commuting are more complex today 
than in previous decades, but no less important. The spatial structure 
of the urban environment is less consistently monocentric than was the 
case in the early part of the twentieth century. Given the diffusion of 
persons and jobs away from the core, commuting patterns are less likely 
to resemble a hub-and-spoke model than a polycentric structure of 
multiple employment nodes serving a region's needs. The increased 
complexity of these patterns, however, has not meant a decrease in 
their importance.
    Over time, commuting patterns in many areas have become more 
complicated to delineate. Jobs have followed people out of the central 
city (and the central county), but the traditional urban core, with an 
employment-intensive central business district, still exists amidst 
high job growth in suburban areas. Commuting often is multidirectional, 
with no single dominant flow. The net commuting flow between any two 
areas may be quite low, while the gross flows may be substantial.
    Work is still a dominant organizing activity in most people's 
lives. While urban settlement form has changed, the basic movement of 
workers traveling to a different location from where they live 
continues. The geographic extent of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas ``depends upon the commuting range, itself historically 
determined by social and technological conditions'' (Harvey 1989). The 
journey-to-work activity is nearly universal, even as the geographic 
nature of commuting has changed in recent decades. The challenge is to 
model and measure the current nature of commuting patterns to delineate 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

B. Metropolitan Character

1. Introduction
    Since SMAs were first defined in 1949, counties have needed to 
exhibit, in addition to integration (as measured by commuting), other 
attributes referred to collectively as ``metropolitan character'' to 
qualify as outlying. As the March 1958 MA standards noted, ``The 
criteria of metropolitan character relate primarily to the attributes 
of the county as a place of work or as a home for a concentration of 
non-agricultural workers.'' In practice, this has meant an emphasis 
primarily on population density as one aspect of what makes an outlying 
county ``metropolitan.'' This section addresses the suitability of 
including measures of metropolitan character--focusing on population 
density--in standards for defining areas in the next decade.
2. Density and Other Measures of Metropolitan Character
    The initial inclusion of population density in the MA criteria 
reflected some common, contemporary assumptions about U.S. settlement 
patterns in 1949:
     An easily understood built environment: cities were 
densely settled centers of population and economic activity set against 
a backdrop of sparsely settled territory.
     Population density as a proxy for distance from the 
central business district: population density declined as distance from 
an urban center increased.
     Relationship of distance from the urban center and 
population density with social, economic, and cultural attributes of 
the population: urban and rural communities, for example, were 
understood to be different in characteristics ranging from industry and 
occupation to educational attainment and family size.
     Most important, metropolitan form and function were 
invariably linked; that is, metropolitan territory that was linked 
socially and economically necessarily had visible landscape 
characteristics and was typified by high relative population density.
    Five decades of urban, suburban, and exurban growth may have 
subsequently altered the meaning of ``metropolitan character.'' Since 
1949, additional measures of metropolitan character--rapid population 
growth, percentage of urban population, and presence of UA population--
have been added to the standards to measure other important attributes. 
Up-to-date MA standards should continue to reflect the evolving nature 
of settlement patterns and demographic characteristics in the United 
States. Change in this aspect of the standards is not new: for example, 
the 1980 MA standards eliminated a metropolitan character criterion 
pertaining to non-agricultural workers; the steep drop in agricultural 
employment nationwide had made such a criterion irrelevant.
    Enormous variation in population density still exists in the United 
States, from the densely populated sections of

[[Page 70535]]

some older cities to the sparsely settled areas of the interior West. 
An increasing share of the Nation's population, however, resides in a 
built environment that is of neither extremely high nor extremely low 
density. The percentage of the population living in rural areas has 
declined from approximately 29 to 24 since 1950, and the percentage of 
the population living in central cities of metropolitan areas has 
declined from 33 to 31 despite increases in the number of central 
cities. In contrast, the percentage of the Nation's population living 
within MAs but outside central cities has doubled, from 23 to 46. The 
Nation's population steadily has been moving away from landscapes of 
population density extremes, both high and low.
    Population growth in nonmetropolitan America is occurring 
predominantly in the smaller cities and towns, particularly in areas 
adjacent to or near MAs. One consequence of this growth of intermediate 
density areas is a blurring of many of the sharp differences in 
population density that once existed between urban and rural areas or 
between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
    Improvements in communications technology and transportation 
infrastructure also have blunted the differences between high-density 
and low-density areas. In the past, telephones, well-paved roads, and 
railroads connected rural areas with their urban markets, but the 
friction of distance was much higher than today; ideas and cultural 
attitudes traveled according to weekly, monthly, and seasonal rhythms.
    In 1949, settlement form still was intertwined closely with 
function. Areas having high population densities also were those that 
were linked closely with urban centers. The 1949 SMA standards were 
written before the construction of interstate highways and could not 
have anticipated the changes in commuting and settlement patterns 
brought about by high-speed highways. These highways improved access to 
rural, low density areas that previously were beyond the scope of most 
urban influences and daily commuting. With less expensive long distance 
telephone service, interstate highways providing quick and easy access 
to cities and towns, satellite uplinks and commercial television 
broadcasting nationally, and the Internet, population density is a less 
significant variable. Population density no longer correlates with 
differences in industry, occupation, family structure, and other 
variables to the extent that it did 30 to 50 years ago. It is more 
difficult to argue that sparsely settled areas must meet different 
criteria of integration with central cores than areas with higher 
population densities. Consequently, population density has become less 
relevant as a direct measure of ways in which communities are linked 
socially and economically.

C. Central Cores

1. Introduction
    Cores of metropolitan regions continue to be vital centers of 
activity even as the decentralization of many economic and social 
functions continues. Central business districts contain significant 
clusters of government facilities; corporate headquarters; finance, 
insurance, and real estate firms; entertainment complexes; and services 
that cater to these facilities. Many establishments located in suburban 
areas provide services to central city clients and depend heavily upon 
them. While the core has changed over time, it remains a key component 
of metropolitan regions.
    The MA standards always have explicitly incorporated central cores 
as one of the major components in the definition of individual areas 
(see Table 1). Two kinds of changes in central core requirements are 
under consideration--changing minimum population requirements and 
changing criteria for the definition of cores.
2. Changing Minimum Population Requirements
    One option under review would raise the minimum population level 
for the definition of MA cores from 50,000 to 100,000. Doubling the 
current threshold would take into account the significant increase 
(over 100 percent) in the Nation's population since 1930 (the first 
year in which the 50,000 person minimum was used in identifying cores 
of metropolitan districts) and the consequent relative decrease in the 
significance of a core of 50,000 population. The new threshold would 
facilitate greater comparability with another major statistical data 
set, the public use microdata samples (PUMS) from the decennial census, 
which are used extensively by researchers examining metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan issues (Fotheringham and Pellegrini 1996).
    Along with an increase in minimum population size for MA cores, the 
classification would be expanded to address smaller cores as well. By 
including provision for one or two additional sets of areas, the new 
standards could better account for gradations in population focused 
around urban centers of varying size throughout the United States. If 
MA cores were to have a minimum of 100,000 persons, then other sets of 
areas could be defined using cores of (1) at least 10,000 persons and 
less than 50,000 persons, and (2) at least 50,000 persons and less than 
100,000 persons. Identifying coherent nonmetropolitan areas based 
around smaller population centers provides a potential improvement for 
analysts and researchers who are dissatisfied with a system that leaves 
nonmetropolitan areas largely undifferentiated.
3. New Criteria for Defining Cores
    In addition to using places and Census Bureau-defined UAs based on 
population and population density to define metropolitan or 
nonmetropolitan cores, at least four other criteria could be used. One 
alternative would be to use housing unit density as the primary 
defining characteristic. A second alternative would be to combine two 
characteristics, population and employment. This would involve 
calculating ratios that compare the number of individuals employed in a 
geographic area to the number of residents in the same area. The 
explicit use of such an employment measurement in the definition of a 
core would be a logical extension of the use of another employment-
related statistic, commuting patterns, to define those areas that are 
integrated with the core. A third option would be to rely solely on 
employment as the defining characteristic by delineating cores on the 
basis of employment density, defined as the number of jobs per unit of 
area.
    A fourth alternative would use commuting data directly to identify 
cores as those areas that exhibit strong evidence of multi-directional 
commuting. In this approach, multi-directional commuting indicates 
interdependence within the core of an urban area and could be used to 
define inner city and inner suburban territory. Outlying territory 
integrated with a particular core would contain mostly uni-directional 
commuting flows toward that core and could be used to define outer 
suburban territory.
    These different approaches to defining cores of metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas reflect changes in settlement and commuting 
trends, as well as technological improvements in geographic analysis; 
yet, they remain consistent with the tradition of identifying the 
Nation's large urban centers.

[[Page 70536]]

D. Geographic Building Blocks for Metropolitan Areas and 
Nonmetropolitan Areas

1. Introduction
    This section addresses the relative merits of various potential 
geographic building blocks. The geographic unit used to define 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is important to data providers 
and users due to: (1) its effect on the geographic extent of a 
statistical area; (2) its meaningfulness in describing economic and 
social integration between communities; and (3) the ability of Federal 
agencies to provide data for comparable statistical areas and their 
components. The choice of whether to use counties or county 
subdivisions as building blocks for MAs was a central issue in the 
1940s during development of the MA program; resolution of the issue at 
that time favored greater availability of data over greater geographic 
precision in defining social and economic linkages.
    The concerns raised in the 1940s also are central issues in this 
review. Counties are familiar geographic units offering the advantage 
of a wider range of statistically reliable economic and demographic 
data. Because of their geographic extent, however, counties can include 
territory and population not functionally integrated with a specific 
core. Sub-county entities offer greater resolution when analyzing 
economic and demographic patterns, and increased precision when 
defining statistical areas. These smaller units are at a disadvantage, 
however, because fewer economic and demographic data series are 
available for sub-county entities than for counties, and there would be 
less comparability of units defined on this basis with previously 
defined metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
2. Characteristics of the Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area 
Building Blocks
    The geographic entity used as a building block should have the 
following characteristics:
     Consistency. The geographic building block should be 
delineated in a consistent fashion across the Nation. The degree to 
which this is the case both within a state and from one state to 
another affects the ability to make meaningful comparisons of 
demographic and economic data.
     Data Availability and Utility. Data for a geographic 
building block should be available from a wide variety of sources and 
should facilitate the linkage of various data sets.
     Stability of Boundaries. The ability of the geographic 
building block to be flexible in portraying demographic and economic 
change over time in areas is important when defining and analyzing 
social and economic linkages between communities.
     Familiarity. The geographic unit used to define 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas should be meaningful and 
recognizable to a wide range of data users.
    Table 2 details the advantages and disadvantages of using each of 
five geographic units (counties, county subdivisions, census tracts, 
ZIP Codes, and grid cells) as building blocks in relation to the 
characteristics outlined above. The following paragraphs summarize the 
significant issues from Table 2 and discuss related issues of 
confidentiality and data reliability.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70537]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.045



[[Page 70538]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.046



BILLING CODE 311-01-C

[[Page 70539]]

    Counties. Except in New England, counties currently are used to 
define MAs. Counties are well-known, with boundaries that rarely 
change, and they are useful for analyzing data over time. Data 
currently are available for counties from a wide variety of Federal, 
state, and local agencies and less frequently are limited by disclosure 
and statistical reliability issues than sub-county units. Counties, 
however, are established according to state laws and have as their 
primary purpose the administration of local government and provision of 
programs and services. As a result, there is little consistency in 
population size and land area among counties throughout the United 
States. The large size of counties in the West often poses challenges 
to measuring and analyzing localized shifts in population.
    County Subdivisions. County subdivisions currently are used to 
define MAs in New England, and before 1950 were used to define 
metropolitan districts. County subdivisions include MCDs, such as towns 
and townships, and census county divisions (CCDs). MCDs are 
governmental or administrative entities defined according to state 
laws. CCDs are defined for statistical purposes by local officials 
using nationally consistent criteria and guidelines issued by the 
Census Bureau. As with counties, the population sizes and land areas of 
county subdivisions vary both within state and from one state to 
another. Governmentally functioning MCDs in the Northeast as well as 
most CCDs generally have stable boundaries; elsewhere, MCD boundaries 
may change because of annexations or mergers. Redistricting of 
administrative MCDs, particularly in Virginia and North Carolina, can 
result in substantial changes each decade. Accounting for these changes 
could require significant retabulations of data for metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas, potentially compromising comparability of data 
over time. The volume of economic and demographic data collected and 
published for county subdivisions varies, with greater amounts 
available for MCDs with functioning governments and lesser amounts for 
MCDs without functioning governments and CCDs. Despite variations in 
population size and instability of boundaries for some MCDs and CCDs, 
county subdivisions could provide a compromise between the 
disadvantages posed by the geographic extent of counties and the more 
limited availability of economic data for some other sub-county 
geographic units.
    Census Tracts. Local officials define census tracts using 
nationally consistent criteria and guidelines established by the Census 
Bureau. Census tracts have a consistent population size range (between 
1,500 and 8,000, with an optimum of 4,000) to ensure statistical 
reliability of data. Census tracts vary in size and shape and tend to 
reflect contemporary local settlement patterns. Census tracts are meant 
to facilitate analysis of time-series data at a sub-county level, and 
are generally stable. Because they are defined in terms of population 
count, however, census tracts are capable of portraying change over 
time by changing boundaries. If a tract increases in population, it can 
be split to form new census tracts that aggregate to the original 
boundaries. For the 1990 decennial census, approximately 30 percent of 
all census tracts had boundary changes. Although demographic data 
generally are available for census tracts, a key disadvantage is the 
dearth of economic data available at the census tract level. Data for 
census tracts, however, are becoming increasingly important for 
understanding and analyzing patterns of home ownership and economic 
development, as well as the general social and physical environment 
within metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
    ZIP Codes. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) establishes ZIP Codes to 
facilitate efficient mail delivery. ZIP Codes are linear rather than 
areal (i.e., they are routes that mail carriers walk or drive) and as a 
result do not have discrete boundaries. In some instances, when the 
volume of mail is particularly high, a ZIP Code may refer to a specific 
building, a floor within a building, or even a specific office. Because 
ZIP Codes exist for operational purposes, they can be taken out of use 
when the population of an area declines or when the USPS consolidates 
post offices. The USPS, however, sometimes reuses such ZIP Codes in a 
different location, thus creating a false sense of comparability if 
used as geographic areas. Despite their shortcomings as geographic 
units, ZIP Code use is, nevertheless, ubiquitous for collecting and 
reporting information on demographic and economic characteristics as 
well as for carrying out surveys and market analysis studies that 
report on consumption patterns and lifestyle characteristics.
    Grid Cells. Grid cells are not in use currently by Federal 
statistical agencies. If established, however, they could provide ideal 
units for analyzing population change within stable boundaries. If 
relatively small in geographic extent, they also could be useful in 
measuring population change across space. Grid cells would be defined 
consistently nationwide and all would encompass a similar amount of 
territory. Although grid cells may offer advantages from delineation, 
measurement, and analysis standpoints, their lack of familiarity and 
relationship with geographic areas that are more real and familiar to 
people offer significant disadvantages to their use. In addition, 
adoption of grid cells would require data providers to convert from use 
of current geographic entities. Selection of grid cell size would 
require careful consideration of confidentiality and statistical 
reliability concerns.
3. Quality and Availability of Data
    In general, the quality of data for particular areas is related to 
the allocation of questionnaire responses to specific geographic 
entities and to the statistical reliability of the data derived from a 
sample. The geographic precision of data is only as good as the 
completeness of location information provided in the response, and the 
quality of geographic codes assigned to it. This limitation affects the 
ability to report data at varying levels of geography.
    Respondent confidentiality also must be considered when determining 
which geographic area to use as a building block, particularly if data 
are to be reported for components of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas. In general, the larger the number of observations (persons, 
households, establishments within a specific industry) within a 
geographic entity, the greater the ability to protect respondent 
confidentiality.
    Not all Federal data can be provided for every level of geography, 
and the frequency with which Federal data are available also can vary 
by level of geography. Sample size limitations for some demographic 
survey data make survey results reliable only at higher levels of 
geography. The diffuse nature of modern manufacturing processes renders 
some economic data, for instance the amount of value added to a product 
at each step in the manufacturing process, difficult to portray at 
levels of geography below the state or Nation. Data that are available 
only from the decennial census place limitations on the frequency of 
updating some statistical areas. The uncertain availability of 
intercensal population estimates for census tracts, and the likelihood 
that tract-level commuting data from the American Community Survey will 
not be available for all census tracts until 2008, also will affect the 
ability to update metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

[[Page 70540]]

4. Summary
    The choice of a building block should focus on achieving the most 
precise geographic delineation of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas possible, given the constraints of data availability. Collecting, 
processing, and tabulating data at sub-county levels of geography are 
important technical issues that must be resolved within individual 
Federal statistical agencies if a sub-county geographic unit is to be 
used to define metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
    Counties and census tracts offer the greatest promise as potential 
building blocks for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas based on 
current availability and reliability of statistical data, general 
stability of boundaries over time, consistency of definitions, and 
familiarity among data users. Counties and census tracts, therefore, 
are used in the examples of alternative methods for defining 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas that follow in Part IV.

Part IV. Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and 
Nonmetropolitan Areas

    This part presents four alternative approaches to defining 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas: (1) a commuting-based, county-
level approach; (2) a commuting-based, census tract-level approach; (3) 
a directional commuting, census tract-level approach; and (4) a 
comparative population density, county-level approach. Table 3 
summarizes how each approach addresses issues raised in Parts I and II 
of this Notice.
    All four of these approaches differ from the current (1990) MA 
standards in many respects but have points in common with them as well. 
The first three approaches share with the current standards a reliance 
on commuting patterns, but depart from the standards' other criteria 
for inclusion of outlying areas in an MA. None of these three 
approaches uses population density, presence of urban population, or 
rapid population growth to evaluate outlying areas. The fourth approach 
uses population density as an indicator of the relative intensity of 
social and economic activity rather than attempting to identify 
individual cores or to quantify core-outlying area relationships.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.047



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70542]]

    Although these approaches use either counties or census tracts as 
the building blocks for statistical areas, each could be implemented 
using other geographic units discussed in Part III.D. The population 
and commuting thresholds presented for these approaches were selected 
by analyzing 1990 population and commuting patterns but are intended 
primarily for illustrative purposes and are subject to modification 
based on further research and on comments received in response to this 
Notice. In general, each approach should be read, considered, and 
commented upon in terms of its adequacy in defining and describing 
social and economic ties among communities throughout the United 
States.

A. A Commuting-Based, County-Level Approach to Defining Metropolitan 
and Nonmetropolitan Areas

    The MA has been successful as a standard statistical representation 
of the social and economic linkages between urban centers and outlying 
areas. This success is evident in MAs' continued use across broad areas 
of data collection, presentation, and analysis. Nevertheless, some 
users of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area data have strongly 
expressed the view that the current standards are overly complex and 
burdened with ad hoc components. This first proposed alternative 
approach explicitly aims to provide a simpler method of defining 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan regions.
    Four kinds of areas are identified in this approach: metropolitan 
regions, defined around cores of at least 100,000 persons; mesopolitan 
regions, defined around cores of at least 50,000 persons and less than 
100,000 persons; and micropolitan regions, defined around cores of at 
least 10,000 persons and less than 50,000 persons. Counties not 
included in a metropolitan, mesopolitan, or micropolitan region will 
constitute rural community areas.
    In this approach, counties are the building blocks (see Figure 1). 
While this is in keeping with the current standards for most of the 
United States, it is a departure from current practice in New England. 
Outlying counties are included in metropolitan, mesopolitan, and 
micropolitan regions solely on the basis of commuting. Adjacent areas 
are combined when commuting rates indicate that the central counties 
are linked socially and economically. When metropolitan regions are 
combined, the initial metropolitan regions are recognized as primary 
metropolitan regions and the combined entity is recognized as a 
consolidated metropolitan region.
    There are several advantages to this approach. First, counties are 
familiar geographic units for which a wide range of statistically 
reliable social and economic data are readily available. Second, the 
use of counties eases comparison with current and past MA definitions. 
Third, because of the greater availability of data for counties than 
for sub-county entities, statistical area definitions using counties 
can be updated more frequently than others. The potential availability 
of nationwide annual county-level commuting data from the Census 
Bureau's American Community Survey starting in 2003 raises the 
possibility of reviewing all definitions on an annual basis. Under the 
current standards, definition activity during intercensal years is 
largely limited to cases where new MAs can be designated on the basis 
of population estimates or special censuses.
    There are, however, disadvantages to this approach as well. Because 
of their geographic extent, counties can include territory and 
population not functionally integrated with a specific core. The large 
geographic size of some counties often poses challenges to measuring 
and analyzing localized shifts in populations.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.048



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70544]]

1. Criteria for Defining Metropolitan Regions Using the Commuting-
Based, County-Level Approach
a. Requirement for Qualification as a Metropolitan Region
    Each metropolitan region must include a Census Bureau-defined UA of 
at least 100,000 persons.
b. Identification of Central Counties of a Metropolitan Region
    The central county or counties of the metropolitan region are those 
counties where at least 50 percent of the population resides in the 
qualifier UA(s), or that contain at least 50 percent of the population 
of the qualifier UA(s). A central county of one metropolitan region 
cannot be included as an outlying county in another metropolitan region 
in the initial steps for defining metropolitan regions (see IV.A.1.d 
below).
c. Inclusion of Outlying Counties
    A county is included in the metropolitan region as an outlying 
county if at least 25 percent of its resident workers commute to the 
central county or counties, or at least 15 percent of its resident 
workers commute to the central county or counties and at least 15 
percent of its employment is accounted for by workers residing in the 
central county or counties.
    A county that qualifies as an outlying county of more than one 
metropolitan region will be included in the metropolitan region with 
which it has the highest commuting exchange. A county that has a 
combined commuting exchange with central counties of two or more 
metropolitan regions that meets or exceeds the thresholds listed above, 
and is contiguous with counties already qualified for inclusion in 
those metropolitan regions, will be included in the metropolitan region 
with which it has the highest commuting exchange.
    The counties included in the metropolitan region must form a 
continuous geographic entity. A central county of one metropolitan 
region cannot be classified as an outlying county of another 
metropolitan region at this stage in the definition process.
d. Combination of Adjacent Metropolitan Regions
    Two adjacent metropolitan regions are combined if a central county 
of one metropolitan region qualifies as an outlying county of the 
other. If two or more metropolitan regions are combined, the 
metropolitan regions as defined before the combination will be 
designated as primary metropolitan regions and the area resulting from 
the combination will be designated as a consolidated metropolitan 
region.
e. Titles of Metropolitan Regions
    The first name in the title of a metropolitan region or primary 
metropolitan region will be the name of the incorporated place with the 
largest population in the metropolitan region. The names of up to two 
additional incorporated places that are at least one-third the size of 
the largest incorporated place will be included in the metropolitan 
region or primary metropolitan region title in order of descending 
population rank.
    The title of a consolidated metropolitan region will include the 
names of up to three incorporated places, including the first named 
incorporated places in the titles of component primary metropolitan 
regions (to a maximum of three) in order of descending population rank 
of incorporated places.
2. Criteria for Defining Mesopolitan Regions and Micropolitan Regions
    The criteria for defining mesopolitan regions and micropolitan 
regions are the same as those for defining metropolitan regions, with 
two exceptions: the requirements for qualification and the criteria 
pertaining to combining mesopolitan and micropolitan regions. For the 
sake of brevity, only the requirements for qualification and criteria 
for combining adjacent mesopolitan regions and micropolitan regions are 
presented here.
a. Requirements for Qualification of Mesopolitan Regions and 
Micropolitan Regions
    Each mesopolitan region must contain no part of a metropolitan 
region and must include a Census Bureau-defined UA or, outside of UAs, 
an incorporated place of at least 50,000 persons and less than 100,000 
persons. Each micropolitan area must contain no part of a metropolitan 
or mesopolitan region and must include an incorporated place of at 
least 10,000 persons and less than 50,000 persons.
b. Combining Adjacent Mesopolitan Regions and Micropolitan Regions
    Two adjacent mesopolitan regions (or two adjacent micropolitan 
regions) are combined if a central county of one mesopolitan region (or 
one micropolitan region) qualifies as an outlying county of the other.
3. Identification of Rural Community Areas
    Counties not included in a metropolitan, mesopolitan, or 
micropolitan region will form the components of rural community areas. 
Contiguous counties will be grouped according to local opinion to form 
individual rural community areas within each state, subject to 
specified conditions. Titles for rural community areas will be based on 
the same criteria used to title metropolitan, mesopolitan, and 
micropolitan regions.

B. A Commuting-Based, Census Tract-Level Approach to Defining 
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

    This second approach employs a two-stage process. First, it 
identifies statistical settlement areas based around cores of at least 
10,000 persons and their associated daily influence areas. Second, it 
identifies metropolitan, mesopolitan, and micropolitan regions. Census 
tracts are the geographic units used in this approach. In the first 
stage, each statistical settlement area core is identified and linked 
with all qualifying statistical settlement area outlying census tracts 
on the basis of commuting, creating a system of overlapping areas. Any 
core or outlying census tract may be part of two or more statistical 
settlement areas. This outcome is meant to depict the overlapping and 
nested nature of social and economic linkages between communities 
throughout the United States. To account for all the territory of the 
United States, rural community areas are identified representing census 
tracts not contained within statistical settlement areas or their daily 
influence areas.
    The second stage of this approach results in a non-overlapping 
classification, where each statistical area is mutually exclusive of 
all other statistical areas (see Figure 2). Criteria are employed to 
assign each census tract to only one metropolitan, mesopolitan, or 
micropolitan region. Census tracts not included in any of these areas 
are designated as either urban-influenced or rural-influenced, 
depending on whether the tracts meet specified criteria relating to 
commuting ties with cores of metropolitan, mesopolitan, or micropolitan 
regions.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.049



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70546]]

    There are several advantages to this approach. Identifying 
overlapping statistical areas in stage one of the delineation process 
depicts the multiple linkages among communities. Using census tracts as 
building blocks offers greater resolution when analyzing social and 
economic patterns and increased precision when defining statistical 
areas. Census tracts are defined nationwide using a consistent set of 
population guidelines; they are capable of portraying change over time 
and across space as their boundaries are updated to reflect population 
and settlement pattern changes.
    There are disadvantages to this approach as well. First, the 
limited availability of economic and demographic data for census tracts 
at this time limits their use in analysis. Second, it is more difficult 
to compare areas defined using census tracts with MAs defined currently 
and in the past using counties. Third, the uncertain availability of 
intercensal population estimates for census tracts and the likelihood 
that tract-level commuting data from the Census Bureau's American 
Community Survey will not be available for all tracts until 2008 could 
result in a lack of data to update areas during much of the coming 
decade. As a result, metropolitan, mesopolitan, and micropolitan 
regions could be defined after the 2000 decennial census, but not 
updated until 2008 or later. Fourth, tract-level commuting data from 
the 2000 census may be less certain in some nonmetropolitan areas 
(where lists of commercial addresses are less complete and geocoding 
place-of-work locations therefore is more difficult) than in current 
MAs. These uncertainties in the quality of place-of-work geocoding may 
reduce the reliability of journey-to-work data for census tracts with 
small numbers of commuters.
1. Criteria to Establish Statistical Settlement Areas and Their Daily 
Influence Areas
a. Requirement for Qualification as a Statistical Settlement Area
    Each statistical settlement area must include either a Census 
Bureau-defined UA or, outside of UAs, an incorporated place of at least 
10,000 persons.
b. Identification of the Central Core of a Statistical Settlement Area
    The core of a statistical settlement area consists of the census 
tract(s) in which 20 percent or more of the population falls within the 
UA or place identified in the previous step. In addition, at least 70 
percent of the workers living in the statistical settlement area core 
must work within the core. This last criterion ensures that places that 
are strictly ``bedroom communities'' are not identified as cores of 
statistical settlement areas.
c. Qualification of Outlying Areas
    A census tract is included in a statistical settlement area as an 
outlying census tract if at least 25 percent of resident workers in 
that tract commute to work in the core, or if at least 25 percent of 
the employment in the census tract is accounted for by workers residing 
in the core.
d. Titles of Statistical Settlement Areas
    The title of a statistical settlement area will include the name of 
the incorporated place with the largest population. The names of up to 
two additional incorporated places that are at least one-third the size 
of the largest place will be included in the statistical settlement 
area title in order of descending population rank.
e. Identification of Daily Influence Areas
    A census tract is included in the daily influence area of a 
statistical settlement area if at least 5 percent but less than 25 
percent of the resident workers in that tract commute to work in the 
core of the statistical settlement area, or if at least 5 percent but 
less than 25 percent of the employment in the census tract is accounted 
for by workers residing in the core of the statistical settlement area.
f. Identification of Rural Community Areas
    Census tracts not included in any statistical settlement area or 
daily influence area will form the components of rural community areas. 
Contiguous census tracts will be grouped according to specified 
conditions. Titles for rural community areas will be based on the same 
criteria used to title statistical settlement areas.
2. Identification of Metropolitan Regions, Mesopolitan Regions, and 
Micropolitan Regions
    Stage two in this approach provides criteria for identifying 
mutually exclusive metropolitan, mesopolitan, and micropolitan regions, 
and then classifies the remaining territory as urban-influenced or 
rural-influenced.
a. Assigning Territory in Individual Statistical Settlement Areas
    A census tract that is part of the core of more than one 
statistical settlement area will be assigned to the statistical 
settlement area in which it has a larger population within the 
associated qualifier UA. A census tract that is in the core of one 
statistical settlement area and outlying to one or more other 
statistical settlement areas will be included in the statistical 
settlement area in which it is part of the core.
    A census tract that qualifies for inclusion as an outlying census 
tract in more than one statistical settlement area will be assigned to 
the statistical settlement area with which it has the highest level of 
commuting exchange.
    At no time may a statistical settlement area contain discontiguous 
census tracts.
b. Combining Statistical Settlement Areas
    Statistical settlement areas will be combined if the entire core of 
one is integrated with the entire core of the other according to the 
commuting thresholds contained in IV.B.1.c above.
c. Qualification of Outlying Census Tracts in Combined Statistical 
Settlement Areas
    After two or more statistical settlement areas are combined, a 
census tract will qualify for inclusion as an outlying census tract in 
the combined area if its commuting exchange with the combined 
statistical settlement area core(s) meets the criteria outlined in 
IV.B.1.c above.
d. Distinguishing Between Metropolitan Regions, Mesopolitan Regions, 
and Micropolitan Regions
    Any statistical settlement area that contains a Census Bureau-
defined UA of at least 100,000 persons will be designated a 
metropolitan region. Any statistical settlement area not identified as 
a metropolitan region will be designated as a mesopolitan region if it 
contains a Census Bureau-defined UA of at least 50,000 persons and less 
than 100,000 persons, or if outside a UA, an incorporated place of at 
least 50,000 persons. Any statistical settlement area not identified as 
a metropolitan or mesopolitan region will be designated as a 
micropolitan region.
e. Titles of Metropolitan Regions, Mesopolitan Regions, and 
Micropolitan Regions
    Each metropolitan, mesopolitan, or micropolitan region title will 
include the name of the incorporated place with the largest population. 
The names of up to two additional incorporated places that are at least 
one-third the size of the largest place will be included in the 
metropolitan, mesopolitan, or micropolitan region title in order of 
descending population rank.

[[Page 70547]]

f. Identification of Urban-Influenced and Rural-Influenced Census 
Tracts
    After all metropolitan, mesopolitan, and micropolitan regions are 
defined, any unassigned census tract will be identified as urban-
influenced if at least 5 percent but less than 25 percent of the 
resident workers in that tract commute to work in the core of a 
metropolitan, mesopolitan, or micropolitan region, or if at least 5 
percent but less than 25 percent of the employment in the census tract 
is accounted for by workers residing in the core of a metropolitan, 
mesopolitan, or micropolitan region. Any census tract that does not 
meet these commuting criteria will be classified as rural-influenced.

C. A Directional Commuting, Census Tract-Level Approach to Defining 
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

    The directional commuting approach also is a census tract-based 
system. It relies on the direction and relative strength of commuting 
flows to measure social and economic linkages. This concept can be 
visualized by imagining typical commuters driving toward a hypothetical 
center of metropolitan or nonmetropolitan population in the morning and 
away from it in the evening. This approach measures the mean weighted 
direction of all commuting flows from a particular tract toward a 
population center, rather than measuring the percentage of workers who 
commute between central cores and outlying areas (see Figure 3).

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P'

[[Page 70548]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.050



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70549]]

    The spatial characteristics of commuting flows never have been 
explicitly incorporated into the MA standards, even though the links 
between residence and work are inherently spatial. New research using 
disaggregated commuting flow data can measure flow characteristics that 
have been observed by highway and transit planners for decades.
    The directional approach uses the weighted mean direction of 
commuting flows by census tract to associate census tracts with 
population centers. If the weighted mean flow of a given census tract 
is in the direction of a nearby population center, then the tract is 
included within the same statistical area as that center.
    The directional approach for creating areas has one major 
advantage. It can mitigate shortcomings with geocoding place-of-work 
data by generalizing commuting flow. Lack of sufficient place-of-work 
address information may make the geocoding of tract-level commuting 
data from the 2000 decennial census difficult in some nonmetropolitan 
areas where lists of commercial addresses are less complete than in 
current MAs. Uncertainties in the quality of place-of-work geocoding 
may reduce the reliability of sub-county journey-to-work data in the 
absence of techniques such as directional statistical methods.
    Several disadvantages also are associated with this approach. The 
linkage of a census tract with a center of population is subject to a 
specified level of angular tolerance and is subject as well to 
limitations of the commuting data. Implementation of this approach at 
the census tract-level limits annual updating of all metropolitan, 
mesopolitan, and micropolitan region definitions using commuting data 
from the American Community Survey until at least 2008. Other 
disadvantages associated with this approach are similar to those 
outlined in the commuting-based, census tract-level approach discussed 
above.
1. Criteria for Defining Metropolitan Regions, Mesopolitan Regions, and 
Micropolitan Regions
a. Requirements for Qualification
    Each metropolitan region must include a Census Bureau-defined UA of 
at least 100,000 persons. Each mesopolitan region must contain no part 
of a metropolitan region and must include either a Census Bureau-
defined UA of at least 50,000 persons and less than 100,000 persons, or 
if outside a UA, an incorporated place of at least 50,000 persons. Each 
micropolitan region must contain no part of a metropolitan or 
mesopolitan region and must contain an incorporated place of at least 
10,000 persons and less than 50,000 persons.
b. Identification of Metropolitan Region, Mesopolitan Region, and 
Micropolitan Region Population Centers
    Population centers are not cores per se but rather are starting 
points for the statistical analysis of commuting flows. The center 
point used in measuring directionality of commuting flows toward a 
metropolitan region is the ``internal point'' (see Part VII, 
``Frequently Used Terms'') of the qualifier UA of 100,000 or more 
persons; in the case of mesopolitan regions, the center point used is 
the internal point of the qualifier UA of at least 50,000 and less than 
100,000 persons, or, outside UAs, the internal point of the most 
populous incorporated place having at least 50,000 persons. The center 
point used in measuring directionality of commuting flows toward a 
micropolitan region is the internal point of the most populous 
incorporated place having at least 10,000 persons and less than 50,000 
persons.
c. Calculation of Mean Weighted Direction of Commuting Flows
    Statistical areas are delineated based on the weighted mean 
direction of commuting flows for census tracts with respect to 
population centers. A trigonometric formula is used to produce a 
weighted mean direction of flow for each tract of residence. Based on 
that value, a tract is assigned to the relevant nearby population 
center--the UA or place that lies directly in the path of the flow 
vector.
    To associate census tracts' mean commuting flows with population 
centers, it is necessary to specify an angle of inclusion. This means 
determining a level of tolerance so that when a directional mean flow 
is toward a center of population but does not ``hit'' it directly, the 
flow is still associated with the center.
d. Qualification of Census Tracts for Inclusion in a Metropolitan 
Region, Mesopolitan Region, or Micropolitan Region
    A census tract qualifies for inclusion in a metropolitan, 
mesopolitan, or micropolitan region if the largest flow of resident 
workers in the census tract is in the direction of the metropolitan, 
mesopolitan, or micropolitan region population center. If the flows are 
split evenly between two population centers, then local opinion will be 
sought to determine the census tract's assignment.
    Metropolitan, mesopolitan, and micropolitan regions may not contain 
discontiguous census tracts. Under this approach, it is possible that 
the mean weighted commuting flows from census tracts close to a 
population center may point in a direction away from the center and in 
an opposite direction of more remote tracts; in such instances, the 
central census tracts will be included in the metropolitan, 
mesopolitan, or micropolitan region.
2. Identification of Rural Community Areas
    Census tracts not included in a metropolitan, mesopolitan, or 
micropolitan region will form the components of rural community areas. 
Contiguous census tracts will be grouped according to local opinion, 
subject to specified conditions, to form individual rural community 
areas within each state.

D. A Comparative Density, County-Level Approach to Defining Statistical 
Areas

    The three approaches to defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas just described rely upon commuting as the measure of linkages 
between central and outlying areas. Journey-to-work data, however, do 
not accurately depict the activity patterns of people without a 
regular, fixed work location, such as those who work in sales, 
contracting, construction and landscaping trades, and as day- and 
itinerant-laborers; also missed are people who work at home (or people 
not counted in the workforce). In addition, the daily journey to work 
does not describe the many other, non-work activities that define 
relationships between individuals and communities, such as trips 
associated with shopping, recreation, and social and religious 
activities.
    Residential population density can serve as a surrogate for other 
measures of activity in the absence of nationally consistent and 
reliable data sets describing all daily and weekly movements of 
individuals. Under this fourth proposed approach, an index is 
calculated to reflect relative settlement intensities of counties. The 
index number assigned to any given county is determined by multiplying 
its population density ranking ratio at the state level with its 
ranking ratio at the national level (see below). This provides a 
relative measure of activity intensity for comparative purposes 
nationwide by taking into account both the national and state contexts. 
For instance, Natrona County, Wyoming, which constitutes the Casper 
Metropolitan Statistical Area,

[[Page 70550]]

has a low overall population density when compared with most other 
counties in the United States, but it would be assigned a value that 
also reflects its relative importance within Wyoming.
    This approach has several advantages. First, because the 
classification is based solely on residential population density, each 
county's index value can be calculated quickly after 2000 decennial 
census population counts become available (and without waiting for the 
later processing of journey-to-work data). Thereafter, the 
classification could be updated annually using Census Bureau population 
estimates. Second, a wide range of statistically reliable social and 
economic data are readily available for counties. Third, the use of 
counties facilitates comparability with past MA definitions, even 
though this approach differs markedly from the current MA standards. 
Fourth, population density can provide information about the intensity 
of activity or potential activity within a geographic area.
    There are disadvantages to this approach as well. The obvious 
drawback is that social and economic linkages between counties are not 
described directly. Also, the large land area of some counties tends to 
lower overall population densities, and as a result, the index value 
for such a county would be relatively low in spite of relatively high 
population densities in some parts of the county (San Bernardino 
County, California provides a good example). Because population density 
is calculated by dividing total population by total land area, local, 
sub-county variations in population distribution patterns are not 
revealed.
1. Steps in Defining Density-Based Statistical Areas
    a. The overall residential population density for each county is 
calculated by dividing total population by total land area.
    b. All counties within a given state are ranked according to 
population density. The highest-density county is assigned the rank N, 
where N equals the number of counties in the state. The second-highest-
density county is assigned the rank N-1; third-highest, N-2; and so 
forth. For example, if there are 100 counties in a state, then the 
county with the highest population density has a rank of 100; the 
county with the second highest population density is 99.
    c. The state ranking ratio (SRR) of each county is calculated by 
dividing the rank of the county by the total number of counties in the 
state, using the following equation:

SRR = N [N-1, N-2,...]/N

    d. After assigning each county a ranking ratio within the state, 
steps a, b, and c are repeated at the national level. In this 
iteration, N will represent the number of counties within the United 
States (see Figure 4a).

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70551]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.051



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70552]]

    e. Each county is assigned an index number (I) by multiplying its 
state ranking ratio (SRR) and the national ranking ratio (NRR) using 
the following equation:

SRR x NRR = I

    This produces an index value that can be used to classify and 
compare counties throughout the United States in terms of population 
density, and thus relative social and economic importance (see Figure 
4b).
2. Identification of Residential Density-Based Statistical Areas
    This approach would produce index values for all counties that can 
be used for classification into as many density-based levels as needed. 
A five-level classification that ranges between an index value of 0.0 
to .19 at the low end and a value of .80 to 1.0 at the high end 
captures most recognizable aspects of the settlement pattern of the 
United States. Contiguous counties in the same classification level 
then can be identified as individual density-based statistical areas.
3. Titles of Density-Based Statistical Areas
    The title of a density-based statistical area will include the name 
of the incorporated place with the largest population within that area. 
The names of up to two additional incorporated places that are at least 
one-third the size of the largest place will be included in the title 
in order of descending population rank.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70553]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.052



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70554]]

Part V. Additional Issues for Consideration

    This portion of the Notice briefly discusses a few issues that were 
not fully addressed in Parts I through IV. These issues are: (1) how to 
account for residual areas or exhaust the territory of the Nation 
within a statistical area classification; (2) how best to meet data 
producers' and users' desires for both county-based and sub-county-
based classifications; and (3) how to identify various settlement 
categories, such as inner city, suburban, exurban, and rural areas, in 
ways that are useful when analyzing and understanding settlement and 
economic patterns within metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

A. Accounting for Residual Areas

    Three of the four approaches presented in Part IV for defining 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas relied on commuting patterns as 
a measure of linkages between outlying and central areas. In all three 
of these approaches, however, some residual territory could not be 
linked with the central areas. This section discusses methods for 
minimizing this residual territory when defining metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas. These methods could be used individually or in 
combination.
    One means of reducing residual territory is to establish a minimum 
commuting threshold low enough to ensure that all or nearly all 
territory is included within a metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area. 
Although this approach would result in areas that account for all the 
territory of the Nation, the necessary commuting threshold would be so 
low as to call into question the meaningfulness of social and economic 
linkages between centers and some outlying areas. As a result, the 
conceptual integrity of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas would be 
compromised.
    A second method involves identifying cores of varying minimum sizes 
around which metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas are defined using a 
commuting threshold that is sufficiently high to portray meaningful 
linkages. This approach does not eliminate the possibility that 
residual territory will remain, but reduces the extent of residual 
territory to a more meaningful set of areas. This approach is taken in 
Parts IV.A and IV.C.
    A variant of this second approach reduces the extent of residual 
territory by defining influence zones associated with each metropolitan 
and nonmetropolitan area, as outlined in Part IV.B. An outlying area 
that does not qualify for inclusion in a metropolitan or 
nonmetropolitan area could fall within the influence area of a 
metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area. Still, the extent of residual 
territory is reduced rather than eliminated.
    A third approach involves using additional measures of social and 
economic linkages, such as newspaper circulation, media market 
penetration, and commodity flows, in addition to commuting criteria, to 
eliminate residual territory. These other measures would be used as a 
last resort after all outlying areas are added to a metropolitan or 
nonmetropolitan area on the basis of commuting. This approach 
eliminates residual areas by assigning all territory to metropolitan or 
nonmetropolitan areas but in doing so establishes a two-tiered system 
of qualification. As a result, outlying areas within a particular 
metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area may be linked with the core, but 
by different criteria.

B. Development of Multiple Sets of Statistical Areas

    Some data users have expressed an interest in both a county-based 
classification, which offers greater availability of data, and sub-
county-based classifications, which offer greater geographic precision 
when defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Data providers 
and users could choose the classifications that best fit their research 
and analysis needs, guided by advice about appropriate uses of each 
classification. The substantial downside to this approach is the 
potential confusion resulting from the existence of two or more 
parallel classifications. Data providers also would be faced with 
increased costs for preparing data according to two or more 
classifications.

C. Settlement Types Within Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

    Data providers and users have expressed a desire for official 
classification of a variety of settlement types--such as inner city, 
inner and outer suburb, and exurban--within metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas. A key aspect of this issue has been the lack of 
an official designation of what constitutes ``suburban'' territory. 
Designations of such settlement types are not essential to defining 
social and economic linkages among communities within metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas, but they are useful for analyzing and 
understanding settlement patterns. A separate settlement classification 
system that would be consistent with metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas may be appropriate.
    Measures that could be employed in delineating inner city, inner 
suburban, outer suburban, and exurban territory include, in some 
combination:
     median housing unit age or year of housing unit 
construction;
     commuting interchange with central core;
     directionality of commuting patterns;
     population or housing density; and
     road density.
    High population density, older housing stock, multidirectional 
commuting, and contiguity with the inner city are typical of inner 
suburban areas, for example. Outer suburban areas are typified by 
moderate population density and age of housing stock and moderately 
unidirectional commuting flows. Exurban areas typically are of low 
population density, but are distinguished from other sparsely settled 
territory by newer housing and unidirectional commuting flows.

Part VI. Sources Cited

Berry, Brian J.L. 1995. ``Capturing Evolving Realities: Statistical 
Areas for the American Future.'' In Dahmann, Donald C. and James D. 
Fitzsimmons (eds.) Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas: New 
Approaches to Geographical Definition. Working Paper 12. Population 
Division, Bureau of the Census.
Bureau of the Census. 1946. ``Report of the Census Bureau 
Subcommittee on Metropolitan Areas.''
Castells, Manuel. 1989. The Informational City. Oxford: Basil 
Blackwell.
Dear, Michael and Steven Flusty. 1998. ``Postmodern urbanism.'' 
Annals of the Association of American Geographers Vol. 88 (1): 50-
72.
Fisher, James S. and Ronald L. Mitchelson. 1981. ``Extended and 
internal commuting in the transformation of the intermetropolitan 
periphery.'' Economic Geography Vol. 57 (3): 189-207.
Fishman, Robert. 1990. ``America's New City,'' The Wilson Quarterly 
Vol. 14: 24-48.
Fotheringham, A.S. and P.A. Pellegrini. 1996. ``Disaggregate 
Migration Modeling: A comparison of Microdata sources from the U.S., 
U.K., and Canada,'' Area Vol. 28 (3): 347-357.
Gordon, Peter and Harry W. Richardson. 1996. ``Beyond 
polycentricity.'' Journal of the American Planning Association Vol. 
62 (3): 289-295.
Harvey, David. 1989. The Urban Experience. Baltimore: The Johns 
Hopkins University Press.
Lewis, Peirce. 1983. ``The geographic roots of America's urban 
troubles.'' University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, 
College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Vol. 52 (3)
Pressman, N. 1985. ``Forces for spatial change.'' In Brotchie, J., 
et al., eds. The

[[Page 70555]]

Future of Urban Form. London: Croom Helm.

Part VII. Frequently Used Terms

(An asterisk (*) denotes terms proposed for the purposes of this 
Notice)
    Census county division (CCD)--A statistical subdivision of a 
county, established cooperatively by the Census Bureau and state and 
local government authorities, for the presentation of decennial census 
data in 21 states where minor civil divisions either do not exist or 
are unsatisfactory for the collection, presentation, and analysis of 
census statistics.
    Census tract--A small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision 
of a county, delineated cooperatively by local statistical areas 
program participants and the Census Bureau. Census tracts for the 2000 
decennial census will have between 1,500 and 8,000 inhabitants.
    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 an MA containing the 
largest city or urbanized area, and to and from which commuting is 
measured to determine qualification of outlying counties.
    Consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA)--A geographic 
entity defined by OMB for statistical purposes. An area becomes a CMSA 
if it meets the requirements to qualify as a metropolitan statistical 
area, has a population of 1,000,000 or more, contains component parts 
that qualify as primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs), and 
local opinion favors PMSA designation. Whole counties are components of 
CMSAs, except in New England, where they are composed of cities and 
towns.
    County subdivision--A legal (minor civil division) or statistical 
(census county division) subdivision of a county.
    * Daily influence area (DIA)--Territory that is minimally 
associated with a statistical settlement area.
    Functional integration--The linkage of geographic entities 
according to patterns of social or economic interactions.
    Geocoding--The practice of assigning data to a specific geographic 
location and a set of geographic codes.
    * Geographic building block--The geographic unit, such as census 
tract, county subdivision, or county, that forms the basic geographic 
component of a metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area.
    Internal point--A point, generally marking the central location 
within a geographic entity.
    * Mesopolitan region--A geographic entity containing a core area of 
at least 50,000 persons and less than 100,000 persons plus adjacent 
communities having a high degree of social and economic integration 
with that core.
    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 region--A geographic entity containing a core area 
of at least 100,000 persons plus adjacent communities having a high 
degree of social and economic integration with that core.
    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 the presence of a city with 50,000 or more inhabitants, or 
the presence of 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 region--A geographic entity containing a core area 
of at least 10,000 persons and less than 50,000 persons plus adjacent 
communities having a high degree of social and economic integration 
with that core.
    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)--County-based areas 
defined by OMB to provide an alternative to the city-and town-based 
metropolitan statistical areas and consolidated metropolitan 
statistical areas in New England.
    Outlying county--The county or counties that qualify for inclusion 
in a metropolitan area based on commuting ties with central counties 
and other specified measures of metropolitan character.
    Population density--A measure of the number of people per 
geographic unit, usually expressed in terms of people per square mile 
or per square kilometer.
    Population growth rate--The change in a population during a given 
period, as determined by births, deaths, and net migration, and 
commonly expressed as a percentage of the initial population.
    Primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA)--A county or group of 
counties that meet specified statistical criteria and receive local 
opinion support for recognition as a component of a consolidated 
metropolitan statistical area under OMB's metropolitan area standards.
    Qualifier urbanized area--The urbanized area that results in 
qualification of a metropolitan area.
    * Rural community area (RCA)--A geographic entity containing 
geographic units not included within a statistical settlement area, 
metropolitan region, mesopolitan region, or micropolitan region, nor 
within associated influence areas, and defined partly in accordance 
with local opinion.
    * Statistical settlement area (SSA)--A geographic entity containing 
a core of at least 10,000 persons and surrounding communities that are 
linked socially and economically, as measured by commuting.
    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.
Donald R. Arbuckle,
Acting Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Appendix A--Revised Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas in 
the 1990s

Part I. Overview

    Part I gives the structure of this document. Part II describes 
the changes from the previous standards and the reasons for the 
changes. Part III gives the official metropolitan area standards for 
the 1990s. Part IV gives a list of definitions of key terms and 
guidelines used in the standards. The terms in Part IV are listed in 
alphabetical order.
    In Part III, sections 1 through 7 contain the basic standards 
for defining metropolitan statistical areas in all States except the 
New England States. They specify standards for determining: how 
large a population nucleus must be to qualify as an MSA (section 1); 
the central county/counties of the MSA (section 2); additional 
outlying counties with sufficient metropolitan character and 
integration to the central county/counties to qualify for inclusion 
in the MSA (section 3); the central city or cities of each MSA 
(section 4); whether two adjacent MSAs qualify to be combined 
(section 5); four categories or levels of MSAs, based on the total 
population

[[Page 70556]]

of each area (section 6); and the title of each MSA (section 7).
    Sections 8 through 10 provide a framework for identifying PMSAs 
within an MSA of at least one million population. If such PMSAs are 
identified, the larger area of which they are components is 
designated a CMSA.
    Sections 11 through 15 apply only to the New England States. In 
these States, metropolitan areas are composed of cities and towns 
rather than whole counties. Sections 11, 12, and 13 specify how New 
England MSAs are defined and titled. Sections 14 and 15 show how 
CMSAs and PMSAs are defined and titled.
    Section 16 sets forth the standards for updating definitions 
between decennial censuses.

Part II. Changes in the Standards for the 1990s

    The metropolitan area standards for the 1990s generally reflect 
a continuity with those adopted for the 1980s, and they maintain the 
basic concepts originally developed in 1950. The substantive 
modifications of the standards are specified below. Some other 
modifications have been made that involve word changes but not 
substance.
    1. Effective April 1, 1990, the set of areas known as 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), Primary Metropolitan 
Statistical Areas (PMSAs), and Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical 
Areas (CMSAs) will be designated collectively as Metropolitan Areas 
(MAs). The reason for this change is to distinguish between the 
individual areas known as MSAs and the set of all areas.
    2. A small group of counties containing a portion of a city's 
urbanized area will now qualify as outlying, even though their 
population density is relatively low. This change allows the 
inclusion in metropolitan areas of entire urbanized areas.
    3. Counties included solely because they contain at least 2,500 
population in a central city now will be assigned outlying county 
rather than central county status (section 3A(6)). This will ensure 
that additional outlying counties will not be designated solely 
because of commuting with a county including a small portion of the 
central city.
    4. The largest city, and other cities of at least 15,000 in a 
secondary noncontiguous urbanized area within a metropolitan 
statistical area, now may be identified as central cities, provided 
that the other requirements for central cities are met (sections 4E 
and 4F). This allows cities that perform as central cities in 
secondary noncontiguous urbanized areas to be designated as central 
cities.
    5. The employment criterion for inclusion in an area title is 
deleted; only the population criteria remain (section 7). This 
change was made because in 1980 only one area qualified based on 
employment.
    6. A place qualifying as a central city but with less than one-
third the population of the largest city may now be included in the 
metropolitan statistical area title if strongly supported by local 
opinion (section 7A(3)). Communities often have strong views on the 
way their MSAs are titled. This change allows taking these views 
into account.
    7. The presence of a small portion (less than 2,500 population) 
of the largest city of a CMSA in a county no longer precludes 
consideration of that county as a PMSA (section 8B(4)). Such a small 
portion of a city does not alter the characteristics of the PMSA.
    8. We have added standards for intercensal updating of 
metropolitan areas (section 16). These standards existed separately, 
but we felt they should be incorporated into the published 
standards.
    9. Qualifying percentages and ratios are considered to one 
decimal and ratios on the basis of two decimals (in each case, one 
less decimal than previously) (Part IV). The previous standards 
implied a level of accuracy that was not justified.
    10. Several technical adjustments were made (Part IV). For 
example, localities in Puerto Rico officially known as aldeas in 
1980, are now termed comunidades.

Part III. Official Standards for Metropolitan Areas

    Basic Standards. Sections 1 through 7 apply to all States except 
the six New England States, that is, Connecticut, Maine, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. They also 
apply to Puerto Rico.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Those provisions of sections 1 through 7 that are applicable 
to New England are specified in the standards relating to New 
England (sections 11 through 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1. Population Size Requirements for Qualification

    Each metropolitan statistical area must include:
    A. A city of 50,000 or more population, or 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An MSA designated on the basis of census 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. A Census Bureau defined urbanized area of at least 50,000 
population, provided that the component county/counties of the 
metropolitan statistical area have a total population of at least 
100,000.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An MSA designated on the basis of census data according to 
standards in effect at the time of designation will not be 
disqualified on the basis of lacking an urbanized area of at least 
50,000 or a total MSA population of at least 100,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2. Central Counties

    The central county/counties of the MSA are:
    A. Those counties that include a central city (see section 4) of 
the MSA, or at least 50 percent of the population of such a city, 
provided the city is located in a qualifier urbanized area; and B. 
Those counties in which at least 50 percent of the population lives 
in the qualifier urbanized area(s).

Section 3. Outlying Counties

    A. An outlying county is included in an MSA if any one of the 
six following conditions is met:
    (1) At least 50 percent of the employed workers residing in the 
county commute to the central county/counties, and either
    (a) The population density of the county is at least 25 persons 
per square mile, or
    (b) At least 10 percent, or at least 5,000, of the population 
lives in the qualifier urbanized area(s);
    (2) From 40 to 50 percent of the employed workers commute to the 
central county/counties, and either
    (a) The population density is at least 35 persons per square 
mile, or
    (b) At least 10 percent, or at least 5,000, of the population 
lives in the qualifier urbanized area(s);
    (3) From 25 to 40 percent of the employed workers commute to the 
central county/counties and either the population density of the 
county is at least 50 persons per square mile, or any two of the 
following conditions exist:
    (a) Population density is at least 35 persons per square mile,
    (b) At least 35 percent of the population is urban,
    (c) At least 10 percent, or at least 5,000, of the population 
lives in the qualifier urbanized area(s);
    (4) From 15 to 25 percent of the employed workers commute to the 
central county/counties,4 the population density of the 
county is at least 50 persons per square mile, and any two of the 
following conditions also exist:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Also accepted as meeting this commuting requirement are:
    (a) The number of persons working in the county who live in the 
central county/counties is equal to at least 15 percent of the 
number of employed workers living in the county; or
    (b) The sum of the number of workers commuting to and from the 
central county/counties is equal to at least 20 percent of the 
number of employed workers living in the county.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Population density is at least 60 persons per square mile,
    (b) At least 35 percent of the population is urban,
    (c) Population growth between the last two decennial censuses is 
at least 20 percent,
    (d) At least 10 percent, or at least 5,000, of the population 
lives in the qualifier urbanized area(s);
    (5) From 15 to 25 percent of the employed workers commute to the 
central county/counties,4 the population density of the 
county is less than 50 persons per square mile, and any two of the 
following conditions also exist:
    (a) At least 35 percent of the population is urban,
    (b) Population growth between the last two decennial censuses is 
at least 20 percent,
    (c) At least 10 percent, or at least 5,000, of the population 
lives in the qualifier urbanized area(s);
    (6) At least 2,500 of the population lives in a central city of 
the MSA located in the qualifier urbanized area(s).5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See section 4 for the standards for identifying central 
cities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. If a county qualifies on the basis of commuting to the 
central county/counties of two different MSAs, it is assigned to the 
area to which commuting is greatest, unless the relevant commuting 
percentages are within 5 points of each other, in which case local 
opinion about the most appropriate assignment will be considered.

[[Page 70557]]

    C. If a county qualifies as a central county under section 2 and 
also qualifies as an outlying county of another metropolitan area 
under section 3A on the basis of commuting to (or from) another 
central county, both counties become central counties of a single 
merged MSA.

Section 4. Central Cities

    The central city/cities of the MSA are:
    A. The city with the largest population in the MSA;
    B. Each additional city with a population of at least 250,000 or 
with at least 100,000 persons working within its limits;
    C. Each additional city with a population of at least 25,000, an 
employment/residence ratio of at least 0.75, and at least 40 percent 
of its employed residents working in the city;
    D. Each city of 15,000 to 24,999 population that is at least 
one-third as large as the largest central city, has an employment/
residence ratio of at least 0.75, and has at least 40 percent of its 
employed residents working in the city;
    E. The largest city in a secondary noncontiguous urbanized area, 
provided it has at least 15,000 population, an employment/residence 
ratio of at least 0.75, and has at least 40 percent of its employed 
residents working in the city;
    F. Each additional city in a secondary noncontiguous urbanized 
area that is at least one-third as large as the largest central city 
of that urbanized area, that has at least 15,000 population and an 
employment/residence ratio of at least 0.75, and that has at least 
40 percent of its employed residents working in the city.

Section 5. Combining Adjacent Metropolitan Statistical Areas

    Two adjacent MSAs defined by sections 1 through 4 are combined 
as a single MSA provided:
    A. The total population of the combination is at least one 
million, and:
    (1) The commuting interchange between the two MSAs is equal to:
    (a) At least 15 percent of the employed workers residing in the 
smaller MSA, or
    (b) At least 10 percent of the employed workers residing in the 
smaller MSA, and
    (i) The urbanized area of a central city of one MSA is 
contiguous with the urbanized area of a central city of the other 
MSA, or
    (ii) A central city in one MSA is included in the same urbanized 
area as a central city in the other MSA; and
    (2) At least 60 percent of the population of each MSA 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 their urbanized areas are contiguous; and
    (2) There is definite evidence that the two areas are closely 
integrated with each other economically and socially; and
    (3) Local opinion in both areas supports the combination.

Section 6. Levels

    A. Each MSA defined by sections 1 through 5 is categorized in 
one of the following levels based on total population:
    Level A--MSAs of 1 million or more;
    Level B--MSAs of 250,000 to 999,999;
    Level C--MSAs of 100,000 to 249,999; and
    Level D--MSAs of less than 100,000.
    B. Areas assigned to Level B, C, or D are designated as MSAs. 
Areas assigned to Level A are not finally designated or titled until 
they have been reviewed under sections 8 and 9.

Section 7. Titles of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)

    A. The title of an MSA assigned to Level B, C, or D includes the 
name of the largest central city, and up to two additional city 
names, as follows:
    (1) The name of each additional city with a population of at 
least 250,000;
    (2) The names of the additional cities qualified as central 
cities by section 4, provided each is at least one-third as large as 
the largest central city; and
    (3) The names of other central cities (up to the maximum of two 
additional names) if local opinion supports the resulting title.
    B. An area title that includes the names of more than one city 
begins with the name of the largest city and lists the other cities 
in order of their population according to the most recent national 
census.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The largest central city included in an existing 
metropolitan area title will not be resequenced in or displaced from 
that title until both its population and the number of persons 
working within its limits are exceeded by those of another city 
qualifying for the area title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. In addition to city names, the title contains the name of 
each State in which the MSA is located.

Standards for Primary and Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas 
(PMSAs and CMSAs).

    Sections 8 through 10 apply to Level A metropolitan statistical 
areas outside New England.

Section 8. Qualifications for Designation of Primary Metropolitan 
Statistical Areas (PMSAs)

    Within a Level A MSA:
    A. Any county or group of counties that was designated an SMSA 
on January 1, 1980, will be designated a PMSA, unless local opinion 
does not support its continued separate designation for statistical 
purposes.
    B. Any additional county/counties for which local opinion 
strongly supports separate designation will be considered for 
identification as a PMSA, provided one county is included that has:
    (1) At least 100,000 population;
    (2) At least 60 percent of its population urban;
    (3) Less than 35 percent of its resident workers working outside 
the county; and
    (4) Less than 2,500 population of the largest central city of 
the Level A MSA.
    C. A set of two or more contiguous counties for which local 
opinion strongly supports separate designation, and that may include 
a county or counties that also could qualify as a PMSA under section 
8B, also will be considered for designation as a PMSA, provided:
    (1) Each county meets requirements (1), (2), and (4) of section 
8B, and has less than 50 percent of its resident workers working 
outside the county;
    (2) Each county in the set has a commuting interchange of at 
least 20 percent with the other counties in the set; and
    (3) The set of two or more contiguous counties has less than 35 
percent of its resident workers working outside its area.
    D. Each county in the interim Level A MSA, not included within a 
central core under sections 8A through C, is assigned to the 
contiguous PMSA 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 PMSA central core that exceeds 15 percent; and
    (3) Larger than the flow to the county containing the Level A 
MSA's largest central city.
    E. If a county has qualifying commuting ties to two or more PMSA 
central cores and the relevant values are within 5 percentage points 
of each other, local opinion is considered before the county is 
assigned to any PMSA.
    F. The interim PMSA definitions resulting from these procedures 
(including possible alternative definitions, where appropriate) are 
submitted to local opinion. Final definitions of PMSAs are made 
based on these standards, and a review of local opinion.
    G. If any primary metropolitan statistical area or areas have 
been recognized under sections 8 A through F, the balance of the 
Level A metropolitan statistical area, which includes its largest 
central city, also is recognized as a primary metropolitan 
statistical area.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If section 8G would result in the balance of the Level A 
metropolitan statistical area including a noncontiguous county, this 
county will be added to the contiguous primary metropolitan 
statistical area to which the county has the greatest commuting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 9. Levels and Titles of Primary Metropolitan Statistical 
Areas

    A. PMSAs are categorized in one of four levels according to 
total population, following the standards of Section 6A.
    B. PMSAs are titled in either of two ways:
    (1) Using the names of up to three cities in the primary 
metropolitan statistical area that have qualified as central cities 
of the Level A MSA under section 4, following the standards of 
section 7 for selection and sequencing; or
    (2) Using the names of up to three counties in the PMSA, 
sequenced in order from largest to smallest population.
    C. Local opinion on the most appropriate title will be 
considered.

[[Page 70559]]

Section 10. Designation and Titles of Consolidated Metropolitan 
Statistical Areas

    A. A Level A metropolitan statistical area in which two or more 
primary metropolitan statistical areas are identified by section 8 
is designated a consolidated metropolitan statistical area. If no 
primary metropolitan statistical areas are defined, the Level A area 
remains a metropolitan statistical area, and is titled according to 
section 7.
    B. Consolidated metropolitan statistical areas are titled 
according to the following guidelines. Local opinion is always 
sought before determining the title of a consolidated metropolitan 
statistical area.
    (1) The title of each area includes up to three names, the first 
of which is always the name of the largest central city in the area. 
A change in the first-named city in the title will not be made until 
both its population and the number of persons working within its 
limits are exceeded by the those of another city in the consolidated 
area.
    (2) The preferred basis for determining the two remaining names 
is:
    (a) The first city (or county) name that appears in the title of 
the remaining primary metropolitan statistical area with the largest 
total population; and
    (b) The first city (or county) name that appears in the title of 
the primary metropolitan statistical area with the next largest 
total population.
    (3) A regional designation may be substituted for the second 
and/or third names in the title if there is strong local support and 
the proposed designation is unambiguous and suitable for inclusion 
in a national standard.

Standards for New England

    In the six New England States of Connecticut, Maine, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the cities 
and towns are administratively more important than the counties, and 
a wide range of data is compiled locally for these entities. 
Therefore, the cities and towns are the units used to define 
metropolitan areas in these States. The New England standards are 
based primarily on population density and commuting. As a basis for 
measuring commuting, a central core is first defined for each New 
England urbanized area.
    In New England, there is an alternative county-based definition 
of MSAs known as the New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs) 
(see Part IV).

Section 11. New England Central Cores

    A central core is determined in each New England urbanized area 
through the definition of two zones.
    A. Zone A comprises:
    (1) The largest city in the urbanized area;
    (2) Each additional place in the urbanized area or in a 
contiguous urbanized area that qualifies as a central city under 
section 4, provided at least 15 percent of its resident employed 
workers work in the largest city in the urbanized area;8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Also accepted as meeting this commuting requirement are:
    (a) The number of persons working in the subject city or town 
who live in the specified city or area is equal to at least 15 
percent of the employed workers living in the subject city or town; 
or
    (b) The sum of the number of workers commuting to and from the 
specified city or area is equal to at least 20 percent of the 
employed workers living in the subject city or town.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Each additional city or town at least 50 percent of whose 
population lives in the urbanized area or a contiguous urbanized 
area, provided at least 15 percent of its resident employed workers 
work in the largest city in the urbanized area plus any additional 
central cities qualified by section 11A(2).8
    B. Zone B comprises each city or town that has:
    (1) At least 50 percent of its population living in the 
urbanized area or in a contiguous urbanized area; and
    (2) At least 15 percent of its resident employed workers working 
in Zone A.8
    C. The central core comprises Zone A, Zone B, and any city or 
town that is physically surrounded by Zones A or B, except that 
cities or towns that are not contiguous with the main portion of the 
central core are not included.
    D. If a city or town qualifies under sections 11A through C for 
more than one central core, it is assigned to the core to which 
commuting is greatest, unless the relevant commuting percentages are 
within 5 points of each other, in which case local opinion as to the 
most appropriate assignment also is considered.

Section 12. Outlying Cities and Towns

    A. A city or town contiguous to a central core as defined by 
section 11 is included in its metropolitan statistical area if:
    (1) It has a population density of at least 60 persons per 
square mile and at least 30 percent of its resident employed workers 
work in the central core; or
    (2) It has a population density of at least 100 persons per 
square mile and at least 15 percent of the employed workers living 
in the city or town work in the central core.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This commuting requirement is also considered to have been 
met if:
    (a) The number of persons working in the city or town who live 
in the central core is equal to at least 15 percent of the employed 
workers living in the city or town.
    (b) The sum of the number of workers commuting to and from the 
central core is equal to at least 20 percent of the employed workers 
living in the city or town.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. If a city or town has the qualifying level of commuting to 
two different central cores, it is assigned to the metropolitan 
statistical area to which commuting is greatest, unless the relevant 
commuting percentages are within 5 points of each other, in which 
case local opinion as to the most appropriate assignment also is 
considered.
    C. If a city or town has the qualifying level of commuting to a 
central core, but has greater commuting to a nonmetropolitan city or 
town, it will not be assigned to any metropolitan statistical area 
unless the relevant commuting percentages are within 5 points of 
each other, in which case local opinion as to the most appropriate 
assignment will also be considered.

Section 13. Applicability of Basic Standards to New England 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas

    A. An area defined by sections 11 and 12 qualifies as a 
metropolitan statistical area if it contains a city of at least 
50,000 population or has a total population of at least 
75,000.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A New England metropolitan statistical area designated on 
the basis of census data according to standards in effect at the 
time of designation will not be disqualified on the basis of lacking 
a total population of at least 75,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. The area's central cities are determined according to the 
standards of section 4.
    C. Two adjacent New England metropolitan statistical areas are 
combined as a single metropolitan statistical area provided the 
conditions of section 5A are met. Section 5B is not applied in New 
England.
    D. Each New England metropolitan statistical area defined by 
sections 13A through C is categorized in one of the four levels 
specified in section 6A. Areas assigned to Level B, C, or D are 
designated as metropolitan statistical areas. Areas assigned to 
Level A are not finally designated until they have been reviewed 
under sections 14 and 15.
    E. New England metropolitan statistical areas are titled 
according to the standards of section 7.

Section 14. Qualification for Designation of Primary Metropolitan 
Statistical Areas (PMSAs)

    The following are qualifications within a Level A metropolitan 
statistical area in New England:
    A. Any group of cities and towns that was recognized as a 
standard metropolitan statistical area on January 1, 1980, will be 
recognized as a primary metropolitan statistical area, unless local 
opinion does not support its continued separate recognition for 
statistical purposes.
    B. Any additional group of cities and/or towns for which local 
opinion strongly supports separate recognition will be considered 
for designation as a primary metropolitan statistical area, if:
    (1) The total population of the group is at least 75,000;
    (2) It includes at least one city with a population of 15,000 or 
more, an employment/residence ratio of at least 0.75, and at least 
40 percent of its employed residents working in the city;
    (3) It contains a core of communities, each of which has at 
least 50 percent of its population living in the urbanized area, and 
which together have less than 40 percent of their resident workers 
commuting to jobs outside the core; 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 14B(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 Level A MSA; 
and
    (b) At least 20 percent commuting interchange with the component 
core city together with other cities and towns already

[[Page 70559]]

qualified for the core; this interchange also must be greater than 
with any other core or with the largest city of the Level A MSA.
    C. Contiguous component central cores may be merged as a single 
core if:
    (1) Section 14B 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.
    D. Each city or town in the interim Level A MSA not included in 
a core under sections 14A through C is assigned to the contiguous 
PMSA 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 Level A MSA's largest city.
    E. 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 PMSA.
    F. The interim PMSA definitions resulting from these procedures 
(including possible alternative definitions, where appropriate) are 
submitted to local opinion. Final definitions of PMSAs are made 
based on these standards, and a review of local opinion.
    G. If any primary metropolitan statistical area or areas have 
been recognized under sections 14A through F, the balance of the 
Level A metropolitan statistical area, which includes its largest 
city, also is recognized as a primary metropolitan statistical area. 
11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ If section 14G results in the balance of the Level A 
metropolitan statistical area including a noncontiguous city or 
town, this place will be added to the contiguous primary 
metropolitan statistical area to which it has the greatest 
commuting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 15. Levels and Titles of Primary Metropolitan Statistical 
Areas and Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas in New 
England

    A. New England primary metropolitan statistical areas are 
categorized in one of four levels according to total population, 
following section 6A.
    B. New England primary metropolitan statistical areas are titled 
using the names of up to three cities in the primary area that have 
qualified as central cities under section 4, following the standards 
of section 7 for selection and sequencing.
    C. Each Level A metropolitan statistical area in New England in 
which primary metropolitan statistical areas have been identified 
and supported by local opinion (according to section 14) is 
designated a consolidated metropolitan statistical area. Titles of 
New England consolidated metropolitan statistical areas are 
determined following the standards of section 10. A Level A 
metropolitan statistical area in which no primary metropolitan 
statistical areas have been defined is designated a metropolitan 
statistical area, and is titled according to the rules of section 7.

Section 16. Intercensal Metropolitan Area Changes

    A. Definitions.
    (1) A Census Count is a special census conducted by the U.S. 
Bureau of the Census or a decennial census count updated to reflect 
annexations and boundary changes since the census.
    (2) A Census Bureau Estimate is a population estimate issued by 
the U.S. Bureau of the Census for an intercensal year.
    B. Qualification for Designation of a Metropolitan Statistical 
Area. The qualifications for designation are as follows:
    (1) A city reaches 50,000 population according to a Census Count 
or Census Bureau Estimate.
    (2) A nonmetropolitan county containing an urbanized area (UA) 
defined by the Bureau of the Census at the most recent decennial 
census reaches 100,000 population according to a Census Count or 
Census Bureau Estimate. If the potential metropolitan statistical 
area centered on the urbanized area consists of two or more 
counties, their total population must reach 100,000. In New England, 
the cities and towns qualifying for the potential metropolitan 
statistical area must reach a total population of 75,000.
    (3) The Census Bureau defines a new urbanized area based on a 
Census Count after the decennial census, and the potential 
metropolitan statistical area containing the urbanized area meets 
the population requirements of section 16.B(2).
    If a metropolitan statistical area is qualified intercensally by 
a Census Bureau Estimate, the qualification must be confirmed by the 
next decennial census, or the area is disqualified.
    C. Addition of Counties. Counties are not added to metropolitan 
statistical areas between censuses, except as follows:
    (1) If a central city located in a qualifier urbanized area 
extends into a county not included in the metropolitan statistical 
area and the population of the portion of the city in the county 
reaches 2,500 according to a Census Count, then the county qualifies 
as an outlying county and is added to the metropolitan statistical 
area.
    (2) If a metropolitan statistical area qualified intercensally 
under section 16B meets the requirements of section 5B for 
combination with a metropolitan statistical area already recognized, 
that combination may take place and thereby alter the definition of 
the existing metropolitan statistical area.
    D. Qualification for Designation of a Central City. A Census 
Count serves to qualify a central city (section 4) that has failed 
to qualify solely because its population was smaller than required--
for example, it did not qualify as the largest city of the 
metropolitan statistical area (section 4A), or was below 250,000 
(4B), below 25,000 (4C), or below 15,000 (4D-F). If qualification 
requires comparison with the population of another city, comparison 
is made with the latest available Census Bureau Estimate or Census 
Count of the population of the other city.
    E. Area Titles. The title of a metropolitan statistical area, 
primary metropolitan statistical area, or consolidated metropolitan 
statistical area may be altered to include the name of a place that 
has newly qualified as a central city on the basis described in 
section 16D, and that also meets the requirements of section 7. Such 
a change is made by adding the new name at the end of the existing 
title, but cannot be made if the title already contains three names. 
Names in area titles are not resequenced except on the basis of a 
decennial census.
    F. Other aspects of the metropolitan area definitions are not 
subject to change between censuses.

Part IV. General Procedures and Definitions

    This part specifies certain important guidelines regarding the 
data and procedures used in implementing the standards. It also 
gives definitions for ``city,'' ``urbanized area,'' and other key 
terms.

General Procedures

    Local Opinion. Local opinion is the reflection of the views of 
the public on specified matters relating to the application of the 
standards for defining metropolitan areas, obtained through the 
appropriate congressional delegation, and considered after the 
thresholds in the statistical standards have been met. Members of 
the congressional delegation will 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 specified issues. OMB will consider all 
pertinent local opinion material on these matters in determining the 
final definition and title of the area. After a decision has been 
made on a particular matter, OMB will not again request local 
opinion on the same question until after the next national census.
    Local opinion is considered for:
    (a) Combining two adjacent metropolitan statistical areas (of 
less than one million population) whose central cities are within 25 
miles of each other (section 5B).
    (b) Metropolitan statistical area titles (section 7A(3)).
    (c) Identifying primary metropolitan statistical areas within 
consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (sections 8 and 14).
    (d) Titling primary metropolitan statistical areas (sections 9 
and 15).
    (e) Titling consolidated metropolitan statistical areas after 
identification of the largest city (sections 10 and 15).
    (f) Assignment of a county or place that, based on commuting, is 
eligible for inclusion in more than one area (sections 3B, 8E, 11D, 
12B and 12C, and 14E).
    New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs). The New England 
County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs) provide an alternative to the 
official city-and-town-based metropolitan statistical areas in that 
region for the convenience of data users who desire a county-defined 
set of areas.
    The NECMA for a metropolitan statistical area includes:
    1. The county containing the first-named city in the 
metropolitan statistical area title. In some cases, this county will 
contain the

[[Page 70560]]

first-named city of one or more additional metropolitan statistical 
areas.
    2. Each other county which has at least half of its population 
in the metropolitan statistical area(s) whose first-named cities are 
in the county identified in step 1.
    The NECMA for a consolidated metropolitan statistical area also 
is defined by the above rules, except that the New England portion 
of the consolidated metropolitan statistical area which includes New 
York City is used as the basis for defining a separate NECMA. No 
NECMAs are defined for individual primary metropolitan statistical 
areas.
    The central cities of a NECMA are those cities in the NECMA that 
qualify as central cities of a metropolitan statistical area or 
consolidated metropolitan statistical area; some central cities may 
not be included in any NECMA title.
    The title of the NECMA includes each city in the NECMA that is 
the first-named title city of a metropolitan area, in descending 
order of metropolitan statistical area (or primary metropolitan 
statistical area) total population. Other cities that appear in 
metropolitan area titles are included only if the resulting NECMA 
title would consist of no more than three names.
    Levels for NECMAs are determined following section 6A of the 
official metropolitan area standards.
    Percentages, Densities, and Ratios. Percentages and densities 
are computed to the nearest tenth (one decimal); ratios are computed 
to the nearest one hundredth (two decimals); and comparisons between 
them are made on that basis.
    Populations. In general, the population data required by the 
standards are taken from the most recent national census. However, 
in certain situations either (1) the results of a special census 
taken by the Bureau of the Census, or (2) a population estimate 
published by the Bureau of the Census may be used to meet the 
requirements of the standards (section 16).
    Review of Cutoffs and Values. OMB has promulgated these 
standards with the advice of the Federal Executive Committee on 
Metropolitan Areas, following an open period of public comment. 
After the 1990 decennial census data become available, the Federal 
Executive Committee will review the census data and their 
implications for the cutoffs and values used in the standards, and 
will report to OMB the results of its review.

Definitions of Key Terms

    Central Core--The counties (or cities and towns in New England) 
that are eligible for initial delineation as primary metropolitan 
statistical areas because they meet specified population and 
commuting criteria.
    City--The term ``city'' includes:
    (a) Any place incorporated under the laws of its State as a 
city, village, borough (except in Alaska), or town (except in the 
New England States, New York, and Wisconsin). These comprise the 
category of incorporated places recognized in Bureau of the Census 
publications.
    (b) In Hawaii, any place recognized as a census designated place 
by the Bureau of the Census in consultation with the State 
government; in Puerto Rico, any place recognized as a zona urbana or 
a comunidad by the Bureau of the Census in consultation with the 
Commonwealth government. (Hawaii and Puerto Rico do not have legally 
defined cities corresponding to those of most States.)
    (c) Any township in Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, or 
Pennsylvania, and any town in the New England States, New York, or 
Wisconsin, at least 90 percent of whose population is classified by 
the Bureau of the Census as urban, provided it does not contain any 
part of a dependent incorporated place.
    Commuting Interchange--The commuting interchange between two 
areas is the sum of the number of workers who live in either of the 
areas but work in the other.
    County--For purposes of the standards, the term ``county'' 
includes county equivalents, such as parishes in Louisiana and 
boroughs and census areas (formerly census divisions) in Alaska. 
Certain States contain cities that are independent of any county; 
such independent cities in Maryland, Missouri, and Nevada are 
treated as county equivalents for purposes of the standards.
    In Virginia, where most incorporated places of more than 15,000 
are independent of counties, the standards usually regard each such 
city as included in the county from which it was originally formed, 
or primarily formed. In certain exceptional cases, the city itself 
is treated as a county equivalent, as follows:
    (a) An independent city that has absorbed its parent county 
(Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Suffolk, Virginia Beach); and
    (b) An independent city associated with an urbanized area other 
than the one with which its parent county is primarily associated 
(for example, Colonial Heights).
    A county included in a metropolitan area is either a central 
(section 2), or an outlying (section 3) county. An outlying county 
must be contiguous with a central county or with an outlying county 
that has already qualified for inclusion.
    Employment/Residence Ratio--This ratio is computed by dividing 
the number of persons working in the city by the number of resident 
workers with place of work reported. (These items are taken from the 
most recent national census.) For example, a city with an equal 
number of jobs and working residents has an employment/residence 
ratio of 1.00.
    Interim Area--An area that meets the requirements of sections 1 
through 4, or sections 11 through 13, for metropolitan statistical 
area qualification, which needs to be further examined to determine: 
(1) if it qualifies for combination with any adjacent interim area, 
(2) its final level, based on population; and (3) if the area has 1 
million or more population, the identification of primary 
metropolitan statistical areas, if any, and the preferences, 
expressed through local opinion, for consolidated or individual 
identity.
    Largest Central City--The largest central city of a metropolitan 
area is the central city with the greatest population at the time of 
the initial metropolitan area designation. Once determined, the 
largest central city will not be replaced until both its population 
and the number of persons working within its limits are exceeded by 
those of another city in the area.
    Outcommuting--The number (or percent) or workers living in a 
specified area, such as a city or a county, whose place of work is 
located outside that area.
    Qualifier Urbanized Area--The qualifier urbanized area(s) for a 
metropolitan statistical area are:
    1. The urbanized area that resulted in qualification under 
section 1B or the urbanized area containing the city that resulted 
in qualification under section 1A.
    2. Any other urbanized area whose largest city is located in the 
same county as the largest city of the urbanized area identified in 
paragraph one above, or has a least 50 percent of its population in 
that county.
    Secondary Noncontiguous Urbanized Area--An additional urbanized 
area within a metropolitan statistical area that has no common 
boundary of more than a mile with the main urbanized area around 
which the metropolitan statistical area is defined.
    Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area--The term used from 1959 
to 1983 to describe the statistical system of metropolitan areas, 
and the areas as individually defined. It was preceded by Standard 
Metropolitan Area (SMA) from 1950 to 1959, and superseded by 
Metropolitan Statistical Area in 1983. That term was adopted when 
the current system formally recognizing consolidated metropolitan 
statistical areas and their component primary metropolitan 
statistical areas was put in place. The term Metropolitan Area (MA) 
is used to describe the system and the areas collectively, but the 
individual areas will retain the MSA, CMSA, and PMSA nomenclature.
    Urban--The Bureau of the Census classifies as urban:
    (a) The population living in urbanized areas; plus
    (b) The population in other incorporated or census designated 
places of at least 2,500 population at the most recent national 
census.
    Urbanized Area--An area defined by the Bureau of the Census 
according to specific criteria, designed to include the densely 
settled area around a large place. The definition is based primarily 
on density rather than governmental unit boundaries. An urbanized 
area must have a total population of at least 50,000. (See qualifier 
urbanized area and secondary noncontiguous urbanized area).

Appendix B--OMB Memorandum M-94-22, ``Use of Metropolitan Area 
Definitions''

May 5, 1994
M-94-22
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FROM: Leon E. Panetta
SUBJECT: Use of Metropolitan Area Definitions
    On December 28, 1992, the Office of Management and Budget issued 
revised metropolitan area (MA) definitions to reflect shifts in 
population and other demographic changes that had occurred during 
the preceding decade. At the time the revisions

[[Page 70561]]

were announced, we provided guidance (OMB Bulletin 93-05) to Federal 
departments and agencies concerning the use of MA definitions for 
statistical purposes.
    During the past year, we have received a substantial number of 
letters from Members of Congress, local government officials, and 
others involved with administering various Federal programs. For the 
most part, their correspondence has been related to nonstatistical 
uses of the MA definitions in the allocation of Federal program 
funds. Their concerns have highlighted the need to reiterate the 
purposes for which OMB defines metropolitan areas and our advice 
with respect to other uses agencies may make of these definitions.
    The metropolitan area classification provides a nationally 
consistent set of definitions suitable for collecting, tabulating, 
and publishing Federal statistics. The definitions of metropolitan 
areas are established and maintained solely for statistical 
purposes. In periodically reviewing and revising the MA definitions, 
OMB does not take into account or attempt to anticipate any 
nonstatistical uses that may be made of the definitions, nor will 
OMB modify the definitions to meet the requirements of any 
nonstatistical program.
    We recognize that some legislation specifies the use of 
metropolitan areas for programmatic purposes, including allocating 
Federal funds. For example, the Health Care Financing Administration 
uses MAs to define labor market areas and gather hospital wage data 
that are used in developing a hospital wage index for the labor 
related portion of a hospital's standardized Medicare payment. The 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development 
Block Grant (CDBG) program targets 70 percent of CDBG funds to 
``entitlement communities'' which include cities of 50,000 or more 
or central cities of MAs. We will continue to work with the Congress 
to clarify the foundations of the metropolitan area definitions and 
the resultant, often unintended consequences of their use for 
nonstatistical purposes.
    In cases where there is no statutory requirement and an agency 
elects to use the MA definitions in a nonstatistical program, it is 
the sponsoring agency's responsibility to ensure that the 
definitions are appropriate for such use. When an agency is 
publishing for comment a proposed regulation that would use the MA 
definitions for a nonstatistical purpose, the agency should seek 
public comment on the proposed use of the MA definitions.
    I would appreciate your sharing this information with others in 
your department or agency.

    Note: The latest version of OMB Bulletin 93-05, referenced 
above, is OMB Bulletin No. 98-06, issued on June 23, 1998.

Appendix C--Summary of the Conference on New Approaches to Defining 
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

    This conference, held on November 29-30, 1995 in Bethesda, 
Maryland, constituted part of the Office of Management and Budget's 
metropolitan area standards review that is to be completed by spring 
2000. The conference provided an open forum for discussion of 
proposed alternative approaches to defining metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas, as well as discussion of the current 
metropolitan area standards. Presentations of findings from four 
commissioned studies of alternative approaches to defining areas 
were the centerpiece of the conference. Papers from these studies 
were published in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas: New 
Approaches to Geographical Definition, Population Division Working 
Paper No. 12, Bureau of the Census.

Conference Points of General Agreement

     The Federal Government should define standard 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
     The metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas defined 
should cover the entire territory of the United States and better 
account for the full range of settlement patterns than do the 
current, dichotomous metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan 
residual.
     Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas should be 
defined according to the same set of rules for all parts of the 
country.
     A county-based set of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas is necessary, but also there should be alternative, sub-county 
unit-based areas.
     Familiar components of settlement--including those 
represented by today's metropolitan area definitions--should be in 
evidence in a new system.

Conference Views on Major Questions

    The conference explicitly addressed a list of major questions 
that are fundamental to any set of areas defined by the Federal 
Government. These same questions had been addressed in the 
commissioned studies that were the centerpiece of the conference. 
Presented here are summaries of the conference discussions of these 
questions.
    What should be the basic geographic units for defining areas? 
There was strong consensus that there must be a county-based set of 
defined areas for reasons of data availability, comparability, and 
familiarity, but also there were comments favoring additional sets 
of areas based on sub-county units for greater precision and special 
purposes. There were suggestions that multiple sets of areas should 
be provided, along with documentation on appropriate uses of those 
sets. There also were suggestions that the Census Bureau and the 
Office of Management and Budget should facilitate ``do-it-yourself'' 
definitions by making readily available as much small-area data as 
possible.
    What should be the criteria for aggregating the basic units? 
Commuting data as obtained from the decennial census were regarded 
as the best measure for defining areas by most individuals 
addressing this question. 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 density data are useful for some 
purposes within the definition task. Employment density also 
received mention.
    Should there be hierarchies or multiple sets of areas? As 
already noted, there were comments favoring use of different 
geographic units to define sets of areas that would be available for 
different purposes. There also was discussion--without any clear 
outcome--of classifying entities within a nationwide metropolitan/
nonmetropolitan definition framework into such categories as inner 
city and suburban.
    What kinds of areas should receive official recognition? Inner 
city, suburban, and exurban all received mention as areas that 
should be recognized within metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 
but this issue was not fully addressed.
    Should a new system provide nationwide territorial coverage? 
There was strong agreement that the areas defined should cover the 
Nation's entire territory.
    Should the definition process follow strictly statistical rules 
or allow a role for local opinion? There were reservations regarding 
the usefulness of local opinion in a program of standard statistical 
areas, but the majority view expressed was that soliciting local 
opinion can serve a useful purpose, particularly in providing room 
for accommodation on some issues of local significance without 
threatening the integrity of the national system. The incorporation 
of local opinion, two individuals noted, should come early in the 
definition process.
    What should be the frequency of updating? There was little 
discussion of this topic, as the frequency of updating depends 
heavily on decisions concerning basic geographic units, criteria for 
aggregation, and data availability.
    Should the Federal Government define metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas? The overall view was strongly in favor of 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas being defined, although a few 
individuals seemed to support the idea of ceasing the Federal 
Government's activity in this arena altogether. Areas defined by the 
Federal Government offer to a wide community of data users the 
advantage of direct data comparability, i.e., data from different 
sources for areas with the same boundaries. This advantage may rise 
in importance in the face of programs shifting to states. There also 
were those who argued in favor of a standard set of areas on the 
grounds that such areas were useful for non-statistical program 
administration. Others noted that the absence of a standard set of 
areas probably would produce competing sets of areas from different 
Federal agencies.

[FR Doc. 98-33676 Filed 12-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P