[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56628-56644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27351]



[[Page 56627]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Office of Management and Budget





_______________________________________________________________________



Recommendations From the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee 
to the Office of Management and Budget Concerning Changes to the 
Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 1999 / 
Notices  

[[Page 56628]]



OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Recommendations From the Metropolitan Area Standards Review 
Committee to the Office of Management and Budget Concerning Changes to 
the Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: OMB requests comments on recommendations that it has received 
from the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee (MASRC) for 
changes to OMB's metropolitan area (MA) standards. MASRC's report and 
recommendations, which are published in their entirety in the Appendix, 
are the result of a comprehensive review of the MA concept and current 
(1990) standards that began earlier this decade. The review will 
culminate in publication prior to Census 2000 of standards for the 
first decade of the next century.

DATES: To ensure consideration during the final decision making 
process, written comments must be received no later than December 20, 
1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the recommendations should be submitted 
to James D. Fitzsimmons, U.S. Bureau of the Census, IPC-Population 
Division, Washington, DC 20233-8860; fax (301) 457-3034.
    Electronic Data Availability: This Federal Register Notice is 
available electronically from the OMB home page: <<http://
www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/fedreg/index.html>>. Federal Register Notices 
also are available electronically from the U.S. Government Printing 
Office web site: <<http://www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs/aces/
aces140.html>>.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline of Notice

1. Background
2. Review Process
3. Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Federal Register 
Notice of December 21, 1998
4. Overview of MASRC Report
5. Issues for Comment

Appendix--Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the Review 
of the Metropolitan Area Standards and Recommendations for Standards 
for Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas for the First Decade of the 
21st Century

A. Formation of the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee
B. Public Participation and Comment
C. Review Process
D. Principles Guiding Review and Development of Recommendations
E. Issues Under Review
F. Comparison of the Current Metropolitan Area Standards with the 
Recommended Core-Based Statistical Area Standards
G. Recommended Standards for Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas 
for the First Decade of the 21st Century
H. Key Terms

1. Background

    The metropolitan area (MA) program has provided standard 
statistical area definitions at the metropolitan level for 50 years. In 
the 1940s, it became clear that the value of data produced at that 
level by Federal Government agencies would be greatly enhanced if 
agencies used a single set of geographic definitions for the Nation's 
metropolitan areas. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) 
predecessor, the Bureau of the Budget, led the effort to develop what 
were then called ``standard metropolitan areas'' in time for their use 
in 1950 census reports. Since then, vast numbers of directly comparable 
MA data products have been made available to government, business, 
scholars, citizens' organizations, and others interested in studying 
various aspects of MAs.
    The general concept of an MA is that of an area containing a large 
population nucleus and adjacent communities that have a high degree of 
integration with that nucleus. This general concept has remained 
essentially the same since MAs were first defined before the 1950 
census. The purpose of MAs also is unchanged from when they were first 
defined: the classification provides a nationally consistent set of 
definitions for collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal 
statistics for geographic areas. Stated differently, OMB establishes 
and maintains MAs solely for statistical purposes. In reviewing and 
revising MAs, OMB does not take into account or attempt to anticipate 
any public or private sector nonstatistical uses that may be made of 
the definitions.
    The evolution of the standards for defining MAs was discussed in 
detail in OMB's Federal Register Notice of December 21, 1998, 
``Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 
Areas'' (63 FR 70526-70561). Table 1 of the December Notice summarized 
the evolution of MA standards since 1950. (The December Notice is 
available on the OMB web site.)

2. Review Process

    The MA standards are reviewed and, if warranted, revised in the 
years preceding each decennial census. Periodic review of the MA 
standards is necessary to ensure their continued usefulness and 
relevance. The current review of the MA standards--the Metropolitan 
Area Standards Review Project (MASRP)--is the sixth such review; it has 
been especially thorough, reflecting as a first priority users' 
concerns with the conceptual and operational complexity of the 
standards that have evolved over the decades. Other key concerns behind 
the particularly thorough nature of MASRP's efforts have been: (1) 
whether modifications to the standards over the years have permitted 
them to stay abreast of changes in population distribution and activity 
patterns; (2) whether advances in computer applications permit 
consideration of new approaches to defining areas; and (3) whether 
there is a practicable way to capture a more complete range of U.S. 
settlement and activity patterns than the current MA standards capture.
    Specific, major issues addressed by MASRP have included:
     Whether the Federal Government should define metropolitan 
and nonmetropolitan statistical areas;
     The geographic units--``building blocks''--that should be 
used in defining the statistical areas;
     The criteria that should be used to aggregate the building 
blocks in defining the statistical areas;
     Whether the statistical areas should account for all 
territory of the Nation;
     Whether there should be hierarchies or multiple sets of 
statistical areas in the classification;
     The kinds of entities that should receive official 
recognition in the classification;
     Whether the classification should reflect statistical 
rules only or allow a role for local opinion; and
     How frequently statistical areas should be updated.
    This decade's review has included several Census Bureau research 
projects, open conferences held in November 1995 and January 1999, a 
congressional hearing in July 1997, presentations at professional and 
academic conferences, and meetings with Federal, State, and local 
officials.
    In fall 1998, OMB chartered the Metropolitan Area Standards Review

[[Page 56629]]

Committee (MASRC) and charged it with the tasks of examining the 
current MA standards and providing recommendations for possible changes 
to those standards. Agencies represented on MASRC include the Census 
Bureau (Chair), Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Economic Research 
Service (Agriculture), National Center for Health Statistics, and ex 
officio, OMB. The Census Bureau has provided research support to MASRC. 
MASRC's report summarizes the research and review process that led to 
the committee's recommendations (see Appendix, Section C).
    This Notice is the second of three Notices related to the review of 
the standards. The first was published by OMB in the Federal Register 
of December 21, 1998. A summary of comments received in response to 
that Notice is provided in Section 3 below. OMB expects to publish the 
final standards in the third Notice prior to census day (April 1) 2000.
    Ongoing research projects, although not intended to provide 
additional information for formulating final standards for the next 
decade, will further understanding of patterns of settlement and 
activity of the Nation's population and provide information for use in 
future reviews of the standards. Research will continue into aspects of 
all of the alternative approaches (and variations thereof) presented in 
the December 1998 Federal Register Notice. For example, Census Bureau 
staff are investigating the feasibility of developing a census tract-
level classification to identify settlement and land use categories 
along an urban-rural continuum. The Census Bureau also has a project to 
conduct additional research on the comparative density approach 
outlined in the December 1998 Federal Register Notice and is continuing 
research on potential uses of directional commuting statistics in 
defining statistical areas. Outcomes of this work may be featured in 
pilot projects of the Census Bureau or other agencies during the next 
decade.

3. Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Federal Register 
Notice of December 21, 1998

    The December 21, 1998 Federal Register Notice (63 FR 70526-70561) 
called for comments on: (1) the suitability of the current standards, 
(2) the principles that should govern any proposed revisions to the 
standards, (3) reactions to the four approaches outlined in the Notice, 
and (4) proposals for alternative ways to define metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas. The December Notice also called for comments on 
the following questions: (1) What geographic unit should be used as the 
``building block'' for defining areas for statistical purposes? (2) 
What criteria should be used to aggregate the geographic building 
blocks into statistical areas? (3) What criteria should be used to 
define a set of statistical areas of different types that together 
classify all the territory of the Nation?
    A total of 40 comments were received from individuals (ten), 
municipalities (eight), State government agencies (seven), 
nongovernmental organizations (seven), Federal agencies (four), 
chambers of commerce (two), and regional government organizations 
(two).
    Among commenters, the largest number (ten) preferred the commuting-
based, county-level approach (presented in Part IV, Section A of the 
December Notice). Four commenters preferred the commuting-based, census 
tract-level approach (Part IV, Section B). The directional commuting, 
census tract-level approach (Part IV, Section C) was the choice of one 
commenter, and two stated a preference for the comparative density, 
county-level approach (Part IV, Section D). Two commenters preferred 
adoption of both the commuting-based, county-level and the commuting-
based, census tract-level approaches. Twenty-one commenters did not 
indicate a preference for any of the four alternative approaches 
presented. Comment letters generally emphasized specific issues rather 
than overall approaches for classifying areas.
    The issue of what geographic entity to use as a building block for 
defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas drew the largest number 
of comments. Thirty-five of the 40 commenters specifically indicated 
building block preferences. Of these, 25 preferred continued use of 
counties, five preferred use of census tracts, and two preferred use of 
minor civil divisions (MCDs). Three commenters indicated a preference 
for dual classifications--one using counties as building blocks and the 
other using census tracts. Three commenters favored continued use of 
MCDs as building blocks for statistical areas in New England.
    Of the 40 commenters, 24 remarked on the kind of measure to be used 
in aggregating entities to define metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas. Twenty-one favored use of commuting (journey-to-work) data as 
the primary means of determining the geographic extent of metropolitan 
and nonmetropolitan areas. A few commenters, however, expressed concern 
that commuting data do not describe all patterns of activity and, 
therefore, cannot portray all social and economic linkages between 
entities. With respect to specific commuting criteria to be used in 
qualifying entities for inclusion within metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas, one commenter suggested a 30 to 35 percent 
minimum commuting requirement; another suggested a 25 percent minimum 
commuting requirement. No other comments were received regarding 
specific commuting thresholds.
    Central city identification received little attention. Of the four 
commenters who did respond on this issue, three favored continued 
identification of central cities; one favored discontinuing this 
practice. Four comments were received in response to the related issue 
of identifying urban, suburban, rural, and other settlement categories 
as part of the standards. Three commenters favored identification of 
such categories as part of the standards; one commented negatively, 
noting that identification of these categories is a separate issue that 
should be addressed in a classification system that focuses on 
settlement form (i.e., what can be seen on the land) and not functional 
ties (i.e., interactions of people and activities among places).
    Fifteen comments were received on whether and how a statistical 
area classification should account for all territory in the United 
States. Twelve favored development of a classification that accounted 
for all of the territory of the Nation, but they varied considerably on 
how to do so. Three commenters endorsed defining MAs only.
    The role of local opinion in defining metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas drew two comments: one favored a limited use of 
local opinion, such as in naming areas; the other noted that local 
opinion should be solicited in a timely manner.
    Although some commenters did offer alternative proposals for 
geographic entities to be used as building blocks, means of measuring 
the extent of areas, and ways of identifying settlement categories 
within the classification system, no additional proposals for 
alternative approaches to defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas were received.

4. Overview of MASRC Report

    This Federal Register Notice makes available for comment MASRC's 
recommendations to OMB for how the current MA standards should be 
revised. These recommendations are presented in their entirety in 
MASRC's ``Report to the Office of Management

[[Page 56630]]

and Budget on the Review of the Metropolitan Area Standards and 
Recommendations for Standards for Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas 
for the First Decade of the 21st Century,'' provided in the Appendix to 
this Notice. Section G of the Appendix presents for public comment the 
specific standards recommended by MASRC for adoption by OMB. This 
overview summarizes MASRC's recommendations to OMB, with particular 
attention to recommendations that represent noteworthy conclusions and 
changes to the current standards or pertain to issues of special 
importance to users and providers of data for metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas.
    MASRC has recommended a Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) 
Classification to replace the current MA classification. The cores 
(i.e., the densely settled concentrations of population) for this 
classification would be Census Bureau-defined urbanized areas and 
smaller densely settled ``settlement clusters'' identified in Census 
2000. CBSAs would be defined around these cores. This CBSA 
Classification has three types of areas based on the total population 
of all cores in the CBSA: (1) Megapolitan Areas defined around cores of 
at least 1,000,000 population; (2) Macropolitan Areas defined around 
cores of 50,000 to 999,999 population; and (3) Micropolitan Areas 
defined around cores of 10,000 to 49,999 population. The identification 
of Micropolitan Areas extends concepts underlying the core-based 
approach to smaller population centers previously included in a 
``nonmetropolitan residual.''
    MASRC has recommended use of counties and equivalent entities as 
the building blocks for statistical areas throughout the United States 
and Puerto Rico, including the use of counties as the primary building 
blocks for statistical areas in New England. This recommendation does 
not preclude the potential adoption of a sub-county entity as the 
building block for statistical areas in the future. MASRC also has 
recommended that MCDs be used as building blocks for an alternative set 
of statistical areas for the New England States only.
    MASRC has recommended adoption of a single commuting threshold of 
25 percent to establish qualifying linkages between outlying counties 
and counties containing CBSA cores. In addition, MASRC recommends 
eliminating the use of measures of settlement structure, such as 
population density and percent of population that is urban, in 
conjunction with commuting when considering whether outlying counties 
qualify for inclusion. This change reduces the conceptual and 
operational complexity of the standards but may affect the geographic 
extent of some existing areas defined according to the current MA 
standards.

5. Issues for Comment

    With this Notice, OMB requests comments on the recommendations it 
has received from MASRC concerning revisions to the current standards 
for defining MAs. The standards recommended to OMB for adoption are 
presented in Section G of MASRC's report. The complete report is 
included in the Appendix to this Notice to provide information on the 
review process and a context for MASRC's recommendations. In 
particular, Section E of the report provides a discussion of the 
recommendations on the various issues considered by MASRC. Section F 
presents a comparison of the current MA standards with the recommended 
CBSA Classification. OMB would appreciate receiving views and comments 
on any aspects of the recommended standards.
John T. Spotila,
Adminstrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Appendix--Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the 
Review of the Metropolitan Area Standards and Recommendations for 
Standards for Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas for the First 
Decade of the 21st Century

Prepared by the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee

[Transmittal Memorandum]
September 20, 1999
Memorandum for Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of 
Management and Budget
From: Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee
Subject: Transmittal of Report and Recommendations for Standards for 
Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas

    We are pleased to transmit to you the attached report presenting 
this committee's recommendations for modifying the Office of Management 
and Budget's (OMB's) standards for defining metropolitan areas. The 
recommendations are outlined and discussed in Section E of the report. 
They represent our best technical and professional advice for how the 
standards could better account for and describe changes in settlement 
and activity patterns throughout the United States and Puerto Rico yet 
still meet the data reporting needs and requirements of Federal 
agencies and the public.
    Our recommendations for a Core-Based Statistical Area 
Classification are the product of a ten-year review process. During 
that time, a research program was designed and implemented to determine 
whether the current (1990) standards were in need of revision as well 
as to identify and evaluate alternative approaches to defining 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Section A of our report 
discusses the formation of the Metropolitan Area Standards Review 
Committee (MASRC) and outlines the tasks assigned by OMB. Section B 
reports on the means by which the public participated in the review 
process and provided comments. Sections C and D, respectively, report 
on research efforts that have been conducted as part of this review and 
the principles that have guided the development of recommendations. 
Section E outlines the issues that have been under review and reports 
on decisions reached by MASRC, based on our evaluation of research 
results and consideration of related public comments. Section F 
provides a comparison of the current metropolitan area standards with 
the standards recommended by MASRC. Section G presents the specific 
standards recommended by MASRC. Finally, Section H provides definitions 
of key terms used in the report.
    We hope that OMB will find this report with its accompanying 
recommendations informative and helpful in making its decision on what 
changes, if any, to adopt in the standards for defining geographic 
areas for collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics.

Attachment

Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the Review of the 
Metropolitan Area Standards and Recommendations for Standards for 
Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas for the First Decade of the 
21st Century

A. Formation of the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee

    In fall 1998, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
reconstituted the Federal Executive Committee on Metropolitan Areas as 
the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee (MASRC). Agencies 
represented on MASRC include the Census Bureau (Chair), Bureau of 
Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics, Economic Research Service (Agriculture), National Center 
for Health Statistics, and ex officio, OMB.
    OMB charged MASRC with the tasks of examining the current (1990)

[[Page 56631]]

metropolitan area (MA) standards and alternative approaches to 
statistical definitions of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and 
providing recommendations to OMB for possible changes to the current 
standards. Completion of this charge required: (1) Identifying current 
statistical uses of MAs and assessing whether and how those uses might 
better be met; (2) reviewing the conceptual underpinnings of the 
current MA standards and their continued usefulness; (3) assessing the 
extent to which any changes in the standards should reflect changes in 
computing technology on how MAs are or can be defined and maintained; 
(4) developing and empirically testing potential changes in the 
standards; and (5) ensuring ample opportunity for widespread public 
participation in the review process.

B. Public Participation and Comments

    Public participation and comments, obtained through a variety of 
formats, have provided important guideposts for the review of the MA 
standards. Beginning early in the decade, OMB and Census Bureau staff 
received comments and suggestions from Federal, State, and local 
officials; representatives of the private sector; researchers; and 
other data users through meetings, responses to presentations at 
academic and professional conferences, and at a Congressional hearing 
held in July 1997.
    OMB requested formal public comment on MA concepts and standards 
through the Federal Register Notice ``Alternative Approaches to 
Defining Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas,'' that was published 
on December 21, 1998. During the public comment period for the Notice, 
a seminar and open forum were held in Alexandria, Virginia, on January 
21 and 22, 1999. Comments received in response to the Notice and at the 
seminar and open forum were considered by MASRC during its development 
of recommendations.
    Between January and August 1999, Census Bureau staff also 
participated in, and offered presentations at, some 20 meetings and 
conferences around the country attended by Federal statistical program 
participants, State and local officials, and experts in academia and 
private survey and research firms. Many individuals also have contacted 
OMB and Census Bureau staff to discuss issues pertaining to this 
review. Although comments received in these ways were not part of the 
official set of written responses to the December 1998 Federal Register 
Notice, MASRC was apprised of and considered these less formal comments 
in its deliberations.

C. Review Process

1. Metropolitan Area Standards Review Project

    The MA standards are reviewed and, if warranted, revised in the 
years preceding each decennial census to ensure their continued 
usefulness and relevance. The current review of the MA standards--the 
Metropolitan Area Standards Review Project (MASRP)--is the sixth such 
review. This review has been especially thorough, reflecting as a first 
priority users' concerns with the conceptual and operational complexity 
of the standards that have evolved over the decades. Other key concerns 
of MASRP have been: (1) Whether modifications to the standards over the 
years have permitted them to stay abreast of changes in population 
distribution and activity patterns; (2) whether advances in computer 
applications permit consideration of new approaches to defining areas; 
and (3) whether there is a practicable way to capture a more complete 
range of U.S. settlement and activity patterns than the current MA 
standards capture.
    Specific, major issues addressed by MASRP have included:
     Whether the Federal Government should define metropolitan 
and nonmetropolitan statistical areas;
     The geographic units--``building blocks''--that should be 
used in defining the statistical areas;
     The criteria that should be used to aggregate the building 
blocks in defining the statistical areas;
     Whether the statistical areas should account for all 
territory of the Nation;
     Whether there should be hierarchies or multiple sets of 
statistical areas in the classification;
     The kinds of areas that should receive official 
recognition in the classification;
     Whether the classification should reflect statistical 
rules only or allow a role for local opinion; and
     How frequently statistical areas should be updated.
    As in previous decades, the Census Bureau has worked closely with 
OMB in support of the MA program. In 1990, the Census Bureau 
commissioned four studies by scholars to sketch out and evaluate 
alternative approaches to defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas. The reports produced through these studies were published in a 
Census Bureau working paper, which later served as the focus of 
discussion at an open conference in November 1995 that was hosted by 
the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS) 
and attended by representatives of Federal, State, and local government 
agencies; the private sector; universities; and citizens' 
organizations.
    The Census Bureau has conducted research into a variety of issues 
related to metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area concepts and criteria 
as part of MASRP. The first phase of this research culminated in 
publication of the four alternative approaches to defining metropolitan 
and nonmetropolitan areas presented for public comment in the Federal 
Register Notice of December 21, 1998. The second phase of the research 
extended the earlier work, but with a particular focus on providing 
information directly to MASRC and answering specific questions raised 
during MASRC's review of the standards.
    In addition to research conducted or contracted by the Census 
Bureau, other researchers both inside and outside the Federal 
Government have investigated alternative methods for defining 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas during the past decade. 
Researchers in the Department of Agriculture's Economic Research 
Service (ERS) investigated the feasibility of using census tracts as 
building blocks for MAs in conjunction with current (1990) MA 
standards. Researchers at the University of Washington, in a project 
jointly funded by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office 
of Rural Health Policy and ERS, have contributed further to development 
of an alternative method of defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas using census tracts as building blocks. Researchers at the 
University of Minnesota continued investigation of the comparative 
density approach first proposed early in this decade and presented at 
the 1995 conference.

2. 1995 Conference on New Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and 
Nonmetropolitan Areas

    Discussion at the 1995 conference considered widely ranging views, 
but there was general agreement on the following issues:
     The Federal Government should define standard areas at the 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area level.
     Because of data availability and familiarity, areas should 
be defined using the county as the fundamental unit. To foster greater 
precision and to meet special-purpose needs, areas based on sub-county 
entities also should be defined. There were suggestions that multiple 
sets of areas using different units should be provided, along with 
documentation on appropriate uses.

[[Page 56632]]

     Statistical areas defined following Census 2000 should 
cover the entire territory of the country and should better account for 
the full range of settlement patterns than do the current MAs and their 
nonmetropolitan ``residual.''
     Areas should be defined using a consistent set of rules 
for the entire country.
     Familiar components of settlement, such as major 
population and employment centers as represented by current MA 
definitions, should be in evidence in the new system.
     Commuting (journey-to-work) data from the Census Bureau 
should continue as the principal measure for determining the extent of 
areas. Other data--including electronic media and newspaper market 
penetration data, local traffic study data, and wholesale distribution 
data'are available and usable for specific purposes. Population and 
housing unit density also were viewed as potential measures for some 
purposes, and employment density received mention.
    A detailed summary of the conference appears as Appendix C in the 
December 21, 1998 Federal Register Notice; the summary also is 
available from the Census Bureau at (301) 457-2419.

3. January 1999 Seminar and Open Forum: Metropolitan and 
Nonmetropolitan Areas for a New Decade

    During the comment period following publication of the December 
1998 Federal Register Notice, COPAFS hosted a seminar and open forum 
focusing on the four alternative approaches to defining metropolitan 
and nonmetropolitan areas presented in that Notice. The two-day 
seminar/open forum provided a venue for disseminating information and 
receiving comments related to the review of the standards.
    On the first day, one session was devoted to each of the four 
approaches. Census Bureau staff presented an overview of the approach; 
outside experts then described benefits and potential problems. 
Discussion periods provided opportunities for all attendees to offer 
comments and raise questions. On the second day, prepared statements 
were provided by several individuals, and participants engaged in a 
general discussion of the standards review.
    There was agreement at the seminar/open forum that MAs are widely 
recognized and used (although the specifics of MA standards are less 
clear to many individuals), and that OMB should continue to define MAs. 
Some participants expressed a preference for a single classification 
system (as opposed to multiple systems, as suggested at the 1995 
conference) to avoid confusion among users and to ensure that the 
classification is useful to as many data users as possible.
    The relative merits of using counties versus census tracts as the 
building blocks for statistical areas were key to the discussion. Some 
Federal agencies, researchers, and others noted growing interest in 
identifying metropolitan and nonmetropolitan territory and population 
with greater geographic resolution than can be achieved with the 
current, largely county-based MAs. Many commenters supported the 
continued use of counties when defining metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas because of the range and quality of data 
available for counties and the relative ease in comparing county-level 
data over time.
    In addition, many participants agreed that commuting, despite its 
inability to account for all patterns of activity, remains the 
preferred means of measuring integration of areas and should continue 
to be the measure used to determine the geographic extent of entities. 
Although other measures have been used in the past or considered in 
MASRP, most seminar/open forum participants agreed that Census Bureau 
commuting information currently provides the most reliable and 
exhaustive source of data for this purpose. Interest was expressed in 
the use of directional commuting as a means of measuring the 
integration of entities, but some participants suggested that it was 
too complicated for use in defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas.
    A complete summary of the seminar/open forum is available from the 
Census Bureau at (301) 457-2419.

D. Principles Guiding the Review and Development of Recommendations

    Several guiding principles framed discussion of the issues under 
review and formulation of specific recommendations. MASRC sought to 
develop a classification that would capture and portray effectively the 
distribution of population and economic activity across the United 
States and Puerto Rico. This classification must meet the needs of both 
producers and users of data. Also, the criteria used to define the 
areas must be applicable nationwide using publicly available data. 
Finally, MASRC sought to prepare criteria that were simpler than those 
in the current MA standards.

E. Issues Under Review

    MASRC's review and its recommendations to OMB have drawn upon 
previous research conducted by the Census Bureau, other agencies, and 
individuals. The review also has benefited from discussions at the 
November 1995 conference and the January 1999 seminar/open forum, and 
from comments received in response to OMB's December 21, 1998 Federal 
Register Notice. This section presents MASRC's recommendations to OMB 
for changing the MA standards. It also presents a discussion of the 
major issues considered during the review.

Summary of Recommendations

    MASRC recommends adoption of a Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) 
Classification that includes Megapolitan, Macropolitan, and 
Micropolitan Areas, with each area containing one or more population 
cores of at least 10,000 persons (see Section E.1). Census Bureau-
defined urbanized areas (UAs) and a proposed new geographic entity for 
Census 2000--Census Bureau-defined settlement clusters (SCs)--are these 
cores. UAs are continuously built-up areas comprising a central place 
(or places) and the densely settled surrounding territory that together 
have a population of at least 50,000 and, generally, an overall 
population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. SCs will 
extend the UA concept to smaller concentrations of at least 10,000 
population. Territory outside of Megapolitan, Macropolitan, and 
Micropolitan Areas should be termed ``Outside CBSAs.''
    MASRC recommends using counties and equivalent entities as building 
blocks of CBSAs throughout the United States and Puerto Rico (Section 
E.2). Minor civil divisions (MCDs) should be used as building blocks 
for an alternative set of areas in New England only.
    Those counties containing the cores, MASRC recommends, should 
become the central counties of CBSAs (Section E.3). MASRC also 
recommends that only commuting data should be used to aggregate 
counties beyond central counties--the outlying counties--to form CBSAs. 
A single minimum commuting threshold of 25 percent should be used to 
qualify a county for inclusion as outlying in a particular CBSA 
(Section E.4).
    Mergers of adjacent CBSAs to form a single CBSA should take place 
when commuting data indicate that strong ties exist between the two 
areas' central counties (Section E.6). Combinations of

[[Page 56633]]

adjacent CBSAs should take place when there are weaker but still 
important commuting ties between entire CBSAs. The CBSAs that are 
combined should retain separate identities in addition to being 
recognized as parts of Combined Areas (Section E.7).
    MASRC recommends identifying the city with the largest population 
in each CBSA, as well as any additional cities with large population or 
employment totals, as principal cities (Section E.8). The title of each 
CBSA should include the name of the largest principal city. If there 
are multiple principal cities in a CBSA, the names of the second 
largest and third largest principal cities should be included in the 
title, in order of descending population size (Section E.9).
    These recommendations and others are described in greater detail 
below.

Notes on Data and Maps

    In carrying out its work, MASRC used 1990 census data to model the 
possible outcomes of its recommendations for geographic area 
definitions. The four maps accompanying this section were developed 
using 1990 census data and the recommended standards. Because SCs are 
proposed new geographic areas for presentation of Census 2000 data, 
incorporated places and census designated places (CDPs) of 10,000 to 
49,999 population were used for research purposes. The maps are for 
illustrative purposes only and are not intended to portray the extent 
of areas that would be defined using Census 2000 data and the 
recommended standards.

Detailed Recommendations

1. Recommendations Concerning Levels of Statistical Areas Recognized 
Within the Core-Based Statistical Area Classification

    MASRC recommends a Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) 
Classification to replace the current MA classification. MASRC 
recommends the following terms and levels, based on the total 
population in the cores of CBSAs (and not based on the total population 
of a CBSA):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Core-Based Statistical Areas              Population in Cores
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Megapolitan Areas.........................  1,000,000 and above
Macropolitan Areas........................  50,000 to 999,999
Micropolitan Areas........................  10,000 to 49,999
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Territory not included in CBSAs should be designated as Outside 
Core-Based Statistical Areas.
    MASRC addressed several, sometimes incompatible, concerns as it 
developed terminology and size levels:
    (1) Eliminating the current metropolitan/nonmetropolitan dichotomy 
and replacing it with a range of categories that more meaningfully 
represent the settlement and activity patterns of the Nation;
    (2) Introducing specific terms for areas containing cores of 
1,000,000 or more persons and cores of 250,000 to 999,999 persons, 
respectively;
    (3) Evaluating advantages and disadvantages of retaining the 
current MA standards' core population threshold of 50,000;
    (4) Assessing advantages and disadvantages of retaining the current 
MA standards' metropolitan/nonmetropolitan terminology; and
    (5) Maintaining simplicity.
    With regard to the first two considerations, there was broad 
agreement within MASRC that the 1,000,000-person threshold was a 
significant delimiter between large urban areas and other areas. Under 
the proposed standards, 35 areas, each containing one or more cores 
that together have 1990 decennial census populations of 1,000,000 or 
more, would account for about 45 percent of the 1990 U.S. population.
    Broad agreement also existed in favor of establishing a 
micropolitan category as a means of distinguishing between (1) areas 
integrated with smaller population centers and (2) territory not 
integrated with any particular population center. Defining Micropolitan 
Areas represents a response to comments that a new classification 
should cover a broader range of population and economic activity 
patterns than the current MA standards do. MASRC also considered 
various combinations of population distribution and economic activity 
pattern measures to classify counties not included in a CBSA, but none 
offered a satisfactory method of meaningfully accounting for these 
counties in the new classification.
    The large core population range (50,000 to 999,999) of the 
macropolitan level could limit its utility for analytical and 
statistical purposes. An option would be to split this level into two 
categories, one identifying areas with cores that together have 
populations of 50,000 to 249,999 (``mesopolitan areas'') and the other 
identifying areas with cores that together have populations of 250,000 
to 999,999 (``macropolitan areas''). Although there was support for 
this option, there also was concern that the use of five levels 
(including ``Outside CBSAs'') might make the system too complex.
    Some members of MASRC expressed the view that the 50,000-person 
threshold used in the current MA standards held greater significance 
when first adopted by the Census Bureau for defining ``metropolitan 
districts'' in 1930 than it does now. The national population has more 
than doubled since 1930, and these members reasoned that the resulting 
increase in the number of places of 50,000 population or more has 
reduced the meaning of this threshold in identifying areas of 
metropolitan character. Changes in economic structure also have made 
places of this size less self-reliant than they were in the past. On 
the other hand, MASRC members observed that retaining the 50,000 person 
threshold would offer maximum continuity with current and previous 
definitions of MAs.
    Some MASRC members favored retaining metropolitan/nonmetropolitan 
terminology for use with CBSAs, identifying Megapolitan and 
Macropolitan Areas as metropolitan and identifying Micropolitan Areas 
and counties Outside CBSAs as nonmetropolitan. The reasoning behind 
this position was that identification of metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas within the CBSA Classification would provide 
continuity with areas defined under the current standards and might be 
of benefit to some producers and users of data. Members favoring this 
position noted that the top two levels, when combined, approximate the 
MAs defined under the current standards and that the lower two levels, 
when combined, approximate areas currently referred to as 
nonmetropolitan. Others argued that continued identification of areas 
as metropolitan and nonmetropolitan might reduce the value of the 
levels provided by the CBSA classification, in elaborating on the 
current metropolitan/nonmetropolitan dichotomy. Members also suggested 
that some data users might find value in analyzing the distribution of 
population and economic activities across Megapolitan, Macropolitan, 
and Micropolitan Areas as a group and that separation of these levels 
by a metropolitan/nonmetropolitan dichotomy would discourage such uses.

2. Recommendations Concerning the Geographic Unit To Be Used as the 
Building Block for Defining CBSAs

    MASRC recommends using counties and equivalent entities as building 
blocks for CBSAs throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.
    Using counties and equivalent entities throughout the United States 
and Puerto Rico continues current practice, except

[[Page 56634]]

in New England, where MCD-based areas currently constitute the official 
MAs.
    The choice of a geographic unit to serve as the building block can 
affect the geographic extent of a statistical area and its relevance or 
usefulness in describing economic and demographic patterns. The choice 
also has implications for the ability of Federal agencies to provide 
data for statistical areas and their components. The December 1998 
Federal Register Notice presented advantages and disadvantages of five 
potential building blocks. Each of these units was evaluated in terms 
of its consistency in delineation across the Nation, data availability, 
boundary stability, and familiarity.
    Counties and their equivalents are major and familiar geographic 
units of government, performing a wide range of functions, and a wide 
range of statistically reliable data is available for them. Far more 
Federal statistical programs produce data at the county level than at 
any sub-county level. In addition, the use of counties eases comparison 
with current and past MA definitions. MASRC decided that the well-known 
disadvantages of counties as building blocks for statistical areas--the 
large geographic size of some counties and the lack of geographic 
precision that follows from their use--were outweighed by the 
advantages offered by counties.
    MASRC recommends using MCDs as building blocks for an alternative 
set of areas identified in New England only.
    At a time when development and maintenance of nationwide data bases 
have long since become routine, use of consistent geographic building 
blocks in all parts of the country offers improved usability to 
producers and users of data. Some statistical programs regard the 
current MA program's use of MCDs--cities and towns--in New England as a 
hindrance; others avoid difficulties posed by the MCD-based areas by 
using the current alternative county-based areas for New England, known 
as the New England County Metropolitan Areas. Demographic and economic 
data for MCDs in New England, however, are more plentiful than for sub-
county entities in the rest of the Nation. Cities and towns are the 
primary units of local government in New England (counties in 
Connecticut and Rhode Island, and some counties in Massachusetts, no 
longer possess legal or functional status). In reaching its 
recommendation to extend the use of counties as building blocks for the 
primary set of statistical areas in New England, MASRC attached 
priority to the desire for use of a single, consistent geographic unit 
nationwide. In recognition of the importance of MCDs in New England, 
the wide availability of data for them, and their long-term use in the 
MA program, MASRC recommends using MCDs as building blocks for an 
alternative set of areas for the six New England states.

3. Recommendations Concerning Cores of CBSAs and Central Counties

    MASRC recommends using Census Bureau-defined UAs of 50,000 or more 
population and Census Bureau-defined SCs of at least 10,000 population 
as cores of CBSAs. MASRC also recommends identifying ``central 
counties'' based on the locations of the cores.
    The recommended use of UAs as cores is consistent with current 
practice. The use of SCs proposed for Census 2000 reflects MASRC's 
recommendation to extend the classification to areas based on cores of 
10,000 to 49,999 population. This change would permit a fuller 
accounting for the distribution of population and economic activity 
across the territory of the Nation than is provided by the current MA 
standards. Following from this recommendation, the presence of a core 
(UA or SC) of at least 10,000 population should be required for 
defining a CBSA.
    The locations of UAs and SCs should provide the basis for 
identifying central counties of CBSAs--the counties to and from which 
ties are measured in determining the extent of areas. MASRC recommends 
identifying central counties as those counties:
    (a) That have at least 50 percent of their population in UAs or SCs 
or both; or
    (b) That have within their boundaries at least 50 percent of the 
population of a UA or SC that crosses county boundaries.

4. Recommendations Concerning Criteria for Inclusion of Outlying 
Counties

    MASRC recommends using commuting data as the basis for aggregating 
counties to form CBSAs (i.e., to qualify ``outlying counties''). MASRC 
recommends not using measures of settlement structure, such as 
population density, to qualify outlying counties for inclusion in 
CBSAs.
    Three priorities guided the committee in reaching these 
recommendations. First, the data used to measure connections among 
counties should describe those connections in a straightforward and 
intuitive manner. Second, data for the measure should be collected 
using consistent procedures nationwide. Third, the data should be 
readily available to the public. These priorities pointed to the use of 
data gathered by Federal agencies and more particularly to commuting 
data from the Census Bureau. Commuting to work is an easily understood 
measure that reflects the social and economic integration between 
geographic areas.
    The recommendation not to use measures of settlement structure 
represents a change from the current MA standards. In those standards, 
varying levels of population density, percentage of total population 
that is urban, presence of UA population, and population growth rate 
are used in combination with varying levels of commuting to determine 
qualification of outlying counties for inclusion in an MA. MASRC 
concluded that as changes in settlement and commuting patterns as well 
as changes in communications technologies have occurred, settlement 
structure no longer is as reliable an indicator of metropolitan 
character as was previously the case.
    MASRC recommends qualifying an outlying county on the basis of the 
percentage of employed residents of the county who work in the CBSA's 
central county or counties, or on the basis of the percentage of 
employment in the potential outlying county accounted for by workers 
who reside in the CBSA's central county or counties. MASRC recommends 
using a 25 percent minimum threshold for both measures.
    MASRC observed that the percentage of a county's employed residents 
who commute to the central county or counties is an unambiguous, clear 
measure of whether a potential outlying county should qualify for 
inclusion. The percentage of employment in the potential outlying 
county accounted for by workers who reside in the central county or 
counties is a similarly straightforward measure of ties. Including both 
criteria addresses both the conventional and the less common reverse 
commuting flows.
    The percentage of workers in the United States who commute to 
places of work outside their counties of residence has increased from 
approximately 15 percent in 1960 (when nationwide commuting data first 
became available from the decennial census) to nearly 25 percent in 
1990. In addition, the 25 percent threshold stood out as a noticeable 
divide when reviewing 1990 census data concerning the percentage of 
workers who commute outside their counties of residence. MASRC 
concluded that the pattern in commuting rates and increases in 
intercounty commuting over the past 40 years warranted a comparable 
increase from the 15 percent minimum commuting threshold currently used 
to

[[Page 56635]]

qualify counties--under specified circumstances--for inclusion in MAs.
    MASRC recommends that counties qualify for inclusion in a CBSA as 
outlying counties on the basis of commuting ties with the central 
county (or counties) of that one area only.
    MASRC concluded that outlying counties should not qualify based on 
total commuting to central counties of multiple CBSAs because that 
would result in inconsistent grounds for qualification in an individual 
area. Throughout its history, the purpose of the MA program has been to 
identify individual statistical areas, each containing a core plus any 
surrounding territory integrated with that core as measured by 
commuting ties. MASRC saw no reason to depart from that approach in 
defining CBSAs.

5. Recommendation Concerning Use of Statistical Rules and the Role of 
Local Opinion

    MASRC recommends limited use of local opinion in the definition 
process.
    Applying only statistical rules when defining areas minimizes 
ambiguity and maximizes the replicability and integrity of the process. 
MASRC recommends consideration of local opinion only in cases of CBSA 
combinations where adjacent CBSAs meet specified requirements (see E.7 
below).
    Local opinion should be obtained through the appropriate 
congressional delegation. Members of the congressional delegation 
should be urged to contact a wide range of groups in their communities, 
including business or other leaders, chambers of commerce, planning 
commissions, and local officials, to solicit comments on the specific 
combination at issue. MASRC also recommends that OMB use the Internet 
to make available information pertaining to the potential combination 
on which local opinion is sought. After a decision has been made, OMB 
should not request local opinion again on the same issue until the next 
redefinition of CBSAs.

6. Recommendation Concerning Merging Adjacent CBSAs

    MASRC recommends ``merging'' adjacent CBSAs to form a single CBSA 
when the central county or counties of one area qualify as outlying to 
the central county or counties of another.
    MASRC determined that when the central county or counties (as a 
group) of one CBSA qualify as outlying to the central county or 
counties (as a group) of another area, the two CBSAs should be merged. 
Given the strong ties demonstrated in a merger, the individual areas 
should not retain separate identities within the merged entity; rather, 
the merged entity should be recognized as a single CBSA.
    Because a merger recognizes ties similar to the ties between an 
outlying county and the central counties of a CBSA, MASRC recommends 
that the minimum commuting threshold similarly be set at 25 percent, 
measured with respect to all central counties of one CBSA relative to 
all central counties of the other.

7. Recommendation Concerning Combining Adjacent CBSAs

    MASRC recommends ``combining'' CBSAs when entire adjacent areas are 
linked through commuting ties.
    MASRC recommends that ties between adjacent CBSAs that are less 
intense than those captured by mergers (see Section E.6), but still 
significant, be recognized by combining those CBSAs. Because a 
combination thus defined represents a relationship of moderate strength 
between two CBSAs, the areas that combine should retain separate 
identities within the larger combined area. Potential combinations 
should be evaluated by measuring commuting between entire adjacent 
CBSAs--commuting of all counties, as a group, within one CBSA relative 
to all counties, as a group, in the adjacent area.
    MASRC recommends basing combinations on the employment interchange 
rate between two CBSAs, defined as the sum of the percentage of 
commuting from the smaller area to the larger area and the percentage 
of employment in the smaller area accounted for by workers residing in 
the larger area. MASRC recommends a minimum threshold of 15 for the 
employment interchange rate, but recognizes that this threshold may 
result in combinations where the measured ties are perceived as minimal 
by residents of the two areas. Therefore, MASRC recommends combinations 
of CBSAs, based on an employment interchange rate of at least 15 but 
less than 25, only if local opinion in both areas favors the 
combination. If the employment interchange rate equals or exceeds 25, 
combinations should occur automatically.

8. Recommendation Concerning Identification of Principal Cities Within 
the Core-Based Statistical Area Classification

    MASRC recommends identifying principal cities in CBSAs.
    Because the procedures recommended by MASRC identify UAs and SCs as 
the organizing entities for CBSAs, the identification of central 
cities--required by the current MA standards for defining areas--is no 
longer necessary. Also, while still important, central cities have 
become less dominant in the local context over time. Nevertheless, 
MASRC recognizes that specific cities within individual CBSAs are 
important for analytical purposes as centers of employment, trade, 
entertainment, and other social and economic activities. MASRC, 
therefore, includes in the recommended standards criteria for 
identifying principal cities and using the principal cities for titling 
areas.
    MASRC recommends that the principal city (or cities) of a CBSA 
should include: (1) the largest incorporated place or census designated 
place (CDP) in the CBSA; (2) any additional incorporated place or CDP 
with a population of at least 250,000 or in which 100,000 or more 
persons work; and (3) any additional incorporated place or CDP with a 
population that is at least 10,000 and one-third the size of the 
largest place, and in which employment meets or exceeds the number of 
employed residents.
    MASRC recommends using the term ``principal city'' rather than 
``central city.'' The term ``central city'' has come to connote ``inner 
city'' and thus sometimes causes confusion.

9. Recommendations Concerning Titles of Core-Based Statistical Areas 
and Combined Areas

    MASRC recommends titling each CBSA using the name of the principal 
city with the largest population, as well as the names of the second- 
and third-largest principal cities, if multiple principal cities are 
present. MASRC also recommends titling each Combined Area using the 
name of the largest principal city in each of up to three CBSAs that 
combine, in descending order of CBSA population size.
    Titles provide a means of uniquely identifying individual CBSAs and 
Combined Areas so that each is recognizable to a variety of data users. 
As such, the title of a CBSA or Combined Area should contain the name 
or names of geographic entities located within the area that are 
prominent and provide data users with a means of easily identifying the 
general location of the CBSA. Use of the names of principal cities also 
provides a link to the (named) UAs and SCs that form the cores of 
CBSAs. Finally, the State(s) in which the CBSA or Combined Area is 
located also should be included in the title.

[[Page 56636]]

10. Recommendation Concerning Categories Describing Settlement 
Structure Within the Core-Based Statistical Area Classification

    MASRC recommends not defining urban, suburban, rural, exurban, and 
so forth, within the CBSA Classification.
    MASRC recognizes that formal definitions of categories such as 
inner city, inner suburb, outer suburb, exurban, and rural would be of 
use to the Federal statistical system as well as to researchers, 
analysts, and other users of Federal data. Such categories, however, 
are not necessary for the delineation of statistical areas that 
describe the functional ties between geographic entities. These 
additional categories would more appropriately be included in a 
separate classification that focuses exclusively on describing 
settlement patterns and land uses.
    MASRC recommends continuing research by the Census Bureau and other 
interested Federal agencies on sub-county settlement patterns to 
describe further the distribution of population and economic activity 
throughout the Nation.

11. Recommendations Concerning ``Grandfathering'' of Current 
Metropolitan Areas

    MASRC recommends that the definitions of current MAs not be 
automatically retained (``grandfathered'') in the CBSA Classification. 
MASRC also recommends that the current status of individual counties as 
metropolitan or nonmetropolitan not be considered when re-examining all 
counties using the recommended standards.
    In this context, ``grandfathering'' refers to the continued 
designation of an area even though it does not meet the standards 
currently in effect. The current (1990) MA standards permit changes in 
the definitions, or extent, of individual MAs through the addition or 
deletion of counties on the basis of each decennial census, but the 
standards do not permit the disqualification of MAs that previously 
qualified on the basis of a Census Bureau population count. To maintain 
the integrity of the classification, MASRC favors the objective 
application of the recommended standards rather than continuing to 
recognize areas that do not meet the standards that currently are in 
effect. MASRC recommends that the current status of a county as either 
metropolitan or nonmetropolitan play no role in the application of the 
recommended standards.

12. Recommendations Concerning Intercensal Update Schedule

    MASRC recommends designating new CBSAs intercensally on the basis 
of Census Bureau population estimates or special censuses for places. 
MASRC also recommends updating the extent of CBSAs on the basis of 
commuting data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, 
available for all counties beginning in 2008.
    The frequency with which new statistical areas are designated and 
existing areas updated has been of considerable interest among 
producers and users of data for MAs. The sources and future 
availability of data for updating areas figured prominently in MASRC's 
discussions. The availability of population totals and commuting data 
affects the ability to identify new statistical areas, move existing 
areas between categories, and update the extent of existing areas.
    The current standards provide for the designation of a new MA on 
the basis of a population estimate or a special census count for a 
city. This approach for designating new areas intercensally would 
continue to provide the most consistent and equitable means of 
qualifying new CBSAs in the future. A new CBSA should be designated if 
a city that is outside any existing CBSA has a Census Bureau population 
estimate of 10,000 or more for two consecutive years, or a Census 
Bureau special census count of 10,000 or more population. (Currently, 
population estimates for existing and potential UAs and SCs are not 
produced.) A new CBSA also should be designated if a special census 
results in delineation of an intercensal UA or SC of 10,000 or more 
population.
    The composition of all existing CBSAs should be updated in 2008 
using commuting data for each county from the Census Bureau's American 
Community Survey, averaged over five years and centered on 2005. This 
update would affect only counties identified as outlying.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 56637]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20OC99.010



[[Page 56638]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20OC99.011



[[Page 56639]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20OC99.012



[[Page 56640]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20OC99.013



BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 56641]]

F. Comparison of Current Metropolitan Area Standards with the 
Recommended Core-Based Statistical Area Standards

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Current standards                    Recommended standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms and Levels.................  Identification of Metropolitan Areas    Identification of Core-Based
                                    (MAs) comprising Metropolitan           Statistical Areas (CBSAs) comprising
                                    Statistical Areas (MSAs),               Megapolitan Areas, Macropolitan
                                    Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical   Areas, and Micropolitan Areas.
                                    Areas (CMSAs), and Primary              Counties that are not included in a
                                    Metropolitan Statistical Areas          Megapolitan, Macropolitan, or
                                    (PMSAs). MSAs and PMSAs are             Micropolitan Area are classified as
                                    identified as level A, B, C, or D       Outside CBSAs. CBSAs are not
                                    areas. MSAs of 1,000,000 or more        subdivided into component parts.
                                    population can be designated as CMSAs
                                    if local opinion is in favor and
                                    component PMSAs can be identified.
Building Blocks..................  Counties and equivalent entities        Counties and equivalent entities
                                    throughout U.S. and Puerto Rico,        throughout U.S. and Puerto Rico.
                                    except in New England where cities      City-and-town-based alternative
                                    and towns are used to define MAs.       provided for New England States.
                                    County-based alternative provided for
                                    New England States.
Qualification of Areas...........  City of at least 50,000 population, or  Census Bureau-defined settlement
                                    Census Bureau-defined urbanized area    cluster (SC) of at least 10,000
                                    (UA) of at least 50,000 population in   population or UA of at least 50,000
                                    an MA of at least 100,000 population.   population.
Qualification of Central Counties  Any county that includes a central      Any county in which at least 50% of
                                    city or at least 50% of the             the population is located in UAs and
                                    population of a central city that is    SCs, or that has within its
                                    located in a qualifier UA. Also any     boundaries at least 50% of the
                                    county in which at least 50% of the     population of a UA or SC that
                                    population is located in a qualifier    crosses county boundaries.
                                    UA.
Qualification of Outlying          Combination of commuting and measures   At least 25% of the employed
 Counties.                          of settlement structure                 residents of the county work in the
                                    50% or more of employed         central county/counties of a CBSA;
                                    workers commute to the central county/  or at least 25% of the employment in
                                    counties of an MSA and: 25 or more      the county is accounted for by
                                    persons per square mile (ppsm), or at   workers residing in the central
                                    least 10% or 5,000 of the population    county/counties of the CBSA.
                                    lives in a qualifier UA; OR            A county that qualifies as outlying
                                    40% to 50% of employed          to two or more CBSAs will be
                                    workers commute to the central county/  included in the area with which it
                                    counties of an MSA and: 35 or more      has the strongest commuting tie.
                                    ppsm, or at least 10% or 5,000 of the
                                    population lives in qualifier UA; OR
                                    25% to 40% of employed
                                    workers commute to the central county/
                                    counties of an MSA and: 35 ppsm and
                                    one of the following: (1) 50 or more
                                    ppsm, (2) at least 35% urban
                                    population, (3) at least 10% or 5,000
                                    of population lives in qualifier UA;
                                    OR
                                    15% to 25% of employed
                                    workers commute to the central county/
                                    counties of an MSA and: 50 or more
                                    ppsm and two of the following: (1) 60
                                    or more ppsm, (2) at least 35% urban
                                    population, (3) population growth
                                    rate of at least 20%, (4) at least
                                    10% or 5,000 of population lives in
                                    qualifier UA; OR
                                    15% to 25% of employed
                                    workers commute to the central county/
                                    counties of an MSA and less than 50
                                    ppsm and two of the following: (1) at
                                    least 35% urban population, (2)
                                    population growth rate of at least
                                    20%, (3) at least 10% or 5,000 of
                                    population lives in qualifier UA.
                                   If a county qualifies as outlying to
                                    two or more MAs, it is assigned to
                                    the area to which commuting is
                                    greatest; if the relevant commuting
                                    percentages are within 5 points of
                                    each other, local opinion is
                                    considered.
Local Opinion....................  Consulted when:                         Consulted only when two CBSAs qualify
                                   a county qualifies as outlying to two    for combination with an employment
                                    different MSAs and the relevant         interchange rate of at least 15 and
                                    commuting percentages within 5 points   less than 25.
                                    of each other;
                                    a city or town in New England
                                    qualifies as outlying to two
                                    different MSAs and has relevant
                                    commuting percentages within 5 points
                                    of each other;
                                    a city or town in New England
                                    qualifies as outlying to an MSA but
                                    has greater commuting to a
                                    nonmetropolitan city or town and the
                                    relevant commuting percentages are
                                    within 5 points of each other;
                                    combining MSAs whose total
                                    population is less than 1,000,000;
                                    assigning titles of MSAs,
                                    CMSAs, and PMSAs;
                                    designating PMSAs.
Merging Statistical Areas........  If a county qualifies as a central      Two adjacent CBSAs will be merged to
                                    county of one MSA and as an outlying    form one CBSA if the central county/
                                    county on the basis of commuting to a   counties (as a group) qualify as
                                    central county of another MSA, both     outlying to the central county/
                                    counties become central counties of a   counties (as a group) of the other
                                    single MSA.                             CBSA.

[[Page 56642]]

 
Combining Statistical Areas......  Two adjacent MSAs are combined as a     Two adjacent CBSAs will be combined
                                    single MSA if: (A) the total            if the employment interchange rate
                                    population of the combination is at     between the two areas is at least
                                    least one million and (1) the           25. The employment interchange rate
                                    commuting interchange between the two   is the sum of the percentage of
                                    MSAs is equal to at least 15% of the    employed residents of the CBSA with
                                    employed workers residing in the        the smaller total population who
                                    smaller MSA, or at least 10% of the     work in the CBSA with the larger
                                    employed workers residing in the        population and the percentage of
                                    smaller MSA and the UA of a central     employment in the CBSA with the
                                    city of one MSA is contiguous with      smaller total population that is
                                    the UA of a central city of the other   accounted for by workers residing in
                                    MSA, or a central city in one MSA is    the CBSA with the larger total
                                    included in the same UA as a central    population. Adjacent CBSAs that have
                                    city in the other MSA; AND (2) at       an employment interchange rate of at
                                    least 60% of the population of each     least 15 and less than 25 may
                                    MSA is urban. (B) the total             combine if local opinion in both
                                    population of the combination is less   areas favors combination.
                                    than one million and (1) their
                                    largest central cities are within 25
                                    miles of one another, or the UAs are
                                    contiguous; AND (2) there is definite
                                    evidence that the two areas are
                                    closely integrated economically and
                                    socially; AND (3) local opinion in
                                    both areas supports combination.
Central Cities...................  Central cities include the largest      Principal cities include the largest
                                    city in an MSA/CMSA AND each city of    incorporated place or census
                                    at least 250,000 population or at       designated place in a CBSA AND each
                                    least 100,000 workers AND each city     place of at least 250,000 population
                                    of at least 25,000 population and at    or in which at least 100,000 persons
                                    least 75 jobs per 100 workers and       work AND each place with a
                                    less than 60% out commuting AND each    population that is at least 10,000
                                    city of at least 15,000 population      and \1/3\ the size of the largest
                                    that is at least \1/3\ the size of      place, and in which employment meets
                                    largest central city and meets          or exceeds the number of employed
                                    employment ratio and commuting          residents.
                                    percentage above AND largest city of
                                    15,000 population or more that meets
                                    employment ratio and commuting
                                    percentage above and is in a
                                    secondary noncontiguous UA AND each
                                    city in a secondary noncontiguous UA
                                    that is at least \1/3\ the size of
                                    largest central city in that UA and
                                    has at least 15,000 population and
                                    meets employment ratio and commuting
                                    percentage above.
Titles...........................  Names of up to three central cities in  Names of up to three principal cities
                                    descending order of population size.    in descending order of population
                                    Local opinion considered under          size.
                                    specified conditions.
Grandfathering...................  An MSA designated on the basis of       Areas that do not meet the minimum
                                    census data according to standards in   standards for designation do not
                                    effect at the time of designation       qualify.
                                    will not be disqualified on the basis
                                    of lacking a city of at least 50,000
                                    population or a UA of at least 50,000
                                    or a total population of at least
                                    100,000.
Intercensal Updating.............  A new MA can be designated              A new CBSA can be designated if a
                                    intercensally if a city has a Census    city has a Census Bureau population
                                    Bureau population estimate or special   estimate of 10,000 or more for two
                                    census count of at least 50,000 or if   consecutive years, or a Census
                                    a county containing a UA has a Census   Bureau special census count of
                                    Bureau population estimate or special   10,000 or more. The geographic
                                    census count of at least 100,000.       extent of each CBSA will be re-
                                    Outlying counties are added to          examined in 2008 using commuting
                                    existing MSAs intercensally only when   data from the Census Bureau's
                                    (1) a central city located in a         American Community Survey.
                                    qualifier UA extends into a county
                                    not included in the MSA and the
                                    population of that portion of the
                                    city in the county is at least 2,500
                                    according to a Census Bureau
                                    population count or (2) an
                                    intercensally designated MSA
                                    qualifies to combine with an existing
                                    MSA. New central cities can be
                                    designated intercensally on the basis
                                    of a special census count.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Recommended Standards for Defining Core-Based Statistical Areas 
for the First Decade of the 21st Century

    A Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) is a geographic entity 
consisting of the county or counties containing one or more cores of at 
least 10,000 population each, plus adjacent counties having a high 
degree of social and economic integration with the core(s) as measured 
by commuting ties.

1. Requirements for Qualification of Core-Based Statistical Areas

    Each CBSA must include a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (UA) 
of at least 50,000 population or a Census Bureau-defined settlement 
cluster (SC) of at least 10,000 population.

2. Central Counties

    The central county or counties of a CBSA are those counties:
    (a) That have at least 50 percent of their population in UAs or SCs 
or both, or
    (b) That have within their boundaries at least 50 percent of the 
population of a UA or SC that crosses county boundaries.
    A central county of one CBSA may not be the central county of any 
other CBSA, but a CBSA may have multiple central counties.

3. Outlying Counties

    A county is an outlying county of a CBSA if:
    (a) At least 25 percent of the employed residents of the county 
work

[[Page 56643]]

in the central county or counties of the CBSA; or
    (b) At least 25 percent of the employment in the county is 
accounted for by workers who reside in the central county or counties 
of the CBSA.
    A county may not be included in more than one CBSA. If a county 
qualifies as a central county in one CBSA and as outlying in another, 
it will be included in the CBSA in which it is a central county. A 
county that qualifies as outlying to multiple CBSAs will be included in 
the CBSA with which it has the strongest commuting tie, as measured by 
either (a) or (b) above. The counties included in a CBSA must be 
contiguous; if a county is not contiguous to other counties in the 
CBSA, it will not be included in the CBSA.

4. Merging of Adjacent Core-Based Statistical Areas

    Two adjacent CBSAs will be merged to form one CBSA if the central 
county or counties (as a group) of one CBSA qualify as outlying to the 
central county or counties (as a group) of the other CBSA using the 
measures and thresholds stated in Section 3 above.

5. Terminology and Levels

    A CBSA will be assigned a level based on the total population of 
all the UAs and SCs within the CBSA (not on the total CBSA population). 
Levels of CBSAs are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total Population in All
       Core-Based Statistical Areas                     Cores
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Megapolitan Areas.........................  1,000,000 and above.
Macropolitan Areas........................  50,000 to 999,999.
Micropolitan Areas........................  10,000 to 49,999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Counties that are not included in CBSAs will be designated as 
Outside Core-Based Statistical Areas.

6. Identification of Principal Cities

    The principal city (or cities) of a CBSA will include:
    (a) The largest incorporated place or census designated place in 
the CBSA;
    (b) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place 
with a population of at least 250,000 or in which 100,000 or more 
persons work; and
    (c) Any additional incorporated place or census designated place 
with a population that is at least 10,000 and one-third the size of the 
largest place, and in which employment meets or exceeds the number of 
employed residents.

7. Titles of Core-Based Statistical Areas

    The title of a CBSA will include the name of the principal city 
with the largest Census 2000 population. If there are multiple 
principal cities, the names of the second-largest and third-largest 
principal cities will be included in the title in descending order of 
population.
    The title also will include the name of the State in which the CBSA 
is located. If the CBSA extends into multiple States, the State names 
will be included in the title in descending order of population size 
within the CBSA.

8. Identification of Combined Areas

    Any two adjacent CBSAs will be combined if the employment 
interchange rate between the two areas is at least 25. The employment 
interchange rate between two areas is defined as the sum of the 
percentage of employed residents of the area with the smaller total 
population who work in the area with the larger total population and 
the percentage of employment in the area with the smaller total 
population that is accounted for by workers residing in the area with 
the larger total population.
    Adjacent CBSAs that have an employment interchange rate of at least 
15 and less than 25 will be combined if local opinion, as reported by 
the congressional delegations in both areas, favors combination. CBSAs 
that are combined will retain their identities as CBSAs within Combined 
Areas.

9. Titles of Combined Areas

    The title of a Combined Area will include the name of the largest 
principal city in each of up to three CBSAs involved in the combination 
in descending order of CBSA population size based on Census 2000 
population.
    The title also will include the name of the State in which the 
Combined Area is located. If the Combined Area extends into multiple 
States, the State names will be included in the title in descending 
order of population size within the Combined Area.

10. Intercensal Update Schedule

    A new CBSA will be designated intercensally if (1) a city that is 
outside any existing CBSA has a Census Bureau special census count of 
10,000 or more population, or Census Bureau population estimates of 
10,000 or more population for two consecutive years, or (2) a Census 
Bureau special census results in the delineation of a new UA or SC of 
10,000 or more population that is outside of any existing CBSA. In the 
years up to 2007, outlying counties of intercensally designated CBSAs 
will be qualified, according to the criteria in Section 3 above, on the 
basis of Census 2000 commuting data.
    The definitions of all existing CBSAs will be reviewed in 2008 
using commuting data from the Census Bureau's American Community 
Survey. The central counties of CBSAs identified on the basis of a 
Census 2000 population count, population estimates, or a special census 
count will constitute the central counties for purposes of the 2008 
CBSA definition review.

11. General Procedures

    Local Opinion. Local opinion is the reflection of the views of the 
public and is obtained through the appropriate congressional 
delegations. Under the CBSA standards, local opinion is sought only 
when two adjacent CBSAs qualify for combination based on an employment 
interchange rate of at least 15 and less than 25 (see Section 8). The 
two CBSAs will be combined only if there is evidence that local opinion 
in both areas favors the combination. After a decision has been made 
regarding the combination of CBSAs, the Office of Management and Budget 
will not request local opinion again on the same question until the 
next redefinition of CBSAs.
    New England City and Town Areas. The New England City and Town 
Areas (NECTAs) provide an alternative to the county-based CBSAs in the 
six New England States for the convenience of data users who desire 
city-and-town-based areas comparable to previous MA definitions for 
this region.
    NECTAs will be defined by applying the standards outlined in 
Sections 1 through 4 and 6 through 10 above for county-based CBSAs to 
data for cities and towns. Levels for NECTAs will not be determined. 
Cities and towns not included in a NECTA will be designated ``Outside 
NECTAs.''

H. Key Terms

    (An asterisk (*) denotes new terms proposed for the purposes of 
this report. Two asterisks (**) denote terms whose definitions have 
changed for purposes of this report from previous definitions.)
    Census designated place (CDP)--A statistical entity equivalent to 
an incorporated place, defined for each decennial census, consisting of 
a locally recognized, unincorporated concentration of population that 
is identified by name.
    Central city--The largest city of a metropolitan statistical area 
or a consolidated metropolitan statistical area, plus additional cities 
that meet specified statistical criteria.
    **Central county--The county or counties of a Core-Based 
Statistical Area containing a substantial portion of an urbanized area 
or settlement cluster or

[[Page 56644]]

both, to and from which commuting is measured to determine 
qualification of outlying counties.
    **Core--A densely settled concentration of population, comprising 
either an urbanized area or settlement cluster (of 10,000 or more 
population) defined by the Census Bureau, around which a Core-Based 
Statistical Area is defined.
    *Core-Based Statistical Area--A geographic entity consisting of the 
county or counties containing one or more cores (urbanized areas or 
settlement clusters or both) that together have at least 10,000 
population, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of social and 
economic integration with the core(s) as measured through commuting.
    *Employment interchange rate--A measure of ties between two 
adjacent CBSAs used when determining whether they qualify to be 
combined. The employment interchange rate is the sum of the percentage 
of employed residents of the smaller CBSA who work in the larger CBSA 
and the percentage of employment in the smaller CBSA that is accounted 
for by workers who reside in the larger CBSA.
    Geographic building block--The geographic unit, such as a county, 
that forms the basic geographic component of a statistical area.
    *Macropolitan area--A Core-Based Statistical Area containing one or 
more cores (urbanized areas or settlement clusters or both) that 
together have at least 50,000 population and less than 1,000,000 
population, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of social and 
economic integration with the core(s).
    *Megapolitan area--A Core-Based Statistical Area containing one or 
more cores (urbanized areas or settlement clusters or both) that 
together have at least 1,000,000 population, plus adjacent counties 
having a high degree of social and economic integration with the 
core(s).
    Metropolitan area (MA)--A collective term, established by OMB and 
used for the first time in 1990, to refer to metropolitan statistical 
areas, consolidated metropolitan statistical areas, and primary 
metropolitan statistical areas.
    Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)--A geographic entity, defined 
by OMB for statistical purposes, containing a core area with a large 
population center and adjacent communities having a high degree of 
social and economic integration with that center. Qualification of an 
MSA requires a city with 50,000 population or more, or an urbanized 
area and a total population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New 
England). MSAs are composed of entire counties, except in New England 
where the components are cities and towns.
    *Micropolitan area--A Core-Based Statistical Area containing one or 
more cores (settlement clusters of at least 10,000 population) that 
together have less than 50,000 population, plus adjacent counties 
having a high degree of social and economic integration with the 
core(s).
    Minor civil division (MCD)--A type of governmental unit that is the 
primary legal subdivision of a county, created to govern or administer 
an area rather than a specific population. MCDs are recognized by the 
Census Bureau as the county subdivisions of 28 States and the District 
of Columbia.
    New England county metropolitan area (NECMA)--A county-based 
statistical area defined by OMB to provide an alternative to the city-
and town-based metropolitan statistical areas and consolidated 
metropolitan statistical areas in New England.
    *New England city and town area (NECTA)--A proposed city- and town-
based statistical area defined to provide an alternative to the county-
based Core-Based Statistical Areas in New England.
    **Outlying county--A county that qualifies for inclusion in a Core-
Based Statistical Area on the basis of commuting ties with the Core-
Based Statistical Area's central county or counties.
    *Outside core-based statistical areas--Counties that do not qualify 
for inclusion in a Megapolitan, Macropolitan, or Micropolitan Area.
    *Principal city--The largest city of a Core-Based Statistical Area, 
plus additional cities that meet specified statistical criteria.
    *Settlement cluster (SC)--A statistical geographic area proposed 
for definition by the Census Bureau for Census 2000, consisting of a 
central place(s) and adjacent densely settled territory that together 
contain at least 10,000 people, generally with an overall population 
density of at least 1,000 people per square mile.
    Urbanized area (UA)--A statistical geographic area defined by the 
Census Bureau, consisting of a central place(s) and adjacent densely 
settled territory that together contain at least 50,000 people, 
generally with an overall population density of at least 1,000 people 
per square mile.

[FR Doc. 99-27351 Filed 10-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P