[Federal Register: December 27, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 249)]
[Notices]              
[Page 82227-82238]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27de00-146]                        


[[Page 82227]]

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

Part IX





Office of Management and Budget





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



Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas;
Notice


[[Page 82228]]


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

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical
Areas

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

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice announces OMB's adoption of Standards for Defining
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. These new standards
replace and supersede the 1990 standards for defining Metropolitan
Areas. In arriving at its decision, OMB accepted many of the
recommendations of the interagency Metropolitan Area Standards Review
Committee (the Review Committee) as published in the August 22, 2000
Federal Register. In response to public comment, and with the further
advice of the Review Committee, OMB modified the recommended criteria
for titling Combined Statistical Areas, identifying Principal Cities,
and determining Metropolitan Divisions. The new standards appear at the
end of this Notice in Section D.
    The Supplementary Information in this Notice provides background
information on the standards (Section A), a brief synopsis of the
public comments OMB received in response to the August 22, 2000 Federal
Register notice (Section B), and OMB's decisions on the final
recommendations of the Review Committee (Section C).
    The adoption of these new standards will not affect the
availability of Federal data for geographic areas such as states,
counties, county subdivisions, and municipalities. For the near term,
the Census Bureau will tabulate and publish data from Census 2000 for
all Metropolitan Areas in existence at the time of the census (that is,
those areas defined as of April 1, 2000).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This Notice is effective immediately. OMB plans to
announce definitions of areas based on the new standards and Census
2000 data in 2003. Federal agencies should begin to use the new area
definitions to tabulate and publish statistics when the definitions are
announced.

ADDRESSES: Please send correspondence about OMB's decision to Katherine
K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10201 New Executive
Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503; fax: (202)
395-7245.
    Electronic Availability and Addresses: This Federal Register
notice, and the three previous notices related to the review of the
Metropolitan Area standards, are available electronically from the OMB
web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/fedreg/index.html and from the
Census Bureau web site: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/
masrp.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: Suzann Evinger, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, (202) 395-
7315; or E-mail: pop.frquestion@census.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    The Metropolitan Area program has provided standard statistical
area definitions for 50 years. In the 1940s, it became clear that the
value of metropolitan data produced by Federal agencies would be
greatly enhanced if agencies used a single set of geographic
definitions for the Nation's largest centers of population and
activity. Prior to that time, Federal agencies defined a variety of
statistical geographic areas at the metropolitan level (including
``metropolitan districts,'' ``industrial areas,'' ``labor market
areas,'' and ``metropolitan counties'') using different criteria
applied to different geographic units. Because of variations in
methodologies and the resulting inconsistencies in area definitions,
one agency's statistics were not directly comparable with another
agency's statistics for any given area. 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 the 1950
census reports. Since then, comparable data products for Metropolitan
Areas have been available. Because of the usefulness of the
Metropolitan Area standards and data products, many have asked that the
standards take into account more territory of the United States.
Extending the standard to include the identification of Micropolitan
Statistical Areas responds to those requests.

1. Concept and Uses

    The general concept of a Metropolitan Statistical Area or a
Micropolitan Statistical Area is that of an area containing a
recognized population nucleus and adjacent communities that have a high
degree of integration with that nucleus. The purpose of the Standards
for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas is to
provide nationally consistent definitions for collecting, tabulating,
and publishing Federal statistics for a set of geographic areas. To
this end, the Metropolitan Area concept has been successful as a
statistical representation of the social and economic linkages between
urban cores and outlying, integrated areas. This success is evident in
the continued use and application of Metropolitan Area definitions
across broad areas of data collection, presentation, and analysis. This
success also is evident in the use of statistics for Metropolitan Areas
to inform the debate and development of public policies and in the use
of Metropolitan Area definitions to implement and administer a variety
of nonstatistical Federal programs. These last uses, however, raise
concerns about the distinction between appropriate uses--collecting,
tabulating, and publishing statistics as well as informing policy--and
inappropriate uses--implementing nonstatistical programs and
determining program eligibility. OMB establishes and maintains these
areas solely for statistical purposes.
    In order to preserve the integrity of its decision making with
respect to reviewing and revising the standards for designating areas,
OMB believes that it should not attempt to take into account or
anticipate any public or private sector nonstatistical uses that may be
made of the definitions. It cautions that Metropolitan Statistical Area
and Micropolitan Statistical Area definitions should not be used to
develop and implement Federal, state, and local nonstatistical programs
and policies without full consideration of the effects of using these
definitions for such purposes.
    Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas--collectively
called Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs)--should not serve as a
general purpose geographic framework for nonstatistical activities and
may or may not be suitable for use in program funding formulas. The
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area Standards do not equate
to an urban-rural classification; all counties included in Metropolitan
and Micropolitan Statistical Areas and many other counties contain both
urban and rural territory and populations. Programs that base funding
levels or eligibility on whether a county is included in a Metropolitan
or Micropolitan Statistical Area may not accurately address issues or
problems faced by local populations,

[[Page 82229]]

organizations, institutions, or governmental units. For instance,
programs that seek to strengthen rural economies by focusing solely on
counties located outside Metropolitan Statistical Areas could ignore a
predominantly rural county that is included in a Metropolitan
Statistical Area because a high percentage of the county's residents
commute to urban centers for work. Although the inclusion of such a
county in a Metropolitan Statistical Area indicates the existence of
economic ties, as measured by commuting, with the central counties of
that Metropolitan Statistical Area, it may also indicate a need to
provide programs that would strengthen the county's rural economy so
that workers are not compelled to leave the county in search of jobs.
    Program designs that treat all parts of a CBSA as if they were as
urban as the densely settled core ignore the rural conditions that may
exist in some parts of the area. Under such programs, schools,
hospitals, businesses, and communities that are separated from the
urban core by large distances or difficult terrain may experience the
same kinds of challenges as their counterparts in rural portions of
counties that are outside CBSAs. Although some programs do permit large
Metropolitan Area counties to be split into ``urban'' and ``rural''
portions, smaller Metropolitan Area counties also can contain isolated
rural communities.
    Geographic information systems technology has progressed
significantly over the past 10 years, making it practical for
government agencies and organizations to assess needs and implement
appropriate programs at a local geographic scale when appropriate. OMB
urges agencies, organizations, and policy makers to review carefully
the goals of nonstatistical programs and policies to ensure that
appropriate geographic entities are used to determine eligibility for
and the allocation of Federal funds.

2. Evolution and Review of the Metropolitan Area Standards

    From the beginning of the Metropolitan Area program, OMB has
reviewed the Metropolitan Area standards and, if warranted, revised
them in the years preceding their application to new decennial census
data. Periodic review of the standards is necessary to ensure their
continued usefulness and relevance. Our current review of the
Metropolitan Area standards--the Metropolitan Area Standards Review
Project--has been the fifth such review. It has addressed, as a first
priority, user concerns with the conceptual and operational complexity
of the standards as they have evolved over the decades. Our three
previous Federal Register notices have discussed this and other key
concerns, as well as major milestones of the review.
    In the fall of 1998, OMB chartered the Metropolitan Area Standards
Review Committee (the Review Committee). We charged it with examining
the 1990 Metropolitan Area standards in view of work completed earlier
in the decade and providing recommendations for possible changes to
those standards. The Review Committee included representatives from the
Bureau of the Census (Chair), Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Economic
Research Service (Agriculture), National Center for Health Statistics,
and, ex officio, OMB. The Census Bureau provided research support to
the Review Committee.
    This is the fourth and final Notice pertaining to the Metropolitan
Area Standards Review Project. OMB presented four alternative
approaches to defining statistical areas in a December 21, 1998 Federal
Register notice, ``Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and
Nonmetropolitan Areas'' (63 FR 70526-70561). That Notice also included
a discussion of the evolution of the standards for defining
Metropolitan Areas as well as the standards that were used to define
Metropolitan Areas during the 1990s.
    OMB presented the Review Committee's initial recommendations in an
October 20, 1999 Federal Register notice entitled, ``Recommendations
From the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee to the Office of
Management and Budget Concerning Changes to the Standards for Defining
Metropolitan Areas'' (64 FR 56628-56644). OMB then published the Review
Committee's final report and recommendations for revised standards in
an August 22, 2000 Federal Register notice entitled ``Final Report and
Recommendations From the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee
to the Office of Management and Budget Concerning Changes to the
Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas'' (65 FR 51060-51077). The
final recommendations presented in that Notice reflected some of the
concerns raised in comments in response to the Review Committee's
initial recommendations.

3. Future Directions

a. Statistical Area Research Projects
    Our review of the Metropolitan Area standards over the past 10
years has raised a number of issues and suggested alternative
approaches that warrant continued research and consideration. Ongoing
research projects will improve understanding of the Nation's patterns
of settlement and activity and how best to portray them. 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 Economic Research
Service, in conjunction with the Office of Rural Health Policy in the
Department of Health and Human Services and the University of
Washington, has developed a nationwide census tract level rural-urban
commuting area classification. This classification is available from
the Economic Research Service web site: http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/
briefing/rural/ruca/rucc.htm. These research efforts may lead to pilot
projects at the Census Bureau or other agencies in the future.
b. Review of the Relationship Between Statistical Geographic
Classifications and Other Federal Programs
    The review of the Metropolitan Area standards also prompted
comments about the use of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical
Area definitions in the design and administration of nonstatistical
Federal programs and funding formulas. Although this relationship was
not a criterion in reviewing the standards, the Review Committee and
OMB recognize the existence and importance of this relationship.
Comments received throughout the review indicated a need to distinguish
more clearly between using Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical
Areas to collect, tabulate, and publish statistics that measure
economic and social conditions to inform public policy, and the use of
the area definitions as a framework to determine eligibility or
allocate funds for nonstatistical programs. Further, the Review
Committee and OMB, as well as many commenters, recognize the need to
begin a collaborative, interagency process that could result in the
development of geographic area definitions that are appropriate for the
administration of nonstatistical programs. Such a process could result
in the identification of existing geographic area definitions and
modifications to them that are already in use by agencies (for
instance, there are at least six definitions of ``urban'' or ``urban
place'' currently in use by Federal agencies), and in the development
of guidelines that explain appropriate use of specific area definitions
in various

[[Page 82230]]

circumstances. A longer-term goal of such an effort could be the
development of one or more geographic area classifications designed
specifically for use in the administration of nonstatistical Federal
programs or of guidance for agencies that need to define geographic
areas appropriate for use with specific programs.

B. Summary of Comments Received in Response to the August 22, 2000
Federal Register Notice

    The August 22, 2000 Federal Register notice requested comment on
the Review Committee's final recommendations to OMB concerning
revisions to the standards for defining Metropolitan Areas.
    OMB received 1,672 comment letters from individuals (1,483),
municipalities and counties (88), regional planning and nongovernmental
organizations (62), Members of Congress (25), state governments (13),
and Federal agencies (1). Of the 1,672 letters, 1,314 offered comments
regarding the Fort Worth, Texas area; all of these letters dealt with
the identification of Metropolitan Divisions within the Dallas-Fort
Worth-Arlington area and with the criteria for titling Combined Areas.
OMB also heard concerns about the identification of Metropolitan
Divisions and Combined Area titles from 141 other commenters from
around the country.
    Thirty-two commenters expressed concern about the potential effects
of the proposed changes to the Metropolitan Area standards on
nonstatistical Federal programs. Eight commenters were concerned about
the effect on programs oriented toward rural areas, particularly if
Micropolitan Areas were not treated as ``rural'' for purposes of
Federal programs. Nine commenters expressed concern about the impact of
the recommended standards on health-related programs. Several
commenters suggested that OMB undertake research on the programmatic
impact of the recommended standards. Others suggested that OMB state
more strongly that it does not define Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Areas for use in administering and determining participation in Federal
nonstatistical programs.
    Eight commenters addressed the Review Committee's recommendations
about the qualification requirements for areas and central counties.
Three commenters supported the Review Committee's recommendation that
areas should qualify for CBSA status if a core of sufficient size--a
Census Bureau defined urban cluster of at least 10,000 population or an
urbanized area of at least 50,000 population--was present. Three
commenters questioned the way in which the recommended standards would
use urban clusters and urbanized areas as cores to qualify central
counties, in particular when a core crosses county lines but the
portion of the core in one county is not sufficient to qualify that
county as central.
    OMB received six comments about terminology in the proposed
standards. Three commenters expressed support for the Review
Committee's recommendation to retain the term ``metropolitan'' in
reference to areas containing at least one core of 50,000 or more
population. These commenters also expressed support for the use of the
term ``micropolitan'' in reference to areas containing cores of at
least 10,000 and less than 50,000 population. Several commenters
expressed concern that the term ``Core Based Statistical Area'' would
not be popular among users; only one commenter, however, supported
dropping the term. One commenter favored using the terms
``megapolitan'' and ``macropolitan'' to distinguish between areas
containing cores of at least one million and 50,000 population,
respectively, as discussed in the October 20, 1999 Federal Register
notice.
    Twenty-six commenters remarked on the Review Committee's
recommendations for identifying categories of CBSAs. Five commenters
expressed support for the identification of two categories of CBSAs--
metropolitan and micropolitan. Three commenters opposed identification
of Micropolitan Areas because of the potential, but as yet unknown,
impact such areas might have on the allocation of funds to Metropolitan
Areas. One commenter expressed a similar concern without opposing the
identification of Micropolitan Areas. Seven commenters favored the
qualification of any county containing 100,000 or more population as a
Metropolitan Area. Two commenters suggested that Combined Areas should
be treated as CBSAs and that their component entities should be treated
as Metropolitan Divisions.
    Twelve commenters remarked on the Review Committee's recommendation
to use the county as the geographic building block for CBSAs. Four
commenters expressed support for the continued use of counties as
building blocks. Three commenters expressed support for the use of
minor civil divisions as building blocks for a primary set of
statistical areas in New England. Five commenters expressed concern
about the use of counties as building blocks, noting that some
geographically large counties may contain populations that are not
integrated with the CBSA to which the county qualifies. Several of
these comments referred specifically to Douglas County, NV, which has
commuting ties with the South Lake Tahoe area in the eastern end of El
Dorado County, CA. Populations in the western end of El Dorado County,
however, are more closely aligned with the Sacramento, CA area. When
the recommended standards were applied to 1990 census data as a
demonstration of the standards, the South Lake Tahoe area (El Dorado
County, CA and Douglas County, NV) qualified to merge with the
Sacramento area.
    Forty-three commenters responded regarding the recommended criteria
for qualifying outlying counties. Nearly all commenters supported the
use of commuting data in determining the qualification of outlying
counties. Thirteen of the commenters suggested that other measures
should be used in addition to commuting. Six of these commenters
suggested including a county in a Metropolitan Area if it is part of
that area's metropolitan planning organization for transportation
planning purposes. One commenter noted that commuting to work is a less
relevant measure of interaction in areas that have high percentages of
retirees. Three commenters suggested that commuting is too simplistic
and is an insufficient measure of all social and economic interactions
between areas. One commenter took issue with the specific wording of
the decennial census questionnaire's place of work question, which was
the basis of commuting data used to define Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Areas under the standards recommended by the Review
Committee. Nineteen commenters specifically responded regarding the
commuting threshold used in qualifying outlying counties. Three
commenters supported a 25 percent commuting threshold for outlying
county qualification, as the Review Committee recommended; one
commenter suggested reducing the threshold to less than 25 percent, and
another specifically proposed a 20 percent threshold. Eleven commenters
favored a 15 percent commuting threshold for outlying county
qualification; these commenters generally drew attention to a
particular county that did not qualify at the 25 percent level. Three
commenters expressed general support for the Review Committee's
recommendations but did not mention a specific commuting threshold.
    OMB received 157 comments about the recommendations for merging and
combining adjacent CBSAs. Nearly all commenters supported the
recommendation to merge or combine

[[Page 82231]]

adjacent CBSAs when social and economic interaction between adjacent
areas is evident. Two commenters suggested eliminating the
identification of Combined Areas, arguing that the optional combination
recommended by the Review Committee results in an inconsistent
application of the Metropolitan and Micropolitan Area standards. Three
commenters expressed concern that the criteria for combining adjacent
CBSAs were too simplistic and by only measuring interactions between
pairs of CBSAs did not account for more complex ties within large
regions. One commenter suggested that OMB clarify the relationship
between areas defined using the recommended standards (CBSAs, Combined
Areas, and Metropolitan Divisions) and areas defined using the 1990
Metropolitan Area standards (Metropolitan Statistical Areas,
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and Primary Metropolitan
Statistical Areas). Two commenters suggested that Combined Areas should
be treated as official Metropolitan or Micropolitan Areas. Eighty-nine
commenters supported merging the Brownsville and McAllen areas to form
a single Metropolitan Area, although these areas lacked sufficient
commuting interchange to merge when the recommended standards were
applied with 1990 census data. Twelve commenters expressed opposition
to the potential combination of the Sarasota-Bradenton and Port
Charlotte areas in Florida (which, according to the Review Committee's
recommended standards applied to 1990 data, would combine only if local
opinion in both areas favored doing so). Several of these commenters
also noted that ties between the Port Charlotte area and the northern
(Bradenton) portion of the Sarasota-Bradenton area were minimal.
Eighteen commenters responded regarding the delineation of Combined
Areas in North Carolina for Raleigh and Durham as well as for
Greensboro-High Point, Burlington, and Eden-Reidsville. Of these, one
commenter supported the Review Committee's recommendations based on the
results of applying the recommended standards with 1990 census data;
however, 17 expressed a preference to eliminate the five individual
CBSAs that combine and instead recognize only the resultant combined
entities.
    Forty-seven commenters responded about the recommendations for
identification of Principal Cities and the use of those cities in
titling Metropolitan and Micropolitan Areas. Eighteen commenters
expressed concern about the identification of census designated places
as Principal Cities and the use of those places in titling Metropolitan
and Micropolitan Areas. Seventeen of these commenters responded
regarding the identification of specific census designated places as
Principal Cities and the titling of their respective Metropolitan
Areas. Eight commenters responded regarding aspects of the Principal
City criteria that prevented some locally important cities from
qualifying as Principal Cities and being included in their respective
areas' titles. These commenters were concerned primarily with the
requirement that Principal Cities with less than 250,000 population
have a population at least one-third that of the largest place. One
commenter suggested modifying the Principal City criteria to designate
a larger number of places; this commenter also noted that doing so
would reduce the need to use county names in the titles of Metropolitan
Divisions. Eleven commenters responded regarding the titles of specific
CBSAs in North Carolina; their comments on CBSA titles were related to
their comments about the recommendations for merging and combining
adjacent CBSAs. One commenter suggested that all cities of 500,000 or
more population should be included in area titles.
    OMB received 1,352 comments regarding the Review Committee's
recommended criteria for identifying Metropolitan Divisions. Of these,
1,332 commenters expressed opposition to the Review Committee's
recommendation, suggesting that the criteria were too strict and did
not adequately identify all counties that could be considered ``main
counties.'' Most of these commenters expressed support for recognizing
a specific county or set of counties as a Metropolitan Division within
a larger Metropolitan Area; however, some did note that the maximum
outcommuting threshold was too low and should be either raised or
eliminated. Five commenters supported the Review Committee's
recommendation. Three commenters from New Jersey opposed the
recommendation, noting that, in their opinion, it resulted in too many
Metropolitan Divisions in that state. These commenters suggested
lowering the outcommuting threshold so as to reduce the number of
counties that qualified as main counties. Two commenters suggested that
the boundaries of current Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(PMSAs) should be maintained as Metropolitan Division boundaries or the
criteria for defining Metropolitan Divisions should result in areas
that are consistent with current PMSA boundaries. Four commenters
expressed a desire for smaller groupings of counties than those
represented by the Metropolitan Divisions that resulted from the
application of the recommended standards with 1990 census data. One
commenter expressed opposition to the identification of Metropolitan
Divisions when doing so would split the component urban core between
two or more divisions. In effect, the commenter opposed the Review
Committee's recommendation to identify Metropolitan Divisions, since
the reason for doing so was to recognize the complexity of social and
economic interactions within large Metropolitan Areas that contain
individual urban cores that extend across multiple counties.
    OMB received 1,394 comments about the Review Committee's
recommended criteria for titling Combined Areas. Most of these comments
pertained to the recommendation to include in the title the name of the
largest Principal City from each of up to three CBSAs that combine.
These commenters generally expressed support for titling Combined Areas
using the largest Principal Cities within the combination regardless of
their CBSA locations. Some commenters expressed concern about the
Review Committee's recommendation that the Combined Area title include
an additional place name only if the CBSA in which that place is
located has a population at least one-third the size of the largest
CBSA in the combination. Regardless of the specific circumstances,
nearly all commenters noted that a result of the Review Committee's
recommendation was to exclude some socially and economically prominent
Principal Cities from the titles of their Combined Areas.
    Seven commenters responded regarding the Review Committee's
recommendations for defining New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs),
NECTA Divisions, and NECTA Combined Areas. All seven commenters
supported the identification of areas in New England that used cities
and towns as building blocks. Three commenters specifically supported
the Review Committee's recommendations regarding the identification of
NECTAs. Two commenters suggested that cities and towns should be the
building blocks for a primary set of areas in New England and that
counties should be used to define an alternative set of areas. One
commenter expressed support for the designation of NECTAs as either
metropolitan or micropolitan. Two

[[Page 82232]]

commenters suggested that NECTAs should be defined using criteria that
are different from criteria used to define CBSAs in the rest of the
country; one of these commenters suggested that other measures should
be used in addition to commuting to determine the extent of areas in
New England.
    OMB has taken all of these comments into account, giving them
careful consideration. As outlined below, we have adopted some of the
suggested changes and modified criteria recommended by the Review
Committee in August 2000. In a number of other cases, however, we have
concluded that we could not adopt the suggestions made by commenters
without undermining efforts to achieve a consistent, national approach
designed to enhance the value of data produced by Federal agencies.

C. OMB's Decisions Regarding Recommendations From the Metropolitan
Area Standards Review Committee Concerning Changes to the Standards
for Defining Metropolitan Areas

    This section of the Notice provides information on the decisions
OMB has made on the Review Committee's recommendations. In arriving at
these decisions, we took into account not only the public comment on
the Review Committee's recommendations published in the Federal
Register on August 22, 2000, but also the considerable amount of
information provided during the 10 years of this review process,
including public comments gathered from two conferences, a
Congressional hearing, discussions attendant to numerous presentations
to interested groups, and responses to two earlier OMB Notices (on
December 21, 1998, and October 20, 1999). Our decisions benefitted
greatly from the public participation that served as a reminder that,
although identified for purposes of collecting, tabulating, and
publishing Federal statistics, the Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas defined through these standards represent areas in
which people reside, work, and spend their lives and to which they
attach a considerable amount of pride. Finally, in reaching our
decisions, OMB benefitted substantially from the continuing
deliberations of the Review Committee in response to the public comment
as well as the research support provided by Census Bureau staff. We
have relied upon and very much appreciate the expertise, insight, and
dedication of Review Committee members and Census Bureau staff.
    OMB presents below our decisions on the Review Committee's specific
recommendations:
    1. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to define
Metropolitan Areas and Micropolitan Areas within a Core Based
Statistical Area (CBSA) classification, but modified the title of the
standards and the names of the categories to include the word
``statistical,'' as indicated in Section 6 of the standards.
    We considered two primary issues regarding the basis for
categorizing CBSAs as either Metropolitan Statistical Areas or
Micropolitan Statistical Areas. The first issue was whether to base
categorization on the total CBSA population or on core population. OMB
agrees with the Review Committee that since cores are the organizing
entities of CBSAs, categorization should be based on the population in
cores, reasoning that the range of services and functions provided
within an area largely derive from the size of the core.
    The second issue was whether to categorize areas based on the
population of the most populous (or ``dominant'') core or on the total
population of all (or ``multiple'') cores within a CBSA. OMB agrees
with the Review Committee's recommendation that a single core of 50,000
or more population provides a wider variety of functions and services
than does a group of smaller cores, even when such a group may have a
collective population greater than 50,000. OMB was concerned that CBSAs
categorized as Metropolitan Statistical Areas on the basis of the
population in all cores would not bear the same kinds of
characteristics as CBSAs categorized as Metropolitan Statistical Areas
on the basis of a single core of 50,000 or more population. This
decision also retains the current conceptual approach to defining
Metropolitan Areas as based around concentrations of 50,000 or more
population. The retention of this concept and the 50,000 population
threshold will facilitate comparison of data for Metropolitan
Statistical Areas over time.
    OMB inserted the word ``statistical'' into the terms for categories
of CBSAs and the title of the standards to make clearer the statistical
purpose of these areas.
    2. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to use
counties and equivalent entities as the geographic building blocks for
defining CBSAs throughout the United States and Puerto Rico, and to use
cities and towns as the geographic building blocks for defining New
England City and Town Areas (NECTAs).
    Using counties and equivalent entities throughout the United States
and Puerto Rico continues current practice, except in New England,
where historically Metropolitan Areas have been defined using minor
civil divisions. The choice of a geographic unit to serve as the
building block can affect the geographic extent of a statistical area
and its relevance or usefulness in describing economic and demographic
patterns. The choice also has implications for the ability of Federal
agencies to provide data for statistical areas and their components.
    We believe it advantageous to use counties and their equivalents
because they are available nationwide, have stable boundaries, and are
familiar geographic entities. In addition, more Federal statistical
programs produce data at the county level than at any subcounty level.
OMB agrees with the Review Committee that the well-known disadvantages
of using counties as building blocks for statistical areas--the large
geographic size of some counties and resultant lack of geographic
precision that follows from their use--are outweighed by the advantages
offered by using counties.
    We have reached our decision to use the county as the building
block for CBSAs in New England, because we attach priority to the use
of a consistent geographic unit nationwide. Use of a consistent
geographic building block offers improved usability to producers and
users of data; data for CBSAs in all parts of the country would be
directly comparable. Some statistical programs, such as those providing
nationwide economic data and population estimates, also have regarded
the Metropolitan Area program's use of minor civil divisions in New
England as a hindrance. They have sometimes used the currently
available alternative county based areas for New England, known as the
New England County Metropolitan Areas, or have minimized the number of
data releases for Metropolitan Areas. Under the current Metropolitan
Area program, data producers and users typically choose between (1)
adhering to the preferred Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Consolidated
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and Primary Metropolitan Statistical
Areas throughout the country and having data that limit comparisons
between some areas, and (2) using alternative areas in New England and
having more comparable data. OMB's decision eliminates the need for
this choice.
    Demographic and economic data for minor civil divisions in New
England are more plentiful than similar data for

[[Page 82233]]

subcounty entities in the rest of the Nation. In recognition of the
importance of minor civil divisions in New England, the wide
availability of data for them, and their long-term use in the
Metropolitan Area program, OMB also will use the minor civil division
as the building block for a set of areas for the six New England
states. These NECTAs are intended for use in the collection,
tabulation, publication, and analysis of statistical data, whenever
feasible and appropriate, for New England. Data providers and users
desiring areas defined using a nationally consistent geographic
building block should use the county based CBSAs in New England;
however, counties are less well-known in New England than cities and
towns.
    3. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to use Census
Bureau defined urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population and Census
Bureau defined urban clusters of 10,000--49,999 population as the cores
of CBSAs and to use the locations of these cores as the basis for
identifying central counties of CBSAs. OMB also accepted the Review
Committee's recommendation to identify central counties as those
counties that (a) have at least 50 percent of their population in urban
areas (urbanized areas or urban clusters) of at least 10,000 population
or (b) have within their boundaries a population of at least 5,000
located in a single urban area (urbanized area or urban cluster) of at
least 10,000 population.
    In accepting the Review Committee's recommendation to use Census
Bureau defined urbanized areas and urban clusters as the cores of
Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, OMB
recognizes that urbanized areas and urban clusters are the organizing
entities of CBSAs. The use of urbanized areas as cores is consistent
with current practice. To extend the classification to areas based on
cores of 10,000 to 49,999 population, OMB will use urban clusters as
cores for Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Urban clusters will be
identified by the Census Bureau following Census 2000 and will be
conceptually similar to urbanized areas.
    OMB agreed with the Review Committee that the location of these
cores should be used to identify the central county or counties of each
CBSA. The identification of central counties facilitates the use of
county-to-county commuting data when determining whether additional
counties qualify for inclusion in the CBSA.
    4. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to use data
on journey to work, or commuting, as the basis for grouping counties
together to form CBSAs (i.e., to qualify ``outlying counties''). OMB
accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to qualify a county as
an outlying county if (a) at least 25 percent of the employed residents
of the county work in the CBSA's central county or counties, or (b) at
least 25 percent of the jobs in the potential outlying county are
accounted for by workers who reside in the CBSA's central county or
counties. OMB also accepted the Review Committee's recommendation not
to use measures of settlement structure, such as population density, to
qualify outlying counties for inclusion in CBSAs.
    Three priorities guided OMB in reaching this decision. We believe
the data used to measure connections among counties should describe
those connections in a straightforward and intuitive manner, be
collected using consistent procedures nationwide, and be readily
available to the public. These priorities steered us to the use of data
gathered by Federal agencies and, more particularly, to commuting data
from the Census Bureau. Commuting to work is an easily understood
measure that reflects the social and economic integration of geographic
areas. OMB agrees with the Review Committee that changes in settlement,
commuting patterns, and communications technologies have made
settlement structure unreliable as an indicator of metropolitan
character. We agree that the percentage of a county's employed
residents who commute to the central county or counties is an
unambiguous, clear measure of whether a potential outlying county
should qualify for inclusion. The percentage of employment in the
potential outlying county accounted for by workers who reside in the
central county or counties is similarly a straightforward measure of
ties. Including both criteria addresses the conventional and the less
common reverse commuting flows.
    There have been changes in daily mobility patterns and increased
interaction between communities as indicated by increases in inter-
county commuting over the past 40 years. The percentage of workers in
the United States who commute to places of work outside their counties
of residence has increased from approximately 15 percent in 1960 (when
nationwide commuting data first became available from the decennial
census) to nearly 25 percent in 1990. OMB agrees with the Review
Committee that raising the commuting percentage required for
qualification of outlying counties from the 15 percent minimum of the
1990 standards to 25 percent is appropriate against this background of
increased overall inter-county commuting coupled with the removal of
all settlement structure requirements from the outlying county
criteria. In other words, since out-of-county commuting has become more
commonplace, a higher percentage of commuting is necessary to
demonstrate ties comparable to those indicated by a lower commuting
rate in 1960. Further, both the Review Committee and OMB considered the
``multiplier effect'' (a standard method used in economic analysis to
determine the impact of new jobs on a local economy) that each commuter
would have on the economy of the county in which he or she lives. The
size of the multiplier effect varies depending on the size of a
region's economy and employment base, but a multiplier of two or three
generally is accepted by regional economists, regional scientists, and
economic development analysts for most areas. Applying such a measure
in the case of a county with the minimum 25 percent commuting
requirement means that the incomes of at least half of the workers
residing in the outlying county are connected either directly (through
commuting to jobs located in the central county) or indirectly (by
providing services to local residents whose jobs are in the central
county) to the economy of the central county or counties of the CBSA
within which the county at issue qualifies for inclusion.
    5. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to merge
contiguous 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. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation
to use the same minimum commuting threshold--25 percent--as is used to
qualify outlying counties.
    In accepting the Review Committee's recommendation to merge
contiguous CBSAs, OMB recognized that patterns of population
distribution and commuting sometimes are complex and, as a result,
close social and economic ties, as measured by commuting, exist between
some contiguous CBSAs. OMB agreed with the Review Committee that strong
ties between the central counties of two contiguous CBSAs, similar to
the ties between an outlying county and a central county or counties,
should be recognized by merging the two areas to form a single CBSA.
    6. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendations to identify
Principal Cities and to use them

[[Page 82234]]

to title areas, but modified the recommendation concerning the criteria
used to identify Principal Cities as indicated in Section 5 of the
standards.
    OMB's modifications address two concerns: (1) ensuring that at
least one incorporated place of 10,000 or more population (if one is
present) is recognized as a Principal City, and (2) allowing a fuller
identification of places that represent the more important social and
economic centers within a Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical
Area. In the first instance, we were concerned that an unincorporated
place with a large population, but relatively small employment base,
would qualify as the only Principal City of its CBSA. OMB noted some
instances in which an incorporated place of at least 10,000 population
accounted for a larger amount of employment than the most populous
place, but lacked sufficient population to qualify as a Principal City.
OMB's modification to recognize the largest incorporated place of at
least 10,000 population as a Principal City will affect only a small
number of areas nationwide in which the most populous incorporated
place has less population than a larger unincorporated community.
    We also were concerned that the recommended criteria were too
restrictive and that many smaller, but locally important, cities would
not be recognized as Principal Cities of their respective CBSAs. This
was especially the case when the CBSA included one city that was
significantly larger in population size than all other cities within
the CBSA. OMB's modification will permit a fuller identification of
places with at least 50,000 population as Principal Cities. This
modification likely will result in the identification of approximately
100 additional Principal Cities, many of which currently are recognized
as central cities of Metropolitan Areas.
    7. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to identify
Metropolitan Divisions and NECTA Divisions that function as distinct
areas within Metropolitan Statistical Areas and NECTAs that contain at
least one core of 2.5 million or more population. OMB modified the
criteria used to define Metropolitan Divisions within Metropolitan
Statistical Areas as well as NECTA Divisions within NECTAs, as
indicated in Section 7 of the standards.
    OMB's modifications to the Metropolitan Division criteria reflect
two concerns. First, OMB was concerned that the Review Committee's
recommended criteria for identifying the main counties of Metropolitan
Divisions were too strict, particularly with regard to the requirement
that a county have less than 15 percent commuting to any other county
within the Metropolitan Statistical Area. The purpose of the main
county criteria is to identify those counties within a Metropolitan
Statistical Area that are self-contained economic centers. Such
counties, because of the strength of their employment base, can form
the basis for a separate division within the larger Metropolitan
Statistical Area. The first two criteria for main counties recommended
by the Review Committee--percent of resident workers employed within a
particular county and the ratio of jobs to employed residents--provide
indicators of the economic strength and relative independence of the
county. OMB determined, however, after considering public comment and
further discussion by the Review Committee, that the (third)
outcommuting requirement was not a direct indicator of a county's
economic strength or its identity as an organizing entity around which
to form a Metropolitan Division. Therefore, we are eliminating the
outcommuting criterion.
    Second, upon further review of commuting patterns and related
social and economic interactions within the ten Metropolitan
Statistical Areas that contained cores of at least 2.5 million
population in 1990, OMB discerned two kinds of counties. In the first
category are those counties that are strongly self-contained. These are
characterized by high percentages (65 percent or greater) of employed
residents who remain in the county to work and by high ratios of jobs
to resident workers (.75 or greater). These ``main counties'' stand
alone as self-contained social and economic units within the larger
Metropolitan Statistical Area or provide the social and economic center
around which a group of counties is organized.
    A second category of counties consists of those with high ratios of
jobs to resident workers, but a lower percentage of employed residents
working within the county (50 percent to 64.9 percent). These
``secondary counties,'' while they can be identified as social and
economic centers, also connect strongly with one or more adjacent
counties through commuting ties. Such counties are only moderately
self-contained and can provide the organizing basis for a Metropolitan
Division only when paired with one or more counties of similar or
greater economic strength. As such, they must combine with another
secondary county or with a main county when forming the basis for a
Metropolitan Division.
    We also note that when combining secondary counties with other main
or secondary counties and when qualifying additional outlying counties
for inclusion in a Metropolitan Division, the employment interchange
measure offers a more appropriate measure of interaction than
determining ties based on the strength of commuting in one direction
only. (The employment interchange measure is defined as the sum of the
percentage of commuting from the entity with the smaller total
population to the entity with the larger population and the percentage
of employment in the entity with the smaller total population accounted
for by workers residing in the entity with the larger total
population.) Our decision to use the employment interchange measure is
consistent with the reason for defining Metropolitan Divisions-that is,
to recognize the complex social and economic interactions that occur
within Metropolitan Statistical Areas that contain large urbanized
areas. For the same reason, OMB modified the NECTA Division criteria to
use the employment interchange measure, instead of the percentage of
out-commuters, when qualifying additional outlying cities and towns for
inclusion in a NECTA Division.
    8. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to combine
contiguous CBSAs when ties between those areas are less intense than
those captured by mergers, but still significant. OMB accepted the
Review Committee's recommendation to base combinations on the
employment interchange measure between two CBSAs. OMB also accepted the
Review Committee's recommendations that combinations of CBSAs, based on
an employment interchange measure of at least 15 but less than 25,
should occur only if local opinion (see Section C.10 below) in both
areas is in favor and that combinations should occur automatically if
the employment interchange measure between two CBSAs equals or exceeds
25. OMB added the word ``statistical'' to the term used to refer to
areas resulting from the combination of CBSAs as indicated in Section 8
of the standards.
    OMB agreed with the Review Committee that ties between contiguous
CBSAs that are less intense than those captured by mergers (see Section
C.5 above), but still significant, be recognized by combining those
CBSAs. Because a combination thus defined represents a relationship of
moderate strength between two CBSAs, OMB agrees with the Review
Committee that the combining areas should retain their

[[Page 82235]]

identities as separate CBSAs within the combination.
    OMB inserted the word ``statistical'' into the term used for
combinations to make clearer the statistical purpose of these areas.
    9. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendations to title (1)
Metropolitan Divisions using the names of up to three Principal Cities,
or up to three county names if no Principal Cities are present, in
order of descending population size; and (2) NECTA Divisions using the
names of up to three Principal Cities in order of descending population
size, or the name of the largest minor civil division if no principal
city is present. OMB modified the Review Committee's recommendations
concerning titles of CBSAs, NECTAs, and Combined Statistical Areas, as
indicated in Section 9 of the standards.
    OMB's modification of the criteria for titling CBSAs addresses
instances in which the largest Principal City is an unincorporated
census designated place. Titles should provide a means of easily
recognizing and locating CBSAs, and we are concerned that titles in
which the first-named place is an unincorporated community might not be
as recognizable nationally as those in which the first-named place is
an incorporated place.
    OMB's modification of the criteria for titling Combined Statistical
Areas addresses three concerns: (1) The title of a Combined Statistical
Area, to the extent possible, should reflect the geographic extent of
the combination by including the names of Principal Cities contained
within the areas that combine; (2) the title of a Combined Statistical
Area, to the extent possible, should contain the names of the largest
Principal Cities since these cities often are the social and economic
centers for the broad region represented by the combination; and (3)
the title of a Combined Statistical Area should not duplicate the title
of any of the combining Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Areas
or Metropolitan Divisions.
    10. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to apply
only statistical rules when defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation
to allow the use of local opinion when contiguous CBSAs qualify to
combine with an employment interchange measure of 15 to 24.9, but added
one provision (Section 11b of the standards) that would allow for local
opinion in titling Combined Statistical Areas.
    Applying only statistical rules when defining areas minimizes
ambiguity and maximizes the replicability and integrity of the process.
Consideration of local opinion in specific circumstances, however, can
provide room for accommodating some issues of local significance
without impairing the integrity of the classification. OMB agrees with
the Review Committee that when two contiguous CBSAs have an employment
interchange measure of at least 15 and less than 25, the measured ties
may be perceived as minimal by residents of the two areas. In these
situations, local opinion is useful in determining whether to combine
the two areas. OMB also agrees with the Review Committee that local
opinion is useful in determining titles for Combined Statistical Areas
that address the issues discussed in Section C.9 above.
    11. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation not to
define types of settlement structure, such as urban, suburban, rural,
and so forth, within the CBSA classification.
    OMB recognizes that formal definitions of settlement types such as
inner city, inner suburb, outer suburb, exurb, and rural would be of
use to the Federal statistical system as well as to researchers,
analysts, and other users of Federal data. Such settlement types,
however, are not necessary for the delineation of statistical areas in
this classification that describes the functional ties between
geographic entities. These types would more appropriately fall within a
separate classification that focuses exclusively on describing
settlement patterns and land uses. We believe the Census Bureau and
other interested Federal agencies should continue research on
settlement patterns below the county level to describe further the
distribution of population and economic activity throughout the Nation.
In addition, OMB will consider initiating a collaborative, interagency
process to foster improved understanding of geographic area
classifications and to investigate the feasibility of developing
alternative geographic area classifications that are appropriate for
purposes such as the administration of nonstatistical programs.
    12. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation that the
definitions of current Metropolitan Areas should not be automatically
retained (i.e., ``grandfathered'') in the implementation of the
``Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical
Areas.''
    In this context, ``grandfathering'' refers to the continued
designation of an area even though it does not meet the standards
currently in effect. The 1990 standards permitted changes in the
definitions, or extent, of individual Metropolitan Areas through the
addition or deletion of counties on the basis of each decennial census,
but those standards did not permit the disqualification of Metropolitan
Areas that previously qualified on the basis of a Census Bureau
population count. To maintain the integrity of the classification, OMB
favors the objective application of the new standards rather than
continuing to recognize areas that do not meet the standards. The
current status of a county as being within or outside a Metropolitan
Area will play no role in the application of the Standards for Defining
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
    13. OMB accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to define
new CBSAs between decennial censuses on the basis of Census Bureau
population estimates or special census counts and to update the
definitions of all existing CBSAs in 2008 using commuting data from the
Census Bureau's American Community Survey.
    The frequency with which new CBSAs are designated and existing
areas updated has been of considerable interest to data producers and
users throughout the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Project. The
first areas to be designated by OMB using the Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Statistical Area Standards and Census 2000 data will be
announced in 2003. The sources and future availability of data for
updating these areas figured prominently in the Review Committee's
discussions and OMB's decisions. The availability of population totals
and commuting data affects the ability to identify new CBSAs,
reclassify existing areas among categories, and update the extent of
existing areas. OMB agreed with the Review Committee that existing
CBSAs should be updated every five years, and agreed that the
availability of commuting data for all counties from the Census
Bureau's American Community Survey in 2008 offered the possibility of
updating the definitions of all existing CBSAs at that time.
    Our decisions as discussed above are reflected in the text of the
official Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas that we are issuing today. The following section
presents these standards.

D. Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical
Areas

    The Office of Management and Budget will use these standards to
define Core

[[Page 82236]]

Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) beginning in 2003. A CBSA is a
geographic entity associated with at least one core of 10,000 or more
population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social
and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties.
The standards designate and define two categories of CBSAs:
Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
    The purpose of the Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area
Standards is to provide nationally consistent definitions for
collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics for a set of
geographic areas. The Office of Management and Budget establishes and
maintains these areas solely for statistical purposes.
    Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas are not designed as
a general purpose geographic framework for nonstatistical activities or
for use in program funding formulas. The CBSA classification does not
equate to an urban-rural classification; Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas and many counties outside CBSAs contain both urban
and rural populations.
    CBSAs consist of counties and equivalent entities throughout the
United States and Puerto Rico. In view of the importance of cities and
towns in New England, a set of geographic areas similar in concept to
the county based CBSAs also will be defined for that region using
cities and towns. These New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs) are
intended for use with statistical data, whenever feasible and
appropriate, for New England. Data providers and users desiring areas
defined using a nationally consistent geographic building block should
use the county based CBSAs in New England.
    The following criteria apply to both the nationwide county based
CBSAs and to NECTAs, with the exceptions of Sections 6, 7, and 9, in
which separate criteria are applied when identifying and titling
divisions within NECTAs that contain at least one core of 2.5 million
or more population. Wherever the word ``county'' or ``counties''
appears in the following criteria (except in Sections 6, 7, and 9), the
words ``city and town'' or ``cities and towns'' should be substituted,
as appropriate, when defining NECTAs.

Section 1. Population Size Requirements for Qualification of Core Based
Statistical Areas

    Each CBSA must have a Census Bureau defined urbanized area of at
least 50,000 population or a Census Bureau defined urban cluster of at
least 10,000 population. (Urbanized areas and urban clusters are
collectively referred to as ``urban areas.'')

Section 2. Central Counties

    The central county or counties of a CBSA are those counties that:
    (a) have at least 50 percent of their population in urban areas of
at least 10,000 population; or
    (b) have within their boundaries a population of at least 5,000
located in a single urban area of at least 10,000 population.
    A central county is associated with the urbanized area or urban
cluster that accounts for the largest portion of the county's
population. The central counties associated with a particular urbanized
area or urban cluster are grouped to form a single cluster of central
counties for purposes of measuring commuting to and from potentially
qualifying outlying counties.

Section 3. Outlying Counties

    A county qualifies as an outlying county of a CBSA if it meets the
following commuting requirements:
    (a) at least 25 percent of the employed residents of the county
work in the central county or counties of the CBSA; or
    (b) at least 25 percent of the employment in the county is
accounted for by workers who reside in the central county or counties
of the CBSA.
    A county may appear in only one CBSA. If a county qualifies as a
central county of one CBSA and as outlying in another, it falls within
the CBSA in which it is a central county. A county that qualifies as
outlying to multiple CBSAs falls within the CBSA with which it has the
strongest commuting tie, as measured by either (a) or (b) above. The
counties included in a CBSA must be contiguous; if a county is not
contiguous with other counties in the CBSA, it will not fall within the
CBSA.

Section 4. Merging of Adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas

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

Section 5. Identification of Principal Cities

    The Principal City (or Cities) of a CBSA will include:
    (a) the largest incorporated place with a Census 2000 population of
at least 10,000 in the CBSA or, if no incorporated place of at least
10,000 population is present in the CBSA, the largest incorporated
place or census designated place in the CBSA; and
    (b) any additional incorporated place or census designated place
with a Census 2000 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 Census 2000 population of at least 50,000, but less than
250,000, and in which the number of jobs meets or exceeds the number of
employed residents; and
    (d) any additional incorporated place or census designated place
with a Census 2000 population of at least 10,000, but less than 50,000,
and one-third the population size of the largest place, and in which
the number of jobs meets or exceeds the number of employed residents.

Section 6. Categories and Terminology

    A CBSA receives a category based on the population of the largest
urban area (urbanized area or urban cluster) within the CBSA.
Categories of CBSAs are: Metropolitan Statistical Areas, based on
urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population, and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas, based on urban clusters of at least 10,000
population but less than 50,000 population.
    Counties that do not fall within CBSAs will represent ``Outside
Core Based Statistical Areas.''
    A NECTA receives a category in a manner similar to a CBSA and is
referred to as a Metropolitan NECTA or a Micropolitan NECTA.

Section 7. Divisions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas and New England
City and Town Areas

    (a) A Metropolitan Statistical Area containing a single core with a
population of at least 2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller
groupings of counties referred to as Metropolitan Divisions.
    A county qualifies as a ``main county'' of a Metropolitan Division
if 65 percent or more of its employed residents work within the county
and the ratio of the number of jobs located in the county to the number
of employed residents of the county is at least .75.
    A county qualifies as a ``secondary county'' if 50 percent or more,
but less than 65 percent, of its employed residents work within the
county and the ratio of the number of jobs located in the county to the
number of employed residents of the county is at least .75.

[[Page 82237]]

    A main county automatically serves as the basis for a Metropolitan
Division. For a secondary county to qualify as the basis for forming a
Metropolitan Division, it must join with either a contiguous secondary
county or a contiguous main county with which it has the highest
employment interchange measure of 15 or more.
    After all main counties and secondary counties are identified and
grouped (if appropriate), each additional county that already has
qualified for inclusion in the Metropolitan Statistical Area falls
within the Metropolitan Division associated with the main/secondary
county or counties with which the county at issue has the highest
employment interchange measure. Counties in a Metropolitan Division
must be contiguous.
    (b) A NECTA containing a single core with a population of at least
2.5 million may be subdivided to form smaller groupings of cities and
towns referred to as NECTA Divisions.
    A city or town will be a ``main city or town'' of a NECTA Division
if it has a population of 50,000 or more and its highest rate of out-
commuting to any other city or town is less than 20 percent.
    After all main cities and towns have been identified, each
remaining city and town in the NECTA will fall within the NECTA
Division associated with the city or town with which the one at issue
has the highest employment interchange measure.
    Each NECTA Division must contain a total population of 100,000 or
more. Cities and towns first assigned to areas with populations less
than 100,000 will be assigned to the qualifying NECTA Division
associated with the city or town with which the one at issue has the
highest employment interchange measure. Cities and towns within a NECTA
Division must be contiguous.

Section 8. Combining Adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas

    (a) Any two adjacent CBSAs will form a Combined Statistical Area if
the employment interchange measure between the two areas is at least
25.
    (b) Adjacent CBSAs that have an employment interchange measure of
at least 15 and less than 25 will combine if local opinion, as reported
by the congressional delegations in both areas, favors combination.
    (c) The CBSAs that combine retain separate identities within the
larger Combined Statistical Areas.

Section 9. Titles of Core Based Statistical Areas, Metropolitan
Divisions, New England City and Town Divisions, and Combined
Statistical Areas

    (a) The title of a CBSA will include the name of its Principal City
with the largest Census 2000 population. If there are multiple
Principal Cities, the names of the second largest and third largest
Principal Cities will appear in the title in order of descending
population size. If the Principal City with the largest Census 2000
population is a census designated place, the name of the largest
incorporated place of at least 10,000 population that also is a
Principal City will appear first in the title followed by the name of
the census designated place.
    (b) The title of a Metropolitan Division will include the name of
the Principal City with the largest Census 2000 population located in
the Metropolitan Division. If there are multiple Principal Cities, the
names of the second largest and third largest Principal Cities will
appear in the title in order of descending population size. If there
are no Principal Cities located in the Metropolitan Division, the title
of the Metropolitan Division will use the names of up to three counties
in order of descending population size.
    (c) The title of a NECTA Division will include the name of the
Principal City with the largest Census 2000 population located in the
NECTA Division. If there are multiple Principal Cities, the names of
the second largest and third largest Principal Cities will appear in
the title in order of descending population size. If there are no
Principal Cities located in the NECTA Division, the title of the NECTA
Division will use the name of the city or town with the largest
population.
    (d) The title of a Combined Statistical Area will include the name
of the largest Principal City in the combination, followed by the names
of up to two additional Principal Cities in the combination in order of
descending population size, or a suitable regional name, provided that
the Combined Statistical Area title does not duplicate the title of a
component Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area or Metropolitan
Division. Local opinion will be considered when determining the titles
of Combined Statistical Areas.
    (e) Titles also will include the names of any state in which the
area is located.

Section 10. Update Schedule

    (a) The Office of Management and Budget will define CBSAs based on
Census 2000 data in 2003.
    (b) Each year thereafter, the Office of Management and Budget will
designate new CBSAs 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 urban area (urbanized area or urban cluster) of 10,000 or more
population that is outside of any existing CBSA.
    (c) In the years 2004 through 2007, outlying counties of
intercensally designated CBSAs will qualify, according to the criteria
in Section 3 above, on the basis of Census 2000 commuting data.
    (d) The Office of Management and Budget will review the definitions
of all existing CBSAs in 2008 using commuting data from the Census
Bureau's American Community Survey. The central counties of CBSAs
identified on the basis of a Census 2000 population count, or on the
basis of population estimates or a special census count in the case of
intercensally defined areas, will constitute the central counties for
purposes of the 2008 area definitions. New CBSAs will be designated in
2008 and 2009 on the basis of Census Bureau special census counts or
population estimates as described above; outlying county qualification
in these years will be based on 2008 commuting data from the American
Community Survey.

Section 11. Local Opinion

    Local opinion, as used in these standards, is the reflection of the
views of the public and is obtained through the appropriate
congressional delegations. The Office of Management and Budget will
seek local opinion in two circumstances:
    (a) When two adjacent CBSAs qualify for combination based on an
employment interchange measure of at least 15 but less than 25 (see
Section 8). The two CBSAs will combine only if there is evidence that
local opinion in both areas favors the combination.
    (b) To determine the title of a Combined Statistical Area.
    After decisions have been made regarding the combinations of CBSAs
and the titles of Combined Statistical Areas, the Office of Management
and Budget will not request local opinion again on these issues until
the next redefinition of CBSAs.

Section 12. Definitions of Key Terms

    Census designated place.--A statistical geographic entity that is

[[Page 82238]]

equivalent to an incorporated place, defined for the decennial census,
consisting of a locally recognized, unincorporated concentration of
population that is identified by name.
    Central county.--The county or counties of a Core Based Statistical
Area containing a substantial portion of an urbanized area or urban
cluster or both, and to and from which commuting is measured to
determine qualification of outlying counties.
    Combined Statistical Area.--A geographic entity consisting of two
or more adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) with employment
interchange measures of at least 15. Pairs of CBSAs with employment
interchange measures of at least 25 combine automatically. Pairs of
CBSAs with employment interchange measures of at least 15, but less
than 25, may combine if local opinion in both areas favors combination.
    Core.--A densely settled concentration of population, comprising
either an urbanized area (of 50,000 or more population) or an urban
cluster (of 10,000 to 49,999 population) defined by the Census Bureau,
around which a Core Based Statistical Area is defined.
    Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA).--A statistical geographic
entity consisting of the county or counties associated with at least
one core (urbanized area or urban cluster) of at least 10,000
population, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of social and
economic integration with the core as measured through commuting ties
with the counties containing the core. Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas are the two categories of Core Based Statistical
Areas.
    Employment interchange measure.--A measure of ties between two
adjacent entities. The employment interchange measure is the sum of the
percentage of employed residents of the smaller entity who work in the
larger entity and the percentage of employment in the smaller entity
that is accounted for by workers who reside in the larger entity.
    Geographic building block.--The geographic unit, such as a county,
that constitutes the basic geographic component of a statistical area.
    Main city or town.--A city or town that acts as an employment
center within a New England City and Town Area that has a core with a
population of at least 2.5 million. A main city or town serves as the
basis for defining a New England City and Town Area Division.
    Main county.--A county that acts as an employment center within a
Core Based Statistical Area that has a core with a population of at
least 2.5 million. A main county serves as the basis for defining a
Metropolitan Division.
    Metropolitan Division.--A county or group of counties within a Core
Based Statistical Area that contains a core with a population of at
least 2.5 million. A Metropolitan Division consists of one or more
main/secondary counties that represent an employment center or centers,
plus adjacent counties associated with the main county or counties
through commuting ties.
    Metropolitan Statistical Area.--A Core Based Statistical Area
associated with at least one urbanized area that has a population of at
least 50,000. The Metropolitan Statistical Area comprises the central
county or counties containing the core, plus adjacent outlying counties
having a high degree of social and economic integration with the
central county as measured through commuting.
    Micropolitan Statistical Area.--A Core Based Statistical Area
associated with at least one urban cluster that has a population of at
least 10,000, but less than 50,000. The Micropolitan Statistical Area
comprises the central county or counties containing the core, plus
adjacent outlying counties having a high degree of social and economic
integration with the central county as measured through commuting.
    New England City and Town Area (NECTA).--A statistical geographic
entity that is defined using cities and towns as building blocks and
that is conceptually similar to the Core Based Statistical Areas in New
England (which are defined using counties as building blocks).
    New England City and Town Area (NECTA) Division.--A city or town or
group of cities and towns within a NECTA that contains a core with a
population of at least 2.5 million. A NECTA Division consists of a main
city or town that represents an employment center, plus adjacent cities
and towns associated with the main city or town, or with other cities
and towns that are in turn associated with the main city or town,
through commuting ties.
    Outlying county.--A county that qualifies for inclusion in a Core
Based Statistical Area on the basis of commuting ties with the Core
Based Statistical Area's central county or counties.
    Outside Core Based Statistical Areas.--Counties that do not qualify
for inclusion in a Core Based Statistical Area.
    Principal City.--The largest city of a Core Based Statistical Area,
plus additional cities that meet specified statistical criteria.
    Secondary county.--A county that acts as an employment center in
combination with a main county or another secondary county within a
Core Based Statistical Area that has a core with a population of at
least 2.5 million. A secondary county serves as the basis for defining
a Metropolitan Division, but only when combined with a main county or
another secondary county.
    Urban area.--The generic term used by the Census Bureau to refer
collectively to urbanized areas and urban clusters.
    Urban cluster.--A statistical geographic entity to be defined by
the Census Bureau for Census 2000, consisting of a central place(s) and
adjacent densely settled territory that together contain at least 2,500
people, generally with an overall population density of at least 1,000
people per square mile. For purposes of defining Core Based Statistical
Areas, only those urban clusters of 10,000 more population are
considered.
    Urbanized area.--A statistical geographic entity defined by the
Census Bureau, consisting of a central place(s) and adjacent densely
settled territory that together contain at least 50,000 people,
generally with an overall population density of at least 1,000 people
per square mile.

John T. Spotila,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-32997 Filed 12-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P