Metropolitan Statistical Areas: New Standards and Their Impact on Selected Federal Programs
Published: 2004-06-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: For the past 50 years, the federal government has had a metropolitan area program designed to provide a nationally consistent set of standards for collecting, tabulating, and publishing federal statistics for geographic areas in the United States and Puerto Rico. Before each decennial census, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews the standards to ensure their continued usefulness and relevance and, if warranted, revises them. While designed only for statistical purposes, various federal programs use the statistical areas to determine eligibility and to allocate federal funds. OMB advises agencies to carefully review program goals to ensure that appropriate geographic entities are used in making these decisions. GAO was asked to examine the process used for developing the OMB standards issued in 2000 and their effects on certain federal programs. Specifically, GAO agreed to report on (1) the process used to develop the 2000 standards, (2) how the 2000 standards differed from the 1990 standards, (3) how the application of the standards affected the geographic distribution of counties into statistical areas, and (4) the effect of standards on the eligibility and funding allocations for four federal programs.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The new standards for federal statistical recognition of metropolitan areas issued by OMB in 2000 differ from the 1990 standards in many ways. One of the most notable differences is the introduction of a new designation for less populated areas--micropolitan statistical areas. These are areas comprised of a central county or counties with at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but fewer than 50,000 people, plus adjacent outlying counties if commuting criteria is met. The 2000 standards and the latest population update have resulted in five counties being dropped from metropolitan statistical areas, while another 41counties that had been a part of a metropolitan statistical area have had their statistical status changed and are now components of micropolitan statistical areas. Overall, the 2000 standards have resulted in changes in every state and nationwide statistical coverage has increased. Under the 1990 standards, 847 counties were in metropolitan statistical areas. Now, there are 1090 counties in metropolitan statistical areas and 690 counties in micropolitan statistical areas. Of the four federal programs GAO reviewed to determine the impact of the 2000 standards, eligibility under one has expanded; eligibility under another is expected to expand in January 2005; the agency overseeing another anticipates under its proposal that program payments for fiscal year 2005 will be affected, but with no net increase in funding; and eligibility under another program is unaffected because the geographic boundaries used to determine eligibility are set by statute. For example, the standards have resulted in new eligibility in fiscal year 2004 for 60 cities to receive a total of $36.2 million in Community Development Block Grants, which provide funds to revitalize neighborhood infrastructure. This funding increase required a 1.2 percent funding cut for all other grantees because a cut is required to offset increases due to expanded eligibility.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: For the past 50 years, the federal government has had a metropolitan area  program designed to provide consistency in collecting, tabulating, and  publishing federal statistics for geographic areas in the United States and  Puerto Rico.  Although these geographic areas are designed for statistical  purposes only, various federal programs use these areas to determine  eligibility and to allocate federal funds.  The Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) advises agencies, organizations, and policymakers to  carefully review program goals to ensure that appropriate geographic  entities are used in making these decisions.
Before each decennial census, OMB reviews the standards used in defining  the boundaries of these statistical areas to ensure their continued  usefulness and relevance and, if warranted, revises them.  OMB had  determined that a more fundamental examination of the standards was  required for 2000 and advisory groups were formed to look at the  standards.  These groups suggested OMB consider defining less populated  areas, which had been statistically unrecognized.
To provide information to this Subcommittee and other members of  Congress, you asked us to examine the process used for developing the  2000 standards issued by OMB and their effects on certain federal  programs.  Specifically, we agreed to report on (1) the process used to  develop the 2000 standards, (2) how the 2000 standards differ from the  1990 standards, (3) how the application of the standards affected the  geographic distribution of counties into statistical areas, and (4) the effect  of the 2000 standards on the eligibility and funding allocations for four  federal programs.  You also asked us to provide a list of programs that are  required by federal statute to use metropolitan statistical areas for  determining federal funds.  The list of the programs and the potential affect  the 2000 standards may have on federal funding for those programs are  provided in appendix I.
To meet these objectives, we reviewed pertinent documents—including the  2000 and 1990 standards—and performed a search of federal programs that  use metropolitan statistical areas for allocating federal funds.  We also  examined how four federal programs were affected by the 2000 standards.   We also interviewed knowledgeable officials from OMB, the U.S. Census  Bureau, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Department of  Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Health  and Human Services (HHS). We conducted our work from July 2003  through May 2004, in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.  On March 23, 2004, we presented Subcommittee staff  with descriptive information on the revised standards.  This report conveys  the information provided during that briefing.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: OMB’s 2000 standards replaced the 1990 standards for metropolitan areas.  Some of the terms have changed, and appendix II provides an explanation  of the key terms used in the new standards.
OMB’s 2000 standards provide for the identification of the following  statistical areas in the United States and Puerto Rico:  metropolitan statistical area (which can be further divided into   New England city and town area (including New England city and town  area divisions); and  combined New England city and town area.
Determining the boundaries of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical  areas starts with identifying the county(ies) or equivalent entity(ies),  which contain the Census Bureau defined-urbanized area or urban cluster.   This county is referred to as the “central county.” A metropolitan statistical  area has at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more, and a micropolitan  statistical area has at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but less than  50,000 people.  In addition, outlying counties are included in metropolitan  and micropolitan statistical areas based on commuting ties with the central  county.
Some metropolitan statistical areas are very large, contain several counties,  and cross state lines.  If specified criteria are met, large metropolitan  statistical areas can be subdivided into smaller geographic units called  metropolitan divisions.  Having subdivisions within a larger metropolitan  statistical area provides data users with a set of statistics at a lower level of  geography.
Combined statistical areas are groupings of adjacent metropolitan and  micropolitan areas.  These combined statistical areas have social and  economic ties as measured by commuting—but at lower levels when  compared to counties within metropolitan and micropolitan statistical  areas.  Combined statistical areas provide data users with a broader  perspective of how adjacent metropolitan and micropolitan areas are  related.
In view of the importance of cities and towns in New England, the 2000  standards also provide for a set of geographic areas that are defined using  cities and towns in the six New England states.  New England city and town  areas use the same criteria as metropolitan and micropolitan statistical  areas, metropolitan divisions, and combined statistical areas.  The six  states included in the New England region are Maine, Massachusetts,  Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address the first and second objectives, we reviewed Federal Register  notices concerning the 2000 standards, compared the 2000 standards to the  1990 standards, and discussed the process and changes with OMB and  Census Bureau officials.  To address the third objective, we compared  counties in metropolitan statistical areas as of June 30, 1999, using the 1990  standards, to counties in metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas as  of June 6, 2003, and February 18, 2004, using the 2000 standards.  As part of  that analysis, we identified the status—metropolitan, micropolitan, or not  classified—for each of the counties in those listings.  To provide detailed  information on the changes that have occurred to counties’ metropolitan  and micropolitan statistical area status from 1999 to 2003, we obtained  Census Bureau maps for Michigan, New Mexico, and New York.  We  selected Michigan and New York because you asked us to look at changes  that occurred as a result of the new standards in those two states; we  selected New Mexico because it illustrates additional statistical coverage  under the 2000 standards.
We assessed the data reliability of the Census Bureau’s June 30, 1999,   June 6, 2003, and February 18, 2004, county listings of metropolitan and  micropolitan statistical areas by electronic testing for obvious errors in  accuracy and completeness and by reviewing relevant documents, such as  OMB bulletins, for those counties listed in metropolitan and micropolitan  statistical areas.  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for  the purpose of our review.
To address the fourth objective, we discussed with your staff which federal  programs to review.  The programs we agreed with your offices to review  were (1) HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program;  (2) OPM’s Locality Pay Program for General Schedule Employees;   (3) HHS’s Medicare’s payment system for hospital inpatients; and (4) HHS’s  Ryan White CARE Act Program.  To determine how the 2000 standards  affected these programs, we reviewed relevant documentation, such as  analysis performed by the program offices on the impact of new standards;  attended public hearings; and interviewed agency officials overseeing these  programs.
We also compiled a list of federal programs that specify the use of  metropolitan statistical areas for determining funding for federal programs,  and the potential affect that the 2000 standards may have on funding for  those programs.  We compiled this list by performing a search of statutes  that referred to “metropolitan statistical area(s)” or “MSA(s).”  Our search  was limited to the United States Code and was not intended to serve as an  exhaustive list of federal programs that refer to metropolitan statistical  areas.
section_title: Completion of the 2000 Standards Occurred after Extensive Consultation over Many Years
paragraphs: OMB’s process for developing the 2000 standards took more than a decade  and involved extensive consultation with experts inside and outside  government. (See fig. 1.)
The process for developing the 2000 standards began even before OMB had  published the 1990 standards.  In 1989, OMB asked the Census Bureau to  examine the concepts underlying the identification and definitions of  metropolitan areas.  The goal was to evaluate alternative approaches for  identifying metropolitan areas that would take into account the variation in  geographic settlement patterns across the United States.  These patterns  range from heavy concentrations of people to vast sparsely populated  regions.
The Bureau formed two working groups to research alternative  approaches.  The working groups found that assigning all territory outside  of a metropolitan area to a single residual, nonmetropolitan area was no  longer satisfactory.  Based on these conclusions, the Census Bureau  established agreements with four university working groups in 1991; each  was to develop its own alternative for defining both metropolitan and  nonmetropolitan areas.  In 1995, these four alternatives were presented at a  public conference hosted by the Council of Professional Associations on  Federal Statistics (COPAFS), a group of professional associations,  businesses, research institutes, and others interested in federal statistics  that was established to promote an open dialogue with the federal  statistical agencies.
As the process for revising the standards moved along, there was also  congressional interest in its progress.  In July 1997, OMB and Census  Bureau officials testified before the Subcommittee on Government  Management, Information, and Technology, House Committee on  Government Reform and Oversight, on the effort.
In the fall of 1998, OMB chartered the interagency Metropolitan Area  Standards Review Committee (MASRC), a group representing various  statistical agencies within the federal government, and charged it with  recommending revisions to the 1990 standards.  In a December 21, 1998,  Federal Register notice, OMB requested comments from the public on   (1) the suitability of the current standards, (2) principles that should  govern any proposed revisions to the standards, (3) reactions to the four  approaches outlined in the notice, and (4) proposals for other ways to  define metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.  The issues posed in this  Federal Register notice were also discussed at a second public conference  hosted by COPAFS in January 1999.  In addition, these issues were  discussed extensively in two subsequent Federal Register notices, which  solicited public comment on MASRC’s recommendations.
On December 27, 2000, after considering public comments on MASRC  recommendations, OMB released new standards for determining the  boundaries of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas.  In that  notice of decision, OMB stated that it would apply the standards to  geographic areas within the United States based on Census 2000 data and  publish the results in 2003.  On June 6, 2003, OMB published newly  configured geographic areas.  OMB also noted in the 2000 standards that it  would designate new areas based on population updates from the Census  Bureau, the first of which occurred on February 18, 2004.
section_title: Changes in Terminology Accompanied Definitional Changes
paragraphs: The 2000 standards differ from the 1990 standards in many ways, and the  Census Bureau and OMB have stated that the new standards are simpler  and more transparent than the previous standards.  The 2000 standards  define certain important concepts differently from those used in the 1990  standards. (See table 1.)
One of the most notable differences between 1990 and 2000 is the  introduction of a new designation for less populated areas—micropolitan  statistical areas.  These areas are comprised of a central county or counties  with a Census Bureau-defined urban cluster of 10,000 to 49,999 population,  plus adjacent outlying counties having a high degree of economic and  social integration with the central county as measured through commuting.
The 2000 standards also replaced the term primary metropolitan statistical  areas (PMSA) with the term metropolitan division.  OMB told us that that  this change in terminology was a concern for many areas renamed  metropolitan divisions.  Long Island, New York, for example, expressed  concern that the change in its designation, from part of a PMSA to a  metropolitan division, might affect the distribution of federal funds to the  area under programs that use the OMB standards.  Although the criteria for  PMSAs and metropolitan divisions are not identical because the population  threshold increased, Long Island qualified as a metropolitan division,  leaving its statistical status effectively unchanged.  OMB provided  additional guidance in its February 18, 2004, population update stating that  if federal agencies were using PMSAs for program, administrative, and fund  allocation purposes, the agencies should now consider using the  metropolitan division definition, the comparable geographic unit  established by the 2000 standards.
Another change in the 2000 standards was in how an outlying county could  link to a central county (or counties) and become part of a metropolitan or  micropolitan statistical area. This process has been streamlined.  Under the  2000 standards, an outlying county can be linked to a central county (or  counties) if at least 25 percent of employed residents from the outlying  county work in the central county (or counties) or at least 25 percent of the  employment in the outlying county is accounted for by workers residing in  the central county (or counties).  This differs from the 1990 standards in  which there were six scenarios for linking outlying counties to central  counties, each of which included differing requirements for measures of  settlement structure, such as population density and the percentage of the  population that was urban.  Two of the six scenarios also required a  minimum amount of commuting of 15 percent.  Thus, because the 2000  standards raised that amount to 25 percent and eliminated the other  requirements of the 1990 standards, counties that had qualified under one  of these two scenarios and had a minimum amount of commuting from 15  to 25 percent would no longer qualify as outlying counties.
section_title: 2000 Standards Affected How and Whether Many Counties Were Included in New Statistical Areas
paragraphs: When OMB issued its June 6, 2003, newly configured statistical areas using  the 2000 standards for the United States, five counties that had been part  of metropolitan statistical areas, no longer qualified for this designation.   An additional 41 counties that had been a part of metropolitan statistical  areas are now components of micropolitan statistical areas.  For a list of  these counties see appendix IV.
The 2000 standards also increased the number of counties, by over 900,  across the country that attained status in statistical areas. (See figs. 2 and  3.)
Using the 1990 standards as of the June 1999 population update, there were  847 counties within metropolitan statistical areas.  Under the 2000  standards as of the February 2004 new area update, the number of counties  within metropolitan statistical areas increased by 243 to 1,090, and an  additional 690 counties were classified as being within micropolitan  statistical areas.  Appendix V provides the status—metropolitan,  micropolitan, or not classified—of the counties listed in the February 2004  population update as of 1999 and 2003. These increases mean that the vast  majority of Americans live in statistically recognized areas. Approximately  83 percent of the nation’s population live in metropolitan statistical areas  and 10 percent live in micropolitan statistical areas.
The 2000 standards resulted in statistical area changes in every state.  Of  the three states we examined, the change was greatest in New Mexico  where the number of counties in statistical areas increased by  approximately 250 percent.  State maps highlighting changes in county  status from 1999 to 2003 for New Mexico, New York, and Michigan are in  appendix VI.
See table 2 for the increase in the number of counties included in statistical  areas from 1999 to 2003 for New Mexico, New York, and Michigan.
section_title: Impact of Revised Standards on Four Selected Federal Programs Varied
paragraphs: Some federal agencies are required by statute to use metropolitan  statistical areas to allocate program funds and implement other aspects of  their programs.  In other instances, federal agencies are not required to use  metropolitan statistical areas by statute, but elect to do so.  While OMB  does not take into account or attempt to anticipate any of these  nonstatistical uses in defining metropolitan or micropolitan statistical  areas, it does advise agencies that use metropolitan areas for such  nonstatistical purposes that the standards are designed for statistical  purposes only and that changes to the standards may affect the  implementation of their programs.  More specifically, OMB urges agencies,  organizations, and policymakers to carefully review program goals to  ensure that appropriate geographic entities are used to determine eligibility  and allocation of federal funds for these programs.
We selected four federal programs that use metropolitan statistical areas to  illustrate the impact of the change in standards.  Those four programs are  HUD’s CDBG Program,  OPM’s Locality Pay Program for General Schedule Employees;  HHS’s Medicare Hospital Reimbursement System; and   HHS’s Ryan White CARE Act Program.
As a result of changes in the standards in 2000, eligibility under CDBG has  already expanded; eligibility under the locality pay program is expected to  be expanded in January 2005; HHS anticipates under its proposal that  hospital payments for fiscal year 2005 will be affected, but with no net  increase in funding; and eligibility under the Ryan White CARE Program is  unaffected by the standards because the boundaries for providing services  are set by statute.
subsections: section_title: CDBG Program
paragraphs: HUD’s CDBG Program provides cities and counties with funds they can use  to revitalize neighborhoods, rehabilitate housing, expand economic  opportunities, and/or improve community facilities and services to benefit  low- and moderate-income persons.  Under current law, HUD uses  designated metropolitan statistical areas, in part, to determine the  eligibility of city and county governments to receive CDBG formula  entitlement funds.
According to HUD officials, OMB’s 2000 standards resulted in new  eligibility for 60 cities that would provide them under the GDBG formula  with a total of $36.2 million in CDBGs. In addition, 7 cities and 5 counties  that became eligible under the 2000 standards would have become eligible  under the previous 1990 standards.  According to HUD, because the  amount of money appropriated for the CDBG Program did not take  expanded grantee eligibility into account, under the CDBG share formula  all existing entitlement grantees saw a 1.2 percent reduction in their CDBG  funding.
In December 2003 interim regulations, HUD addressed the effect of the  new OMB standards on CDBG entitlement grantee eligibility.  Specifically,  the replacement of the term central city by principal city had no effect on  the status of then-eligible communities.  HUD officials said that although  principal cities within newly created micropolitan statistical areas would  not qualify for CDBG funding, no city that had established eligibility for at  least 2 years would lose its eligibility as a result of the new standards  because current law allows such cities to retain their eligibility once they  obtain it. Current law also allows urban counties that were eligible by fiscal  year 1999 to retain their eligibility in future years.
section_title: Locality Pay Program
paragraphs: Under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA),  compensation for federal employees is adjusted depending on the local pay  area where they work.  FEPCA requires that federal pay rates be  comparable with nonfederal pay rates for the same level of work within the  same local pay area and that any pay disparities between federal and  nonfederal employees be eliminated.  To accomplish this, the Federal  Salary Council (FSC) reviews and makes recommendations to the  President’s Pay Agent (which consists of the Secretary of Labor and the  Directors of OMB and OPM) on the locality pay program, including the  establishment or modification of locality pay boundaries.
There are 31 locality pay areas for which the geographic boundaries  generally coincide with some of the metropolitan statistical areas set by the  1990 standards.  In anticipation of the revised standards, the President’s  Pay Agent had to decide whether and how to implement changes to the  locality pay program.  OPM issued regulations on behalf of the Pay Agent to  retain use of the existing statistical areas for locality pay boundaries so that  FSC and the President’s Pay Agent could review the new statistical areas  and their possible use in locality pay.  After that review, FSC recommended  (and in December 2003 the Pay Agent tentatively endorsed) the following  changes for pay:   Locality pay areas will be based on 2003 metropolitan statistical areas,  and where available, the combined statistical area—formed by  combining adjacent metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas.
Micropolitan statistical areas will not be used unless they are part of a  combined statistical area.
As a result of implementing these recommendations, 76 counties (including  some partial counties in New England) with a total of about 5,300 General  Schedule employees will be added to existing locality pay areas.  After  considering public comments, OPM (on behalf of the Pay Agent) plans to  issue final regulations on implementing the new locality pay areas January  2005.
section_title: Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System
paragraphs: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service’s (CMS) Medicare Hospital  Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) pays hospitals a fixed fee  depending on the diagnosis for each Medicare inpatient hospital stay.   These fixed payments are adjusted to account for variations in labor costs  across the country.  The labor cost adjustment is based on a wage index  calculated for specific geographic areas that reflects how average hospital  wages in each geographic area compare to average hospital wages  nationally.  The geographic areas are intended to represent the separate  labor markets in which hospitals compete for employees.  Under the  existing labor market definitions, each metropolitan statistical area is  considered a single labor market, while the remainder of the areas for each  state that is not in a metropolitan statistical area is treated as a single rural  labor market.  Generally, hospitals in non-metropolitan areas have lower  wages than those in metropolitan areas and therefore receive lower  Medicare payments.
CMS has evaluated the 2003 statistical areas and the impact of using them  on the hospital wage index.  The agency announced last year that no  changes would be implemented until fiscal year 2005.  CMS issued a  proposed rule addressing among other matters, the use of the new  statistical areas for fiscal year 2005 on May 18, 2004, and expects to  promulgate a final rule on August 1, 2004, after considering the public  comments received.
CMS has the discretion to use some or all of the 2003 statistical areas to  calculate the wage adjustment to hospital inpatient payments.  CMS has  proposed to adopt the new and revised definitions of metropolitan  statistical areas for wage index purposes and to continue to treat areas  outside the metropolitan statistical area as statewide rural labor markets.   Under the proposal, the new micropolitan areas would not be recognized  for wage index purposes.  CMS has also proposed to provide a transition  period for hospitals that were included in metropolitan statistical areas  under the previous definitions but are now part of a statewide rural area:  these hospitals will receive the wage index for the metropolitan statistical  area to which they previously belonged for three years.  In its proposed  rule, CMS estimates that adopting the new statistical area definitions would  result in no net increase in federal spending for fiscal year 2005.  CMS  estimates that urban hospitals will gain slightly (0.1 percent) from the  adoption of the new labor market areas, and rural hospitals will lose  slightly (-0.2 percent) from the change.
The Medicare IPPS also includes an administrative process in which a  hospital meeting certain criteria can apply to be paid for services as if it  were located in a higher-wage area.  This geographic reclassification  depends on a hospital’s proximity to the higher-wage area and its wages  relative to the wages in that area.  Beginning in fiscal year 2005, CMS will  also establish an administrative process for increasing the wage index  adjustment to recognize that hospital employees residing in one county  may work in another area with a higher wage index.
section_title: Ryan White CARE Act Program
paragraphs: Title I of the Ryan White CARE Act makes federal funds available to eligible  metropolitan areas (EMA) to assist in health care costs and support  services for individuals and families affected by AIDS or HIV.  Currently  there are 51 EMAs.
The 1996 reauthorization of the CARE Act made permanent metropolitan  area boundaries that were used to determine fiscal year 1994 EMAs.  The  reauthorization also toughened the eligibility criteria, requiring that a  metropolitan area have a population of 500,000 and more than 2,000 AIDS  cases over the previous 5 years to qualify as an EMA.  As a consequence,  only two metropolitan statistical areas have become EMAs since 1996.   This is due in part to a general decline in the number of AIDS cases.  EMAs  established by fiscal year 1996 retain their eligibility in future years  regardless of whether they continue to meet the eligibility criteria; EMAs  created after 1996 could become ineligible if they fail to meet the criteria.
Officials of the Health Resources and Services Administration told us that  no new areas qualify for eligibility status under the new standards.  The  officials also noted that the combination of fixed metropolitan area  boundaries and generally declining numbers of AIDS cases means that  EMA eligibility is likely to remain relatively static.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: After extensive consultations with experts within and outside the  government, OMB issued a new set of statistical standards in December  2000 and used those standards to determine a new set of statistical areas in  June 2003.  In keeping with its long-standing position, OMB reiterated that  the new metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas are designed for  statistical purposes.  OMB’s process for reviewing and revising statistical  areas was undertaken without regard to their effect on any federal  programs (that is, for nonstatistical purposes).  However, certain federal  programs that use OMB’s statistical areas to distribute funds may be  affected as a result of the new statistical areas.  Therefore, OMB’s  suggestion to agencies that they assess the new statistical areas to ensure  they continue to be appropriate for such use seems reasonable.
We are making no recommendations for executive action nor identifying  any specific matters for congressional consideration.  On June 2, 2004 we  met with OMB and Census Bureau representatives to discuss the draft  report.  OMB and the Census Bureau agreed with our findings and  conclusions and provided us with technical comments.  These comments  have been incorporated into the report where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional  committees, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the  Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau.   Copies will be made available to others upon request.  This report will also  be available at no charge on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please call me at (202)  512-6737 or Thomas James, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-2996.  Key  contributors to this report were Bertha Dong, Robert Dinkelmeyer, Karin  Fangman, Jerry Fastrup, Lisa Pearson, and Michael Rose.
section_title: Potential Impact on Federal Funding of the Office of Management and Budget’s Revised Metropolitan Statistical Standards
paragraphs: Authorizes pay adjustments for Senate employees in the  Washington, D.C.-Baltimore, Maryland consolidated  metropolitan statistical area (CMSA), which are  equivalent to those adjustments made under 5 U.S.C. §  5304 (authorizing locality-based comparability pay).
Borders of the D.C. and Baltimore MSAs  have changed.  Federal spending could  change at the discretion of the President  Pro Tempore of the Senate.
Eligibility for loan repayment is based, in part, on being  paid at a rate of pay that does not exceed a certain level,  which is to include locality pay adjustments applicable to  the Washington, D.C.-Baltimore, Maryland CMSA.
Boundaries of the D.C. and Baltimore  MSAs have changed.  More Senate  employees could qualify for loan  forgiveness.
5 U.S.C. § 5304(f) provides Pay Agent with authority to  provide for such pay localities as deemed appropriate.   The establishment or modification of any boundaries  shall be affected by regulation.
Boundaries of several designated MSAs  and CMSAs have changed. The number  of federal employees subject to locality  pay adjustments may change at the  discretion of the President’s Pay Agent.
The Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990,  Pub. L. No. 101-509, as amended, contains special pay  adjustments for law enforcement officers in selected  cities (statute lists seven CMSAs and one MSA).
The number of employees subject to a  special pay adjustment may be affected  by MSA boundary changes.
Term “eligible rural community” defined to exclude  places located in MSAs.
Communities formerly located outside  an MSA may no longer qualify for loans  or loan guarantees.
7 U.S.C. § 1991(a)(13)(D) defines (for purposes of 7  U.S.C. § 1926(a)(23) and 2008m) the term “rural area” to  exclude MSAs except for territory within an MSA that is  within a census tract having a population density of less  than 20 persons per square mile.
Boundary changes may affect which  communities may qualify for  participation in programs.
7 U.S.C. § 1991(a)(13)(E) defines (for purposes of 7  U.S.C. § 2009cc et seq) “rural area” to mean an area  located outside an MSA or within a community that has  a population of 50,000 or less. 7 U.S.C. § 6612(3) defines (for purposes of 7 U.S.C. §  6611 et seq.) the term “rural community” to include  certain population areas of no more than 10,000, or  certain counties not contained within an MSA.
Boundary changes may make some  areas ineligible.
Potential affect on federal funding  10 U.S.C. § 2391(b)(3) limits assistance to communities  with certain numbers of jobs lost.  Requisite number of  jobs lost is tied, in part, to MSA/non-MSA status of  community.
The eligibility of grantees may be  affected by the population threshold of  communities located in MSAs versus  those located outside of MSAs.
12 U.S.C. § 1834a(b)(3)(C) establishes different  population thresholds for a qualified distressed  community based upon whether community is located  within an MSA.
May affect the population threshold of  designated distressed communities.  Depository institutions may apply for  assessment credits for qualified  activities (that include financing by  various federal agencies).
Eligibility is limited to institutions in “urban areas,” which  20 U.S.C. § 1139g(1) defines, in part, by reference to  MSAs with a certain population threshold.
MSA boundary changes may result in  an MSA or adjacent MSAs meeting the  350,000 population threshold, qualifying  institutions for participation.
26 U.S.C. § 42(d)(5) provides for determining the eligible  basis of a building located in a qualified census tract or  difficult development area.  These areas are designated  by the Department of Housing and Urban Development  (HUD) and may not encompass more than a certain  percentage of the population in the MSA or  nonmetropolitan area.
Eligible census tracts and difficult  development areas (DDA) are limited to  20 percent of the population of MSAs or  non-MSAs.  If the limitation/cap is  binding (more census tracts or DDAs  would meet the eligibility criteria but for  the limitation/cap) then a change in the  MSA boundaries, due to the new  standards for MSA designation, could  affect the number of census tracts or  DDAs that could be declared eligible for  a special increase in tax credits.
26 U.S.C. § 143(e) and (f) establish purchase price and  income requirements for an issue, which are calculated  based upon statistical areas.  Statistical areas are  defined, in § 143(k)(2), by reference to MSAs and  counties (or portions thereof) outside MSAs.
MSA border changes will affect the  median income threshold to qualify for  tax exemptions.  MSA border changes  will also affect the calculation of  cost/income ratios in high-cost areas,  which may also affect the number of  people qualifying for tax exemptions.
26 U.S.C. § 1391 provides, with regard to the  permissible number of areas to be designated, that there  be a prescribed mix of rural and urban areas.  A rural  area is generally defined in 26 U.S.C. § 1393(a) to mean  any area outside of an MSA, and urban area is defined  to mean an area that is not rural.
Changing MSA boundaries affects  whether a designated area is selected  as urban or rural.  Rural communities  are subject to a lower population  threshold. Therefore, a change in MSA  status may affect eligibility of some  communities.
26 U.S.C. § 1400E(a)(2) provides that of the permissible  number of areas to be designated, a certain number  must be in rural areas.  Rural area is defined, in part, to  mean an area outside of an MSA with a population of  less than 50,000.
Changing MSA boundaries affects  whether a designated renewal  community is selected as urban or rural.   Rural communities are subject to a  lower population threshold. Therefore, a  change in MSA status may affect  eligibility of some communities.
Potential affect on federal funding  38 U.S.C. § 2033 requires the Department of Veterans  Affairs to establish sites for the provision of  comprehensive and coordinated services in at least  each of the 20 largest metropolitan statistical areas.
A previously unselected MSA has  moved into the top 20 largest MSAs.
Eligible organizations must have a defined service area  of sufficient size that either includes an entire MSA or  excludes any part of the area.
MSA boundary changes may affect the  status of a qualified organization if its  service area no longer includes all of an  MSA or does not include any part of the  area.
42 U.S.C. § 294d(d) defines “rural” as encompassing  geographic areas that are located outside of an MSA.
Some designated rural health care  agencies may be located in newly  designated MSA counties.
42 U.S.C. § 1395m(l)(9) provides an increased  transitional fee schedule rate for ambulance services  (furnished on or after July 1, 2001, and before January  2004) originating in a rural area, which is defined, in  part, by reference to MSAs.
MSA boundary changes may affect  some originating sites.
42 U.S.C. § 1395m(m)(4) provides for payment of facility  fees for telehealth services (services provided via a  telecommunications system) only when originating site  is located in a designated rural health professional  shortage area or a county that is not included in an  MSA, or is a site participating in a telemedicine  demonstration project as of December 31, 2000. 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-23(d) defines the payment area for  Medicare + Choice to mean a county or equivalent area  specified by the Secretary of Health and Human  Services.  42 U.S.C. § 1395w-23(d)(3) authorizes  geographic adjustments of these payment areas upon  request by the state, including using a metropolitan- based system in which all the portions of each MSA in  the state are treated as individual Medicare+Choice  payment areas.  All areas in the state that do not fall  within an MSA are treated as single Medicare+Choice  payment areas.
MSA boundary changes may affect  MSAs meeting minimum population  threshold requirements.
42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d) addresses inpatient hospital  service payments based on prospective rates (including  adjustments). Under §1395ww(d), the labor component  of the standardized payment amount must be adjusted  to account for the geographic variation in hospitals’ labor  costs.  This requirement is implemented by the Centers  for Medicare and Medicaid Services by calculating a  wage-related cost adjustment on an MSA/non-MSA  basis.
Changes in MSA boundaries could  affect prospective payment rates.
Potential affect on federal funding  42 U.S.C. § 1397f(a)(1) provides that each state is  entitled to two grants for each qualified empowerment  zone in the state, and one grant for each qualified  enterprise community in the state.  42 U.S.C. §  1397f(a)(2)(A) bases the amount of a grant for a  qualified empowerment zone on whether it is designated  urban or rural.  42 U.S.C. § 1397f(f) defines rural to  mean any area outside of an MSA and urban to mean an  area that is not rural.
MSA boundary changes affect whether  empowerment and enterprise zones are  designated urban or rural, which, in turn,  affects funding amounts.
42 U.S.C. § 1479(f)(8) defines “colonia” to mean an  identifiable community that (1) is in Arizona, California,  New Mexico, or Texas; (2) is in the area of the United  States within 150 miles of the border between the United  States and Mexico, except that the term does not include  any MSA that has a population exceeding 1,000,000;   (3) is determined to be a colonia on the basis of  objective criteria, including lack of decent, safe, and  sanitary housing; and (4) was in existence as a colonia  before November 28, 1990.
MSA boundary changes may affect  colonias located in an MSA with a  population exceeding 1,000,000.
42 U.S.C. § 1490 defines the terms “rural” and “rural  area” to mean any open country or any place, town,  village, or city that (1) is not part of or associated with an  urban area and has a population of from 10,000 to  20,000; (2) is not contained within an MSA; and (3) has  a serious lack of mortgage credit for lower- and  moderate-income families.
MSA boundary changes may affect  places losing population and falling  below the 20,000 population threshold  required for designation as a rural area.
42 U.S.C. § 5306 provides for the allocation and  distribution of funds to entitlement communities  (metropolitan cities and urban counties) and to states for  use in nonentitlement areas.
HUD will use the new MSA definitions to  distribute funding to entitlement  communities that meet various  population thresholds.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 5302(a)(4), “metropolitan city” means  either a central city within an MSA or any other city  within an MSA with a population of 50,000 or more.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 5302(a)(6)(A), “urban county” means  any county within an MSA that is authorized (under state  law) to undertake essential community development and  housing assistance activities and exceeds certain  population thresholds.   42 U.S.C. § 5302(a)(7) defines “nonentitlement area” to  mean an area that is not a metropolitan city or part of an  urban county and does not include Indian tribes.
Section 916(e)(4) defines “U.S.-Mexico border region” to  mean the area of the United States within 150 miles of  the border between the United States and Mexico,  except that the term does not include any MSA that has  a population exceeding 1,000,00.
MSA boundary changes may affect the  set-aside for colonias if a colonia is  located in an MSA whose population  has risen above 1,000,000. These  colonias may no longer qualify for  participation in the set-aside.
42 U.S.C. § 11371 defines “metropolitan city” and “urban  county” by reference to definitions used for the CDBG  Program (42 U.S.C. § 5302). 42 U.S.C. § 11373 provides for the allocation and  distribution of assistance to states, metropolitan cities,  and urban counties in the same fashion funds are  allocated under the CDBG Program.
Distribution of grants is made using the  CDBG formula that is affected by  changes in MSA boundaries.
Defines the terms “rural area” and “rural community” to  mean (1) an area outside an MSA or (2) an area within  an MSA but located in a rural census tract.
MSA boundary changes could result in  some areas losing eligibility unless they  are located in designated rural census  tracts.
42 U.S.C. § 12704 defines “metropolitan city” and “urban  county” by reference to definitions used for the CDBG  Program (42 U.S.C. § 5302).
Links to the CDBG Program definitions  for eligible entities, in which changes in  MSA boundaries affect the distribution  of federal financial assistance.
42 U.S.C. 12741 et seq. establishes the HOME  Investment Partnership Program (allocation section at  12747).
Eligibility of first-time homebuyers seeking assistance  depends  on not exceeding income ceiling, which is  measured relative to the MSA or non-MSA median  income.
Median family income will be affected by  MSA boundary changes and will affect  the number of eligible homebuyers.
Eligibility of homebuyers seeking to buy in an enterprise  zone depends on their having family incomes that are  not more than the median income in the MSA in which  the enterprise zone is located.
Grants are used to fund loans to  homebuyers of eligible housing units in  enterprise zones.  Since median family  income in MSAs is used to determine  eligible homebuyers, the change in MSA  boundaries may affect which  households are eligible for loans under  the program.
Grant funds to states and cities are allocated based on  number of AIDS cases and population thresholds using  MSA and non-MSA boundaries.
The largest city in an MSA with an over  500,000 population and more than  1,500 AIDS cases is eligible to receive  funding under the program.  Any new  MSA meeting these criteria would  become eligible and may affect funding  for existing grantees.
Potential affect on federal funding  42 U.S.C. § 13239 authorizes low-interest loans to fleets  utilizing alternative fuels.  42 U.S.C. § 13211(9) defines  “fleet” to mean, in part, vehicles used primarily in MSAs  or CMSAs.
Boundary changes may affect entities  eligible for interest rate subsidies. “Federal fleet” is defined, in part, to mean vehicles  located in an MSA or CMSA.
Newly designated MSA may contain a  federal fleet that will become subject to  alternative fueled vehicle requirements.
This entry reflects amendments made by Pub. L. No. 108-173, the Medicare Prescription Drug,  Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.
section_title: 2003 Metropolitan Area Key Terms
paragraphs: 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) with a population of at least 10,000, 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 CBSAs.
Metropolitan statistical area:  A CBSA 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 CBSA 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.
Principal city:  The largest city of a CBSA, plus additional cities that meet  specified statistical criteria.
Central county: The county or counties of a CBSA 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.
Outlying county:  A county that qualifies for inclusion in a CBSA on the  basis of commuting ties with the CBSA’s central county or counties.
Metropolitan division:  A county or group of counties within a CBSA 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.
Combined statistical area:  A geographic entity consisting of two or  more adjacent 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.
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.
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 CBSAs in New England (which are defined  using counties as building blocks).
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.
Urban area:  The generic term used by the U.S. Census Bureau to refer  collectively to urbanized areas and urban clusters.
Urban cluster:  A statistical geographic entity 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 CBSAs, only those urban clusters  with populations of 10,000 or more 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.
section_title: Comparison of 2000 Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area Standards to 1990 Metropolitan Area Standards
paragraphs: 2000 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical  area standards Metropolitan statistical areas based around at least  one Census Bureau defined urbanized area of 50,000  or more population, and micropolitan statistical areas,  based around at least one urban cluster of 10,000 to  49,999 population.  A metropolitan statistical area with  a single core of at least 2,500,000 population can be  subdivided into component metropolitan divisions.   Collectively, the metropolitan and micropolitan  statistical areas are termed Core Based Statistical  Areas (CBSAs).
Metropolitan statistical areas based on total  populations of at least 1,000,000 (level A), 250,000 to  999,999 (level B), 100,000 to 249,999 (level C), and  less than 100,000 (level D), respectively.  Metropolitan  statistical areas of 1,000,000 or more population can  be designated as consolidated metropolitan statistical  areas if local opinion is in favor and component primary  metropolitan statistical areas can be identified.
Counties and equivalent entities throughout the U.S.  and Puerto Rico.  City and town based areas,  conceptually similar to the county-based areas,  provided for the New England states.
Counties and equivalent entities throughout the U.S.  and Puerto Rico, except in New England, where cities  and towns are used to define metropolitan areas.   County-based alternative provided for the New  England states.
Census Bureau defined urban area of at least 10,000  population and less than 50,000 population for  micropolitan statistical area designation.  Census  Bureau defined urbanized area of at least 50,000 for  metropolitan statistical area designation.
City of at least 50,000 population, or Census Bureau  defined urbanized area of at least 50,000 population in  a metropolitan area of at least 100,000 population.
Any county in which at least 50% of the population is  located in urban areas of at least 10,000 population,  or that has within its boundaries a population of at  least 5,000 located in a single urban area of at least  10,000 population.
Any county that includes a central city or at least 50%  of the population of a central city that is located in a  qualifier urbanized area.  Also any county in which at  least 50% of the population is located in a qualifier  urbanized area.
2000 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical  area standards Commuting ties: At least 25% of the employed residents of the county  work in the central county/counties of a CBSA; or at  least 25% of the employment in the county is  accounted for by workers residing in the central  county/counties of the CBSA.
Combination of commuting and measures of  settlement structure:  50% or more of employed workers commute to the  central county/counties of a metropolitan statistical  area and:  25 or more persons per square mile  (ppsm), or at least 10% or 5,000 of the population  lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR  40% to 50% of employed workers commute to the  central county/counties of a metropolitan statistical  area and:  35 or more ppsm, or at least 10% or 5,000  of the population lives in a qualifier urbanized area;  OR  25% to 40% of employed workers commute to the  central county/counties of a metropolitan statistical  area and:  35 ppsm and one of the following:  (1) 50  or more ppsm, (2) at least 35% urban population,   (3) at least 10% or  5,000 of population lives in a  qualifier urbanized area; OR  15% to 25% of employed workers commute to the  central county/counties of a metropolitan statistical  area and:  50 or more ppsm and two of the  following:   (1) 60 or more ppsm, (2) at least 35% urban  population, (3) population growth rate of at least 20%,  (4) at least 10% or 5,000 of population lives in a  qualifier urbanized area; OR  15% to 25% of employed workers commute to the  central county/counties of a metropolitan statistical  area and less than 50 ppsm and two of the following:  (1) at least 35% urban population,   (2) population growth rate of at least 20%, (3) at least  10% or 5,000 of population lives in a qualifier  urbanized area; OR  at least 2,500 of the population lives in a central city  located in a qualifier urbanized area of a metropolitan  statistical area.
A county that qualifies as outlying to two or more  CBSAs is included in the area with which it has the  strongest commuting tie.
If a county qualifies as outlying to two or more  metropolitan areas, 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.
Merging statistical areas Two adjacent CBSAs are merged to form one CBSA if  the central county/counties (as a group) of one CBSA  qualify as outlying to the central county/counties (as a  group) of the other.
If a county qualifies as a central county of one  metropolitan statistical area and as an outlying county  on the basis of commuting to a central county of  another metropolitan statistical area, both counties  become central counties of a single metropolitan  statistical area.
2000 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical  area standards Principal cities include the largest incorporated place  with a population of 10,000 or more or, if no  incorporated place of at least 10,000 is present, the  largest incorporated place or census designated  place in the CBSA AND each place of at least  250,000 population or in which at least 100,000  persons work AND each place with a population of at  least 50,000, but less than 250,000 in which  employment meets or exceeds the number of  employed residents AND each place with a population  that is at least 10,000 and 1/3 the size of the largest  place, and in which employment meets or exceeds  the number of employed residents.
Central cities include the largest city in a metropolitan  statistical area/consolidated metropolitan statistical  area AND each city of at least 250,000 population or at  least 100,000 workers AND each city of at least 25,000  population and at least 75 jobs per 100 workers and  less than 60% out commuting AND each city of at least  15,000 population that is at least 1/3 the size of largest  central city and meets employment ratio and  commuting percentage above AND the largest city of  15,000 population or more that meets employment  ratio and commuting percentage above and is in a  secondary noncontiguous urbanized area AND each  city in a secondary noncontiguous urbanized area that  is at least 1/3 the size of largest central city in that  urbanized area and has at least 15,000 population and  meets employment ratio and commuting percentage  above.
2000 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical  area standards Metropolitan divisions consist of one or more counties  within metropolitan statistical areas that have a single  core of 2.5 million or more population.
A county is identified 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 its employment to its number of employed  residents is at least .75.
A county is identified as a secondary county of a  metropolitan division if 50 percent or more, but less  than 65 percent, of its employed residents work within  the county and the ratio of its employment to its  number of employed residents is at least .75.
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.
Primary metropolitan statistical areas outside New  England consist of one or more counties within  metropolitan areas that have a total population of 1  million or more.  Specifically, these primary  metropolitan statistical areas consist of:  (A) One or  more counties designated as a standard metropolitan  statistical area on January 1, 1980, unless local opinion  does not support continued separate designation.   (B) One or more counties for which local opinion  strongly supports separate designation, provided one  county has: (1) at least 100,000 population;   (2) at least 60 percent of its population urban;   (3) less than 35 percent of its resident workers working  outside the county; and (4) less than 2,500 population  of the largest central city in the metropolitan statistical  area.  (C) A set of two or more contiguous counties for  which local opinion strongly supports separate  designation, provided at least one county also could  qualify as a primary metropolitan statistical area in  section (B), and (1) each county meets requirements  (B)(1), (B)(2), and (B)(4) and less than 50 percent of its  resident workers work outside the county;  (2) each  county has a commuting interchange of at least 20  percent with the other counties in the set; and (3) less  than 35 percent of the resident workers of the set of  counties work outside the area.
After all main counties and secondary counties have  been identified and grouped (if appropriate), each  additional county that already has qualified for the  metropolitan statistical area is included in the  metropolitan division associated with the  main/secondary county to which the county at issue  has the highest employment interchange measure.   Counties within a metropolitan division must be  contiguous.
Each county in the metropolitan area not included  within a central core under sections (A) through (C), is  assigned to the contiguous primary metropolitan  statistical area to whose central core commuting is  greatest, provided this commuting is: (1) at least 15  percent of the county’s resident workers; (2) at least 5  percentage points higher than the commuting flow to  any other primary metropolitan statistical area central  core that exceeds 15 percent; and (3) larger than the  flow to the county containing the metropolitan area’s  largest central city. If a county has qualifying commuting ties to two or  more primary metropolitan statistical area central cores  and the relevant values are within 5 percentage points  of each other, local opinion is considered.
2000 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical  area standards Two adjacent CBSAs are combined if the employment  interchange rate between the two areas is at least 25.   The employment interchange rate is the sum of the  percentage of employed residents of the CBSA with  the smaller total population who work in the CBSA  with the larger total population and the percentage of  employment in the CBSA with the smaller total  population that is accounted for by workers residing in  the CBSA with the larger total population.  Adjacent  CBSAs that have an employment interchange rate of  at least 15 and less than 25 may combine if local  opinion in both areas favors combination.  The  combining CBSAs also retain separate recognition.
Two adjacent metropolitan statistical areas are  combined as a single metropolitan statistical area if:   (A) the total population of the combination is at least  one million and (1) the commuting interchange  between the two metropolitan statistical areas is equal  to at least 15% of the employed workers residing in the  smaller metropolitan statistical area, or equal to at least  10% of the employed workers residing in the smaller  metropolitan statistical area and the urbanized area of  a central city of one metropolitan statistical area is  contiguous with the urbanized area of a central city of  the other metropolitan statistical area or a central city in  one metropolitan statistical area is included in the  same urbanized area as a central city in the other  metropolitan statistical area; AND (2) at least 60% of  the population of each metropolitan statistical area is  urban.  (B) the total population of the combination is  less than one million and (1) their largest central cities  are within 25 miles of one another, or the urbanized  areas are contiguous;  AND (2) there is definite  evidence that the two areas are closely integrated  economically and socially; AND (3) local opinion in  both areas supports combination.
Titles of CBSAs include the names of up to three  principal cities in order of descending population size.
Titles of metropolitan statistical areas include the  names of up to three central cities in order of  descending population size.  Local opinion is  considered under specified conditions.
Titles of metropolitan divisions include the names of  up to three principal cities in the metropolitan division  in order of descending population size.  If there are no  principal cities, the title includes the names of up to  three counties in the metropolitan division in order of  descending population size.
Titles of primary metropolitan statistical areas include  the names of up to three cities in the primary  metropolitan statistical area that have qualified as  central cities.  If there are no central cities, the title will  include the names of up to three counties in the  primary metropolitan statistical area in order of  descending population size.
Titles of combined statistical areas include the name  of the largest principal city in the largest CBSA that  combines, 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 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.
Titles of consolidated metropolitan statistical areas  include the names of up to three central cities or  counties in the consolidated metropolitan statistical  area.  The first name will be the largest central city in  the consolidated metropolitan statistical area; the  remaining two names will be the first city or county  name that appears in the title of the remaining primary  metropolitan statistical area with the largest total  population and the first city or county name that  appears in the title of the primary metropolitan  statistical area with the next largest total population.   Regional designations can be substituted for the  second and third names if there is strong local support.
section_title: Counties in Micropolitan Statistical Areas That Were Previously in Metropolitan Statistical Areas
paragraphs: Granbury, TX Micro Area Oak Harbor, WA Micro Area A portion of this New England county was a component of the 1999 metropolitan area shown.  Where  this occurred, it may be that other portion(s) of the county were included in more than one 1999  metropolitan area and/or another portion of the county was not included in any 1999 metropolitan area.   Under the 1999 classification, metropolitan areas in the six New England states—Connecticut, Maine,  Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont—were town- and city-based, not county- based.  The 2003 classification is county-based, so the entire county is included in the micropolitan  area shown. .
section_title: Statistical Status of Counties as of 1999 and 2003
paragraphs: Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI  MSA Baraboo, WI Micro Area Whitewater, WI Micro Area Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA Wisconsin Rapids-Marshfield, WI Micro  Area Laramie, WY Micro Area Gillette, WY Micro Area Riverton, WY Micro Area Sheridan, WY Micro Area Rock Springs, WY Micro Area Jackson, WY-ID Micro Area Evanston, WY Micro Area Broomfield County, Colorado was formed from parts of Adams, Boulder, Jefferson, and Weld  Counties, Colorado on November 15, 2001.  For purposes of defining and presenting data for MSAs,  Broomfield city is treated as if it were a county in 1990 and in 2000.
A portion of this New England county was a component of the 1999 metropolitan area shown.  Where  this occurred, it may be that other portion(s) of the county were included in more than one 1999  metropolitan area and/or another portion of the county was not included in a 1999 metropolitan area.   Under the 1999 classification, metropolitan areas in the six New England states – Connecticut, Maine,  Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont – were town- and city-based, not county- based.  The 2003 classification is county-based, so the entire county is included in the metropolitan or  micropolitan area shown.
Pursuant to Pub. L. No. 100-202, Section 530, the part of Sullivan city in Crawford County, Missouri,  was added to the St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois MSA effective December 22, 1987. .
section_title: State Maps: New Mexico, New York, and Michigan
paragraphs: To view color versions of these maps (figs. 4-6), go to our Web site.
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of  Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional  responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the  federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public  funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,  recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed  oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government  is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail  this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to   e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs