Areas metropolitanas año 2000 Oficina del Censo

7/28/2019 Areas metropolitanas ao 2000 Oficina del Censo

1/12

Wednesday,

December 27, 2000

Part IX

Office ofManagement andBudgetStandards for Defining Metropolitan andMicropolitan Statistical Areas; Notice

VerDate 112000 19:35 Dec 26, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27DEN5.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 27DEN5


2/12

82228 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000/ Notices

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANDBUDGET

Standards for Defining Metropolitanand Micropolitan Statistical Areas

AGENCY: Executive Office of thePresident, Office of Management andBudget (OMB), Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs.ACTION: Notice of decision.

SUMMARY: This Notice announces OMBsadoption of Standards for DefiningMetropolitan and MicropolitanStatistical Areas. These new standardsreplace and supersede the 1990standards for defining MetropolitanAreas. In arriving at its decision, OMBaccepted many of the recommendationsof the interagency Metropolitan AreaStandards Review Committee (theReview Committee) as published in theAugust 22, 2000 Federal Register. Inresponse to public comment, and with

the further advice of the ReviewCommittee, OMB modified therecommended criteria for titlingCombined Statistical Areas, identifyingPrincipal Cities, and determiningMetropolitan Divisions. The newstandards appear at the end of thisNotice in Section D.

The Supplementary Information inthis Notice provides backgroundinformation on the standards (SectionA), a brief synopsis of the publiccomments OMB received in response tothe August 22, 2000 Federal Registernotice (Section B), and OMBs decisions

on the final recommendations of theReview Committee (Section C).The adoption of these new standards

will not affect the availability of Federaldata for geographic areas such as states,counties, county subdivisions, andmunicipalities. For the near term, theCensus Bureau will tabulate and publishdata from Census 2000 for allMetropolitan Areas in existence at thetime of the census (that is, those areasdefined as of April 1, 2000).EFFECTIVE DATE: This Notice is effectiveimmediately. OMB plans to announcedefinitions of areas based on the newstandards and Census 2000 data in2003. Federal agencies should begin touse the new area definitions to tabulateand publish statistics when thedefinitions are announced.ADDRESSES: Please send correspondenceabout OMBs decision to Katherine K.Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Office of Management and Budget,Room 10201 New Executive OfficeBuilding, 725 17th Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20503; fax: (202) 3957245.

Electronic Availability and Addresses:This Federal Register notice, and thethree previous notices related to thereview of the Metropolitan Areastandards, are available electronicallyfrom the OMB web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/fedreg/index.htmland from the Census Bureauweb site: http://www.census.gov/

population/www/estimates/masrp.html.Federal Register notices also areavailable 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 Informationand Regulatory Affairs, Office ofManagement and Budget, (202) 3957315; or E-mail:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The Metropolitan Area program hasprovided standard statistical areadefinitions for 50 years. In the 1940s, it

became clear that the value ofmetropolitan data produced by Federalagencies would be greatly enhanced ifagencies used a single set of geographicdefinitions for the Nations largestcenters of population and activity. Priorto that time, Federal agencies defined avariety of statistical geographic areas atthe metropolitan level (includingmetropolitan districts, industrialareas, labor market areas, andmetropolitan counties) using different

criteria applied to different geographicunits. Because of variations inmethodologies and the resultinginconsistencies in area definitions, oneagencys statistics were not directlycomparable with another agencysstatistics for any given area. OMBspredecessor, the Bureau of the Budget,led the effort to develop what were thencalled Standard Metropolitan Areasin time for their use in the 1950 censusreports. Since then, comparable dataproducts for Metropolitan Areas have

been available. Because of theusefulness of the Metropolitan Area

standards and data products, many haveasked that the standards take intoaccount more territory of the UnitedStates. Extending the standard toinclude the identification ofMicropolitan Statistical Areas respondsto those requests.

1. Concept and Uses

The general concept of a MetropolitanStatistical Area or a MicropolitanStatistical Area is that of an areacontaining a recognized populationnucleus and adjacent communities that

have a high degree of integration withthat nucleus. The purpose of theStandards for Defining Metropolitan andMicropolitan Statistical Areas is toprovide nationally consistentdefinitions for collecting, tabulating,and publishing Federal statistics for aset of geographic areas. To this end, theMetropolitan Area concept has been

successful as a statistical representationof the social and economic linkages

between urban cores and outlying,integrated areas. This success is evidentin the continued use and application ofMetropolitan Area definitions across

broad areas of data collection,presentation, and analysis. This successalso is evident in the use of statistics forMetropolitan Areas to inform the debateand development of public policies andin the use of Metropolitan Areadefinitions to implement and administera variety of nonstatistical Federalprograms. These last uses, however,

raise concerns about the distinctionbetween appropriate usescollecting,tabulating, and publishing statistics aswell as informing policyandinappropriate usesimplementingnonstatistical programs and determiningprogram eligibility. OMB establishesand maintains these areas solely forstatistical purposes.

In order to preserve the integrity of itsdecision making with respect toreviewing and revising the standards fordesignating areas, OMB believes that itshould not attempt to take into accountor anticipate any public or private sectornonstatistical uses that may be made of

the definitions. It cautions thatMetropolitan Statistical Area andMicropolitan Statistical Area definitionsshould not be used to develop andimplement Federal, state, and localnonstatistical programs and policieswithout full consideration of the effectsof using these definitions for suchpurposes.

Metropolitan and MicropolitanStatistical Areascollectively calledCore Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs)should not serve as a general purposegeographic framework for nonstatisticalactivities and may or may not be

suitable for use in program fundingformulas. The Metropolitan andMicropolitan Statistical Area Standardsdo not equate to an urban-ruralclassification; all counties included inMetropolitan and MicropolitanStatistical Areas and many othercounties contain both urban and ruralterritory and populations. Programs that

base funding levels or eligibility onwhether a county is included in aMetropolitan or Micropolitan StatisticalArea may not accurately address issuesor problems faced by local populations,



3/12

82229Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000/ Notices

organizations, institutions, orgovernmental units. For instance,programs that seek to strengthen ruraleconomies by focusing solely oncounties located outside MetropolitanStatistical Areas could ignore apredominantly rural county that isincluded in a Metropolitan StatisticalArea because a high percentage of the

countys residents commute to urbancenters for work. Although the inclusionof such a county in a MetropolitanStatistical Area indicates the existenceof economic ties, as measured bycommuting, with the central counties ofthat Metropolitan Statistical Area, itmay also indicate a need to provideprograms that would strengthen thecountys rural economy so that workersare not compelled to leave the county insearch of jobs.

Program designs that treat all parts ofa CBSA as if they were as urban as thedensely settled core ignore the rural

conditions that may exist in some partsof the area. Under such programs,schools, hospitals, businesses, andcommunities that are separated from theurban core by large distances or difficultterrain may experience the same kindsof challenges as their counterparts inrural portions of counties that areoutside CBSAs. Although someprograms do permit large MetropolitanArea counties to be split into urbanand rural portions, smallerMetropolitan Area counties also cancontain isolated rural communities.

Geographic information systemstechnology has progressed significantly

over the past 10 years, making itpractical for government agencies andorganizations to assess needs andimplement appropriate programs at alocal geographic scale whenappropriate. OMB urges agencies,organizations, and policy makers toreview carefully the goals ofnonstatistical programs and policies toensure that appropriate geographicentities are used to determine eligibilityfor and the allocation of Federal funds.

2. Evolution and Review of theMetropolitan Area Standards

From the beginning of theMetropolitan Area program, OMB hasreviewed the Metropolitan Areastandards and, if warranted, revisedthem in the years preceding theirapplication to new decennial censusdata. Periodic review of the standards isnecessary to ensure their continuedusefulness and relevance. Our currentreview of the Metropolitan Areastandardsthe Metropolitan AreaStandards Review Projecthas been thefifth such review. It has addressed, as afirst priority, user concerns with the

conceptual and operational complexityof the standards as they have evolvedover the decades. Our three previousFederal Register notices have discussedthis and other key concerns, as well asmajor milestones of the review.

In the fall of 1998, OMB chartered theMetropolitan Area Standards ReviewCommittee (the Review Committee). We

charged it with examining the 1990Metropolitan Area standards in view ofwork completed earlier in the decadeand providing recommendations forpossible changes to those standards. TheReview Committee includedrepresentatives from the Bureau of theCensus (Chair), Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics,Bureau of Transportation Statistics,Economic Research Service(Agriculture), National Center for HealthStatistics, and, ex officio, OMB. TheCensus Bureau provided researchsupport to the Review Committee.

This is the fourth and final Noticepertaining to the Metropolitan AreaStandards Review Project. OMBpresented four alternative approaches todefining statistical areas in a December21, 1998 Federal Register notice,Alternative Approaches to DefiningMetropolitan and NonmetropolitanAreas (63 FR 7052670561). ThatNotice also included a discussion of theevolution of the standards for definingMetropolitan Areas as well as thestandards that were used to defineMetropolitan Areas during the 1990s.

OMB presented the ReviewCommittees initial recommendations inan October 20, 1999 Federal Registernotice entitled, RecommendationsFrom the Metropolitan Area StandardsReview Committee to the Office ofManagement and Budget ConcerningChanges to the Standards for DefiningMetropolitan Areas (64 FR 5662856644). OMB then published the ReviewCommittees final report andrecommendations for revised standardsin an August 22, 2000 Federal Registernotice entitled Final Report andRecommendations From theMetropolitan Area Standards ReviewCommittee to the Office of Management

and Budget Concerning Changes to theStandards for Defining MetropolitanAreas (65 FR 5106051077). The finalrecommendations presented in thatNotice reflected some of the concernsraised in comments in response to theReview Committees initialrecommendations.

3. Future Directions

a. Statistical Area Research Projects

Our review of the Metropolitan Areastandards over the past 10 years has

raised a number of issues and suggestedalternative approaches that warrantcontinued research and consideration.Ongoing research projects will improveunderstanding of the Nations patternsof settlement and activity and how bestto portray them. For example, CensusBureau staff are investigating thefeasibility of developing a census tract

level classification to identify settlementand land use categories along an urban-rural continuum. The EconomicResearch Service, in conjunction withthe Office of Rural Health Policy in theDepartment of Health and HumanServices and the University ofWashington, has developed anationwide census tract level rural-urban commuting area classification.This classification is available from theEconomic Research Service web site:http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/briefing/rural/ruca/rucc.htm. These researchefforts may lead to pilot projects at the

Census Bureau or other agencies in thefuture.

b. Review of the Relationship BetweenStatistical Geographic Classificationsand Other Federal Programs

The review of the Metropolitan Areastandards also prompted commentsabout the use of Metropolitan andMicropolitan Statistical Area definitionsin the design and administration ofnonstatistical Federal programs andfunding formulas. Although thisrelationship was not a criterion inreviewing the standards, the ReviewCommittee and OMB recognize the

existence and importance of thisrelationship. Comments receivedthroughout the review indicated a needto distinguish more clearly betweenusing Metropolitan and MicropolitanStatistical Areas to collect, tabulate, andpublish statistics that measure economicand social conditions to inform publicpolicy, and the use of the areadefinitions as a framework to determineeligibility or allocate funds fornonstatistical programs. Further, theReview Committee and OMB, as well asmany commenters, recognize the needto begin a collaborative, interagency

process that could result in thedevelopment of geographic areadefinitions that are appropriate for theadministration of nonstatisticalprograms. Such a process could result inthe identification of existing geographicarea definitions and modifications tothem that are already in use by agencies(for instance, there are at least sixdefinitions of urban or urban placecurrently in use by Federal agencies),and in the development of guidelinesthat explain appropriate use of specificarea definitions in various



4/12


circumstances. A longer-term goal ofsuch an effort could be the developmentof one or more geographic areaclassifications designed specifically foruse in the administration ofnonstatistical Federal programs or ofguidance for agencies that need todefine geographic areas appropriate foruse with specific programs.

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

The August 22, 2000 Federal Registernotice requested comment on theReview Committees finalrecommendations to OMB concerningrevisions to the standards for definingMetropolitan Areas.

OMB received 1,672 comment lettersfrom individuals (1,483), municipalitiesand counties (88), regional planning andnongovernmental organizations (62),Members of Congress (25), stategovernments (13), and Federal agencies(1). Of the 1,672 letters, 1,314 offeredcomments regarding the Fort Worth,Texas area; all of these letters dealt withthe identification of MetropolitanDivisions within the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area and with the criteria fortitling Combined Areas. OMB also heardconcerns about the identification ofMetropolitan Divisions and CombinedArea titles from 141 other commentersfrom around the country.

Thirty-two commenters expressedconcern about the potential effects ofthe proposed changes to theMetropolitan Area standards on

nonstatistical Federal programs. Eightcommenters were concerned about theeffect on programs oriented toward ruralareas, particularly if Micropolitan Areaswere not treated as rural for purposesof Federal programs. Nine commentersexpressed concern about the impact ofthe recommended standards on health-related programs. Several commenterssuggested that OMB undertake researchon the programmatic impact of therecommended standards. Otherssuggested that OMB state more stronglythat it does not define Metropolitan andMicropolitan Areas for use in

administering and determiningparticipation in Federal nonstatisticalprograms.

Eight commenters addressed theReview Committees recommendationsabout the qualification requirements forareas and central counties. Threecommenters supported the ReviewCommittees recommendation that areasshould qualify for CBSA status if a coreof sufficient sizea Census Bureaudefined urban cluster of at least 10,000population or an urbanized area of atleast 50,000 populationwas present.

Three commenters questioned the wayin which the recommended standardswould use urban clusters and urbanizedareas as cores to qualify centralcounties, in particular when a corecrosses county lines but the portion ofthe core in one county is not sufficientto qualify that county as central.

OMB received six comments about

terminology in the proposed standards.Three commenters expressed supportfor the Review Committeesrecommendation to retain the termmetropolitan in reference to areascontaining at least one core of 50,000 ormore population. These commentersalso expressed support for the use of theterm micropolitan in reference toareas containing cores of at least 10,000and less than 50,000 population. Severalcommenters expressed concern that theterm Core Based Statistical Areawould not be popular among users; onlyone commenter, however, supported

dropping the term. One commenterfavored using the terms megapolitanand macropolitan to distinguish

between areas containing cores of atleast one million and 50,000 population,respectively, as discussed in the October20, 1999 Federal Register notice.

Twenty-six commenters remarked onthe Review Committeesrecommendations for identifyingcategories of CBSAs. Five commentersexpressed support for the identificationof two categories of CBSAsmetropolitan and micropolitan. Threecommenters opposed identification ofMicropolitan Areas because of the

potential, but as yet unknown, impactsuch areas might have on the allocationof funds to Metropolitan Areas. Onecommenter expressed a similar concernwithout opposing the identification ofMicropolitan Areas. Seven commentersfavored the qualification of any countycontaining 100,000 or more populationas a Metropolitan Area. Twocommenters suggested that CombinedAreas should be treated as CBSAs andthat their component entities should betreated as Metropolitan Divisions.

Twelve commenters remarked on theReview Committees recommendation to

use the county as the geographicbuilding block for CBSAs. Fourcommenters expressed support for thecontinued use of counties as building

blocks. Three commenters expressedsupport for the use of minor civildivisions as building blocks for aprimary set of statistical areas in NewEngland. Five commenters expressedconcern about the use of counties as

building blocks, noting that somegeographically large counties maycontain populations that are notintegrated with the CBSA to which the

county qualifies. Several of thesecomments referred specifically toDouglas County, NV, which hascommuting ties with the South LakeTahoe area in the eastern end of ElDorado County, CA. Populations in thewestern end of El Dorado County,however, are more closely aligned withthe Sacramento, CA area. When the

recommended standards were appliedto 1990 census data as a demonstrationof the standards, the South Lake Tahoearea (El Dorado County, CA and DouglasCounty, NV) qualified to merge with theSacramento area.

Forty-three commenters respondedregarding the recommended criteria forqualifying outlying counties. Nearly allcommenters supported the use ofcommuting data in determining thequalification of outlying counties.Thirteen of the commenters suggestedthat other measures should be used inaddition to commuting. Six of these

commenters suggested including acounty in a Metropolitan Area if it ispart of that areas metropolitan planningorganization for transportation planningpurposes. One commenter noted thatcommuting to work is a less relevantmeasure of interaction in areas that havehigh percentages of retirees. Threecommenters suggested that commutingis too simplistic and is an insufficientmeasure of all social and economicinteractions between areas. Onecommenter took issue with the specificwording of the decennial censusquestionnaires place of work question,which was the basis of commuting data

used to define Metropolitan andMicropolitan Areas under the standardsrecommended by the ReviewCommittee. Nineteen commentersspecifically responded regarding thecommuting threshold used in qualifyingoutlying counties. Three commenterssupported a 25 percent commutingthreshold for outlying countyqualification, as the Review Committeerecommended; one commentersuggested reducing the threshold to lessthan 25 percent, and anotherspecifically proposed a 20 percentthreshold. Eleven commenters favored a

15 percent commuting threshold foroutlying county qualification; thesecommenters generally drew attention toa particular county that did not qualifyat the 25 percent level. Threecommenters expressed general supportfor the Review Committeesrecommendations but did not mention aspecific commuting threshold.

OMB received 157 comments aboutthe recommendations for merging andcombining adjacent CBSAs. Nearly allcommenters supported therecommendation to merge or combine



5/12


adjacent CBSAs when social andeconomic interaction between adjacentareas is evident. Two commenterssuggested eliminating the identificationof Combined Areas, arguing that theoptional combination recommended bythe Review Committee results in aninconsistent application of theMetropolitan and Micropolitan Area

standards. Three commenters expressedconcern that the criteria for combiningadjacent CBSAs were too simplistic and

by only measuring interactions betweenpairs of CBSAs did not account for morecomplex ties within large regions. Onecommenter suggested that OMB clarifythe relationship between areas definedusing the recommended standards(CBSAs, Combined Areas, andMetropolitan Divisions) and areasdefined using the 1990 MetropolitanArea standards (Metropolitan StatisticalAreas, Consolidated MetropolitanStatistical Areas, and Primary

Metropolitan Statistical Areas). Twocommenters suggested that CombinedAreas should be treated as officialMetropolitan or Micropolitan Areas.Eighty-nine commenters supportedmerging the Brownsville and McAllenareas to form a single MetropolitanArea, although these areas lackedsufficient commuting interchange tomerge when the recommendedstandards were applied with 1990census data. Twelve commentersexpressed opposition to the potentialcombination of the Sarasota-Bradentonand Port Charlotte areas in Florida

(which, according to the ReviewCommittees recommended standardsapplied to 1990 data, would combineonly if local opinion in both areasfavored doing so). Several of thesecommenters also noted that ties betweenthe Port Charlotte area and the northern(Bradenton) portion of the Sarasota-Bradenton area were minimal. Eighteencommenters responded regarding thedelineation of Combined Areas in NorthCarolina for Raleigh and Durham as wellas for Greensboro-High Point,Burlington, and Eden-Reidsville. Ofthese, one commenter supported theReview Committees recommendations

based on the results of applying therecommended standards with 1990census data; however, 17 expressed apreference to eliminate the fiveindividual CBSAs that combine andinstead recognize only the resultantcombined entities.

Forty-seven commenters respondedabout the recommendations foridentification of Principal Cities and theuse of those cities in titlingMetropolitan and Micropolitan Areas.Eighteen commenters expressed concern

about the identification of censusdesignated places as Principal Citiesand the use of those places in titlingMetropolitan and Micropolitan Areas.Seventeen of these commentersresponded regarding the identificationof specific census designated places asPrincipal Cities and the titling of theirrespective Metropolitan Areas. Eight

commenters responded regardingaspects of the Principal City criteria thatprevented some locally important citiesfrom qualifying as Principal Cities and

being included in their respective areastitles. These commenters wereconcerned primarily with therequirement that Principal Cities withless than 250,000 population have apopulation at least one-third that of thelargest place. One commenter suggestedmodifying the Principal City criteria todesignate a larger number of places; thiscommenter also noted that doing sowould reduce the need to use county

names in the titles of MetropolitanDivisions. Eleven commentersresponded regarding the titles ofspecific CBSAs in North Carolina; theircomments on CBSA titles were relatedto their comments about therecommendations for merging andcombining adjacent CBSAs. Onecommenter suggested that all cities of500,000 or more population should beincluded in area titles.

OMB received 1,352 commentsregarding the Review Committeesrecommended criteria for identifyingMetropolitan Divisions. Of these, 1,332

commenters expressed opposition to theReview Committees recommendation,suggesting that the criteria were toostrict and did not adequately identify allcounties that could be considered maincounties. Most of these commentersexpressed support for recognizing aspecific county or set of counties as aMetropolitan Division within a largerMetropolitan Area; however, some didnote that the maximum outcommutingthreshold was too low and should beeither raised or eliminated. Fivecommenters supported the ReviewCommittees recommendation. Three

commenters from New Jersey opposedthe recommendation, noting that, intheir opinion, it resulted in too manyMetropolitan Divisions in that state.These commenters suggested loweringthe outcommuting threshold so as toreduce the number of counties thatqualified as main counties. Twocommenters suggested that the

boundaries of current PrimaryMetropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSAs)should be maintained as MetropolitanDivision boundaries or the criteria fordefining Metropolitan Divisions should

result in areas that are consistent withcurrent PMSA boundaries. Fourcommenters expressed a desire forsmaller groupings of counties than thoserepresented by the MetropolitanDivisions that resulted from theapplication of the recommendedstandards with 1990 census data. Onecommenter expressed opposition to the

identification of Metropolitan Divisionswhen doing so would split thecomponent urban core between two ormore divisions. In effect, the commenteropposed the Review Committeesrecommendation to identifyMetropolitan Divisions, since the reasonfor doing so was to recognize thecomplexity of social and economicinteractions within large MetropolitanAreas that contain individual urbancores that extend across multiplecounties.

OMB received 1,394 comments aboutthe Review Committees recommended

criteria for titling Combined Areas. Mostof these comments pertained to therecommendation to include in the titlethe name of the largest Principal Cityfrom each of up to three CBSAs thatcombine. These commenters generallyexpressed support for titling CombinedAreas using the largest Principal Citieswithin the combination regardless oftheir CBSA locations. Some commentersexpressed concern about the ReviewCommittees recommendation that theCombined Area title include anadditional place name only if the CBSAin which that place is located has apopulation at least one-third the size of

the largest CBSA in the combination.Regardless of the specificcircumstances, nearly all commentersnoted that a result of the ReviewCommittees recommendation was toexclude some socially and economicallyprominent Principal Cities from thetitles of their Combined Areas.

Seven commenters respondedregarding the Review Committeesrecommendations for defining NewEngland City and Town Areas(NECTAs), NECTA Divisions, andNECTA Combined Areas. All sevencommenters supported the

identification of areas in New Englandthat used cities and towns as buildingblocks. Three commenters specificallysupported the Review Committeesrecommendations regarding theidentification of NECTAs. Twocommenters suggested that cities andtowns should be the building blocks fora primary set of areas in New Englandand that counties should be used todefine an alternative set of areas. Onecommenter expressed support for thedesignation of NECTAs as eithermetropolitan or micropolitan. Two



6/12


commenters suggested that NECTAsshould be defined using criteria that aredifferent from criteria used to defineCBSAs in the rest of the country; one ofthese commenters suggested that othermeasures should be used in addition tocommuting to determine the extent ofareas in New England.

OMB has taken all of these commentsinto account, giving them carefulconsideration. As outlined below, wehave adopted some of the suggestedchanges and modified criteriarecommended by the Review Committeein August 2000. In a number of othercases, however, we have concluded thatwe could not adopt the suggestionsmade by commenters withoutundermining efforts to achieve aconsistent, national approach designedto enhance the value of data produced

by Federal agencies.

C. OMBs Decisions Regarding

Recommendations From theMetropolitan Area Standards ReviewCommittee Concerning Changes to theStandards for Defining MetropolitanAreas

This section of the Notice providesinformation on the decisions OMB hasmade on the Review Committeesrecommendations. In arriving at thesedecisions, we took into account not onlythe public comment on the ReviewCommittees recommendationspublished in the Federal Register onAugust 22, 2000, but also theconsiderable amount of information

provided during the 10 years of thisreview process, including publiccomments gathered from twoconferences, a Congressional hearing,discussions attendant to numerouspresentations to interested groups, andresponses to two earlier OMB Notices(on December 21, 1998, and October 20,1999). Our decisions benefitted greatlyfrom the public participation that servedas a reminder that, although identifiedfor purposes of collecting, tabulating,and publishing Federal statistics, theMetropolitan and MicropolitanStatistical Areas defined through these

standards represent areas in whichpeople reside, work, and spend theirlives and to which they attach aconsiderable amount of pride. Finally,in reaching our decisions, OMB

benefitted substantially from thecontinuing deliberations of the ReviewCommittee in response to the publiccomment as well as the research supportprovided by Census Bureau staff. Wehave relied upon and very muchappreciate the expertise, insight, anddedication of Review Committeemembers and Census Bureau staff.

OMB presents below our decisions onthe Review Committees specificrecommendations:

1. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendation to defineMetropolitan Areas and MicropolitanAreas within a Core Based StatisticalArea (CBSA) classification, but modifiedthe title of the standards and the names

of the categories to include the wordstatistical, as indicated in Section 6 ofthe standards.

We considered two primary issuesregarding the basis for categorizingCBSAs as either Metropolitan StatisticalAreas or Micropolitan Statistical Areas.The first issue was whether to basecategorization on the total CBSApopulation or on core population. OMBagrees with the Review Committee thatsince cores are the organizing entities ofCBSAs, categorization should be basedon the population in cores, reasoningthat the range of services and functions

provided within an area largely derivefrom the size of the core.

The second issue was whether tocategorize areas based on the populationof the most populous (or dominant)core or on the total population of all (ormultiple) cores within a CBSA. OMBagrees with the Review Committeesrecommendation that a single core of50,000 or more population provides awider variety of functions and servicesthan does a group of smaller cores, evenwhen such a group may have acollective population greater than50,000. OMB was concerned that CBSAs

categorized as Metropolitan StatisticalAreas on the basis of the population inall cores would not bear the same kindsof characteristics as CBSAs categorizedas Metropolitan Statistical Areas on the

basis of a single core of 50,000 or morepopulation. This decision also retainsthe current conceptual approach todefining Metropolitan Areas as basedaround concentrations of 50,000 or morepopulation. The retention of thisconcept and the 50,000 populationthreshold will facilitate comparison ofdata for Metropolitan Statistical Areasover time.

OMB inserted the word statisticalinto the terms for categories of CBSAsand the title of the standards to makeclearer the statistical purpose of theseareas.

2. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendation to usecounties and equivalent entities as thegeographic building blocks for definingCBSAs throughout the United Statesand Puerto Rico, and to use cities andtowns as the geographic building blocks

for defining New England City andTown Areas (NECTAs).

Using counties and equivalent entitiesthroughout the United States and PuertoRico continues current practice, exceptin New England, where historicallyMetropolitan Areas have been definedusing minor civil divisions. The choiceof a geographic unit to serve as the

building block can affect the geographicextent of a statistical area and its

relevance or usefulness in describingeconomic and demographic patterns.The choice also has implications for theability of Federal agencies to providedata for statistical areas and theircomponents.

We believe it advantageous to usecounties and their equivalents becausethey are available nationwide, havestable boundaries, and are familiargeographic entities. In addition, moreFederal statistical programs producedata at the county level than at anysubcounty level. OMB agrees with theReview Committee that the well-known

disadvantages of using counties asbuilding blocks for statistical areasthelarge geographic size of some countiesand resultant lack of geographicprecision that follows from their useare outweighed by the advantagesoffered by using counties.

We have reached our decision to usethe county as the building block forCBSAs in New England, because weattach priority to the use of a consistentgeographic unit nationwide. Use of aconsistent geographic building blockoffers improved usability to producersand users of data; data for CBSAs in allparts of the country would be directly

comparable. Some statistical programs,such as those providing nationwideeconomic data and populationestimates, also have regarded theMetropolitan Area programs use ofminor civil divisions in New England asa hindrance. They have sometimes usedthe currently available alternativecounty based areas for New England,known as the New England CountyMetropolitan Areas, or have minimizedthe number of data releases forMetropolitan Areas. Under the currentMetropolitan Area program, dataproducers and users typically choose

between (1) adhering to the preferredMetropolitan Statistical Areas,Consolidated Metropolitan StatisticalAreas, and Primary MetropolitanStatistical Areas throughout the countryand having data that limit comparisons

between some areas, and (2) usingalternative areas in New England andhaving more comparable data. OMBsdecision eliminates the need for thischoice.

Demographic and economic data forminor civil divisions in New Englandare more plentiful than similar data for



7/12


subcounty entities in the rest of theNation. In recognition of the importanceof minor civil divisions in NewEngland, the wide availability of datafor them, and their long-term use in theMetropolitan Area program, OMB alsowill use the minor civil division as the

building block for a set of areas for thesix New England states. These NECTAs

are intended for use in the collection,tabulation, publication, and analysis ofstatistical data, whenever feasible andappropriate, for New England. Dataproviders and users desiring areasdefined using a nationally consistentgeographic building block should usethe county based CBSAs in NewEngland; however, counties are lesswell-known in New England than citiesand towns.

3. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendation to useCensus Bureau defined urbanized areasof 50,000 or more population and

Census Bureau defined urban clusters of10,00049,999 population as the coresof CBSAs and to use the locations ofthese cores as the basis for identifyingcentral counties of CBSAs. OMB alsoaccepted the Review Committeesrecommendation to identify centralcounties as those counties that (a) haveat least 50 percent of their population inurban areas (urbanized areas or urbanclusters) of at least 10,000 population or(b) have within their boundaries a

population of at least 5,000 located ina single urban area (urbanized area orurban cluster) of at least 10,000

population.In accepting the Review Committeesrecommendation to use Census Bureaudefined urbanized areas and urbanclusters as the cores of MetropolitanStatistical Areas and MicropolitanStatistical Areas, OMB recognizes thaturbanized areas and urban clusters arethe organizing entities of CBSAs. Theuse of urbanized areas as cores isconsistent with current practice. Toextend the classification to areas basedon cores of 10,000 to 49,999 population,OMB will use urban clusters as cores forMicropolitan Statistical Areas. Urbanclusters will be identified by the CensusBureau following Census 2000 and will

be conceptually similar to urbanizedareas.

OMB agreed with the ReviewCommittee that the location of thesecores should be used to identify thecentral county or counties of eachCBSA. The identification of centralcounties facilitates the use of county-to-county commuting data whendetermining whether additionalcounties qualify for inclusion in theCBSA.

4. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendation to usedata on journey to work, or commuting,as the basis for grouping countiestogether to form CBSAs (i.e., to qualifyoutlying counties). OMB accepted theReview Committees recommendation toqualify a county as an outlying countyif (a) at least 25 percent of the employed

residents of the county work in theCBSAs central county or counties, or (b)at least 25 percent of the jobs in the

potential outlying county are accountedfor by workers who reside in the CBSAscentral county or counties. OMB alsoaccepted the Review Committeesrecommendation not to use measures ofsettlement structure, such as populationdensity, to qualify outlying counties forinclusion in CBSAs.

Three priorities guided OMB inreaching this decision. We believe thedata used to measure connectionsamong counties should describe those

connections in a straightforward andintuitive manner, be collected usingconsistent procedures nationwide, and

be readily available to the public. Thesepriorities steered us to the use of datagathered by Federal agencies and, moreparticularly, to commuting data fromthe Census Bureau. Commuting to workis an easily understood measure thatreflects the social and economicintegration of geographic areas. OMBagrees with the Review Committee thatchanges in settlement, commutingpatterns, and communicationstechnologies have made settlementstructure unreliable as an indicator of

metropolitan character. We agree thatthe percentage of a countys employedresidents who commute to the centralcounty or counties is an unambiguous,clear measure of whether a potentialoutlying county should qualify forinclusion. The percentage ofemployment in the potential outlyingcounty accounted for by workers whoreside in the central county or countiesis similarly a straightforward measure ofties. Including both criteria addressesthe conventional and the less commonreverse commuting flows.

There have been changes in daily

mobility patterns and increasedinteraction between communities asindicated by increases in inter-countycommuting over the past 40 years. Thepercentage of workers in the UnitedStates who commute to places of workoutside their counties of residence hasincreased from approximately 15percent in 1960 (when nationwidecommuting data first became availablefrom the decennial census) to nearly 25percent in 1990. OMB agrees with theReview Committee that raising thecommuting percentage required for

qualification of outlying counties fromthe 15 percent minimum of the 1990standards to 25 percent is appropriateagainst this background of increasedoverall inter-county commuting coupledwith the removal of all settlementstructure requirements from theoutlying county criteria. In other words,since out-of-county commuting has

become more commonplace, a higherpercentage of commuting is necessary todemonstrate ties comparable to thoseindicated by a lower commuting rate in1960. Further, both the ReviewCommittee and OMB considered themultiplier effect (a standard methodused in economic analysis to determinethe impact of new jobs on a localeconomy) that each commuter wouldhave on the economy of the county inwhich he or she lives. The size of themultiplier effect varies depending onthe size of a regions economy andemployment base, but a multiplier of

two or three generally is accepted byregional economists, regional scientists,and economic development analysts formost areas. Applying such a measure inthe case of a county with the minimum25 percent commuting requirementmeans that the incomes of at least halfof the workers residing in the outlyingcounty are connected either directly(through commuting to jobs located inthe central county) or indirectly (byproviding services to local residentswhose jobs are in the central county) tothe economy of the central county orcounties of the CBSA within which thecounty at issue qualifies for inclusion.

5. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendation to mergecontiguous CBSAs to form a singleCBSA when the central county orcounties of one area qualify as outlyingto the central county or counties ofanother. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendation to use thesame minimum commuting threshold25 percentas is used to qualifyoutlying counties.

In accepting the Review Committeesrecommendation to merge contiguousCBSAs, OMB recognized that patterns ofpopulation distribution and commuting

sometimes are complex and, as a result,close social and economic ties, asmeasured by commuting, exist betweensome contiguous CBSAs. OMB agreedwith the Review Committee that strongties between the central counties of twocontiguous CBSAs, similar to the ties

between an outlying county and acentral county or counties, should berecognized by merging the two areas toform a single CBSA.

6. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendations toidentify Principal Cities and to use them



8/12


to title areas, but modified therecommendation concerning the criteriaused to identify Principal Cities asindicated in Section 5 of the standards.

OMBs modifications address twoconcerns: (1) ensuring that at least oneincorporated place of 10,000 or morepopulation (if one is present) isrecognized as a Principal City, and (2)

allowing a fuller identification of placesthat represent the more important socialand economic centers within aMetropolitan or Micropolitan StatisticalArea. In the first instance, we wereconcerned that an unincorporated placewith a large population, but relativelysmall employment base, would qualifyas the only Principal City of its CBSA.OMB noted some instances in which anincorporated place of at least 10,000population accounted for a largeramount of employment than the mostpopulous place, but lacked sufficientpopulation to qualify as a Principal City.

OMBs modification to recognize thelargest incorporated place of at least10,000 population as a Principal Citywill affect only a small number of areasnationwide in which the most populousincorporated place has less populationthan a larger unincorporatedcommunity.

We also were concerned that therecommended criteria were toorestrictive and that many smaller, butlocally important, cities would not berecognized as Principal Cities of theirrespective CBSAs. This was especiallythe case when the CBSA included onecity that was significantly larger in

population size than all other citieswithin the CBSA. OMBs modificationwill permit a fuller identification ofplaces with at least 50,000 population asPrincipal Cities. This modificationlikely will result in the identification ofapproximately 100 additional PrincipalCities, many of which currently arerecognized as central cities ofMetropolitan Areas.

7. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendation toidentify Metropolitan Divisions andNECTA Divisions that function asdistinct areas within Metropolitan

Statistical Areas and NECTAs thatcontain at least one core of 2.5 millionor more population. OMB modified thecriteria used to define MetropolitanDivisions within Metropolitan StatisticalAreas as well as NECTA Divisionswithin NECTAs, as indicated in Section7 of the standards.

OMBs modifications to theMetropolitan Division criteria reflecttwo concerns. First, OMB wasconcerned that the Review Committeesrecommended criteria for identifyingthe main counties of Metropolitan

Divisions were too strict, particularlywith regard to the requirement that acounty have less than 15 percentcommuting to any other county withinthe Metropolitan Statistical Area. Thepurpose of the main county criteria is toidentify those counties within aMetropolitan Statistical Area that areself-contained economic centers. Such

counties, because of the strength of theiremployment base, can form the basis fora separate division within the largerMetropolitan Statistical Area. The firsttwo criteria for main countiesrecommended by the ReviewCommitteepercent of resident workersemployed within a particular countyand the ratio of jobs to employedresidentsprovide indicators of theeconomic strength and relativeindependence of the county. OMBdetermined, however, after consideringpublic comment and further discussion

by the Review Committee, that the

(third) outcommuting requirement wasnot a direct indicator of a countyseconomic strength or its identity as anorganizing entity around which to forma Metropolitan Division. Therefore, weare eliminating the outcommutingcriterion.

Second, upon further review ofcommuting patterns and related socialand economic interactions within theten Metropolitan Statistical Areas thatcontained cores of at least 2.5 millionpopulation in 1990, OMB discerned twokinds of counties. In the first categoryare those counties that are strongly self-contained. These are characterized by

high percentages (65 percent or greater)of employed residents who remain inthe county to work and by high ratiosof jobs to resident workers (.75 orgreater). These main counties standalone as self-contained social andeconomic units within the largerMetropolitan Statistical Area or providethe social and economic center aroundwhich a group of counties is organized.

A second category of counties consistsof those with high ratios of jobs toresident workers, but a lower percentageof employed residents working withinthe county (50 percent to 64.9 percent).

These secondary counties, while theycan be identified as social and economiccenters, also connect strongly with oneor more adjacent counties throughcommuting ties. Such counties are onlymoderately self-contained and canprovide the organizing basis for aMetropolitan Division only when pairedwith one or more counties of similar orgreater economic strength. As such, theymust combine with another secondarycounty or with a main county whenforming the basis for a MetropolitanDivision.

We also note that when combiningsecondary counties with other main orsecondary counties and when qualifyingadditional outlying counties forinclusion in a Metropolitan Division,the employment interchange measureoffers a more appropriate measure ofinteraction than determining ties basedon the strength of commuting in one

direction only. (The employmentinterchange measure is defined as thesum of the percentage of commutingfrom the entity with the smaller totalpopulation to the entity with the largerpopulation and the percentage ofemployment in the entity with thesmaller total population accounted for

by workers residing in the entity withthe larger total population.) Ourdecision to use the employmentinterchange measure is consistent withthe reason for defining MetropolitanDivisions-that is, to recognize thecomplex social and economic

interactions that occur withinMetropolitan Statistical Areas thatcontain large urbanized areas. For thesame reason, OMB modified the NECTADivision criteria to use the employmentinterchange measure, instead of thepercentage of out-commuters, whenqualifying additional outlying cities andtowns for inclusion in a NECTADivision.

8. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendation tocombine contiguous CBSAs when tiesbetween those areas are less intensethan those captured by mergers, but stillsignificant. OMB accepted the Review

Committees recommendation to basecombinations on the employmentinterchange measure between twoCBSAs. OMB also accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendations thatcombinations of CBSAs, based on anemployment interchange measure of atleast 15 but less than 25, should occuronly if local opinion (see Section C.10below) in both areas is in favor and thatcombinations should occurautomatically if the employmentinterchange measure between twoCBSAs equals or exceeds 25. OMBadded the word statistical to the term

used to refer to areas resulting from thecombination of CBSAs as indicated inSection 8 of the standards.

OMB agreed with the ReviewCommittee that ties between contiguousCBSAs that are less intense than thosecaptured by mergers (see Section C.5above), but still significant, berecognized by combining those CBSAs.Because a combination thus definedrepresents a relationship of moderatestrength between two CBSAs, OMBagrees with the Review Committee thatthe combining areas should retain their



9/12


identities as separate CBSAs within thecombination.

OMB inserted the word statisticalinto the term used for combinations tomake clearer the statistical purpose ofthese areas.

9. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendations to title(1) Metropolitan Divisions using the

names of up to three Principal Cities, orup to three county names if no PrincipalCities are present, in order ofdescending population size; and (2)NECTA Divisions using the names of upto three Principal Cities in order ofdescending population size, or the nameof the largest minor civil division if no

principal city is present. OMB modifiedthe Review Committeesrecommendations concerning titles ofCBSAs, NECTAs, and CombinedStatistical Areas, as indicated in Section9 of the standards.

OMBs modification of the criteria for

titling CBSAs addresses instances inwhich the largest Principal City is anunincorporated census designatedplace. Titles should provide a means ofeasily recognizing and locating CBSAs,and we are concerned that titles inwhich the first-named place is anunincorporated community might not

be as recognizable nationally as those inwhich the first-named place is anincorporated place.

OMBs modification of the criteria fortitling Combined Statistical Areasaddresses three concerns: (1) The title ofa Combined Statistical Area, to the

extent possible, should reflect thegeographic extent of the combination byincluding the names of Principal Citiescontained within the areas thatcombine; (2) the title of a CombinedStatistical Area, to the extent possible,should contain the names of the largestPrincipal Cities since these cities oftenare the social and economic centers forthe broad region represented by thecombination; and (3) the title of aCombined Statistical Area should notduplicate the title of any of thecombining Metropolitan or MicropolitanStatistical Areas or MetropolitanDivisions.

10. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendation to applyonly statistical rules when definingMetropolitan and MicropolitanStatistical Areas. OMB accepted theReview Committees recommendation toallow the use of local opinion whencontiguous CBSAs qualify to combinewith an employment interchangemeasure of 15 to 24.9, but added one

provision (Section 11b of the standards)that would allow for local opinion intitling Combined Statistical Areas.

Applying only statistical rules whendefining areas minimizes ambiguity andmaximizes the replicability andintegrity of the process. Consideration oflocal opinion in specific circumstances,however, can provide room foraccommodating some issues of localsignificance without impairing theintegrity of the classification. OMB

agrees with the Review Committee thatwhen two contiguous CBSAs have anemployment interchange measure of atleast 15 and less than 25, the measuredties may be perceived as minimal byresidents of the two areas. In thesesituations, local opinion is useful indetermining whether to combine thetwo areas. OMB also agrees with theReview Committee that local opinion isuseful in determining titles forCombined Statistical Areas that addressthe issues discussed in Section C.9above.

11. OMB accepted the Review

Committees recommendation not todefine 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 asinner city, inner suburb, outer suburb,exurb, and rural would be of use to theFederal statistical system as well as toresearchers, analysts, and other users ofFederal data. Such settlement types,however, are not necessary for thedelineation of statistical areas in thisclassification that describes thefunctional ties between geographicentities. These types would more

appropriately fall within a separateclassification that focuses exclusivelyon describing settlement patterns andland uses. We believe the CensusBureau and other interested Federalagencies should continue research onsettlement patterns below the countylevel to describe further the distributionof population and economic activitythroughout the Nation. In addition,OMB will consider initiating acollaborative, interagency process tofoster improved understanding ofgeographic area classifications and toinvestigate the feasibility of developing

alternative geographic areaclassifications that are appropriate forpurposes such as the administration ofnonstatistical programs.

12. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendation that thedefinitions of current MetropolitanAreas should not be automaticallyretained (i.e., grandfathered) in theimplementation of the Standards forDefining Metropolitan and MicropolitanStatistical Areas.

In this context, grandfatheringrefers to the continued designation of an

area even though it does not meet thestandards currently in effect. The 1990standards permitted changes in thedefinitions, or extent, of individualMetropolitan Areas through the additionor deletion of counties on the basis ofeach decennial census, but thosestandards did not permit thedisqualification of Metropolitan Areas

that previously qualified on the basis ofa Census Bureau population count. Tomaintain the integrity of theclassification, OMB favors the objectiveapplication of the new standards ratherthan continuing to recognize areas thatdo not meet the standards. The currentstatus of a county as being within oroutside a Metropolitan Area will playno role in the application of theStandards for Defining Metropolitan andMicropolitan Statistical Areas.

13. OMB accepted the ReviewCommittees recommendation to definenew CBSAs between decennial censuses

on the basis of Census Bureaupopulation estimates or special censuscounts and to update the definitions ofall existing CBSAs in 2008 usingcommuting data from the CensusBureaus American Community Survey.

The frequency with which newCBSAs are designated and existing areasupdated has been of considerableinterest to data producers and usersthroughout the Metropolitan AreaStandards Review Project. The firstareas to be designated by OMB using theMetropolitan and MicropolitanStatistical Area Standards and Census2000 data will be announced in 2003.

The sources and future availability ofdata for updating these areas figuredprominently in the Review Committeesdiscussions and OMBs decisions. Theavailability of population totals andcommuting data affects the ability toidentify new CBSAs, reclassify existingareas among categories, and update theextent of existing areas. OMB agreedwith the Review Committee thatexisting CBSAs should be updated everyfive years, and agreed that theavailability of commuting data for allcounties from the Census BureausAmerican Community Survey in 2008

offered the possibility of updating thedefinitions of all existing CBSAs at thattime.

Our decisions as discussed above arereflected in the text of the officialStandards for Defining Metropolitan andMicropolitan Statistical Areas that weare issuing today. The following sectionpresents these standards.

D. Standards for Defining Metropolitanand Micropolitan Statistical Areas

The Office of Management and Budgetwill use these standards to define Core



10/12


Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs)beginning in 2003. A CBSA is ageographic entity associated with atleast one core of 10,000 or morepopulation, plus adjacent territory thathas a high degree of social andeconomic integration with the core asmeasured by commuting ties. Thestandards designate and define two

categories of CBSAs: MetropolitanStatistical Areas and MicropolitanStatistical Areas.

The purpose of the Metropolitan andMicropolitan Statistical Area Standardsis to provide nationally consistentdefinitions for collecting, tabulating,and publishing Federal statistics for aset of geographic areas. The Office ofManagement and Budget establishes andmaintains these areas solely forstatistical purposes.

Metropolitan and MicropolitanStatistical Areas are not designed as ageneral purpose geographic frameworkfor nonstatistical activities or for use inprogram funding formulas. The CBSAclassification does not equate to anurban-rural classification; Metropolitanand Micropolitan Statistical Areas andmany counties outside CBSAs contain

both urban and rural populations.CBSAs consist of counties and

equivalent entities throughout theUnited States and Puerto Rico. In viewof the importance of cities and towns inNew England, a set of geographic areassimilar in concept to the county basedCBSAs also will be defined for thatregion using cities and towns. TheseNew England City and Town Areas

(NECTAs) are intended for use withstatistical data, whenever feasible andappropriate, for New England. Dataproviders and users desiring areasdefined using a nationally consistentgeographic building block should usethe county based CBSAs in NewEngland.

The following criteria apply to boththe nationwide county based CBSAsand to NECTAs, with the exceptions ofSections 6, 7, and 9, in which separatecriteria are applied when identifyingand titling divisions within NECTAsthat contain at least one core of 2.5

million or more population. Whereverthe word county or countiesappears in the following criteria (exceptin Sections 6, 7, and 9), the words cityand town or cities and towns should

be substituted, as appropriate, whendefining NECTAs.

Section 1. Population Size Requirementsfor Qualification of Core BasedStatistical Areas

Each CBSA must have a CensusBureau defined urbanized area of atleast 50,000 population or a Census

Bureau defined urban cluster of at least10,000 population. (Urbanized areas andurban clusters are collectively referredto as urban areas.)

Section 2. Central Counties

The central county or counties of aCBSA are those counties that:

(a) have at least 50 percent of their

population in urban areas of at least10,000 population; or

(b) have within their boundaries apopulation of at least 5,000 located in asingle urban area of at least 10,000population.

A central county is associated withthe urbanized area or urban cluster thataccounts for the largest portion of thecountys population. The centralcounties associated with a particularurbanized area or urban cluster aregrouped to form a single cluster ofcentral counties for purposes ofmeasuring commuting to and from

potentially qualifying outlying counties.Section 3. Outlying Counties

A county qualifies as an outlyingcounty of a CBSA if it meets thefollowing commuting requirements:

(a) at least 25 percent of the employedresidents of the county work in thecentral county or counties of the CBSA;or

(b) at least 25 percent of theemployment in the county is accountedfor by workers who reside in the centralcounty or counties of the CBSA.

A county may appear in only oneCBSA. If a county qualifies as a central

county of one CBSA and as outlying inanother, it falls within the CBSA inwhich it is a central county. A countythat qualifies as outlying to multipleCBSAs falls within the CBSA withwhich it has the strongest commutingtie, as measured by either (a) or (b)above. The counties included in a CBSAmust be contiguous; if a county is notcontiguous with other counties in theCBSA, it will not fall within the CBSA.

Section 4. Merging of Adjacent CoreBased Statistical Areas

Two adjacent CBSAs will merge to

form one CBSA if the central county orcounties (as a group) of one CBSAqualify as outlying to the central countyor counties (as a group) of the otherCBSA using the measures andthresholds stated in 3(a) and 3(b) above.

Section 5. Identification of PrincipalCities

The Principal City (or Cities) of aCBSA will include:

(a) the largest incorporated place witha Census 2000 population of at least10,000 in the CBSA or, if no

incorporated place of at least 10,000population is present in the CBSA, thelargest incorporated place or censusdesignated place in the CBSA; and

(b) any additional incorporated placeor census designated place with aCensus 2000 population of at least250,000 or in which 100,000 or morepersons work; and

(c) any additional incorporated placeor census designated place with aCensus 2000 population of at least50,000, but less than 250,000, and inwhich the number of jobs meets orexceeds the number of employedresidents; and

(d) any additional incorporated placeor census designated place with aCensus 2000 population of at least10,000, but less than 50,000, and one-third the population size of the largestplace, and in which the number of jobsmeets or exceeds the number ofemployed residents.

Section 6. Categories and Terminology

A CBSA receives a category based onthe population of the largest urban area(urbanized area or urban cluster) withinthe CBSA. Categories of CBSAs are:Metropolitan Statistical Areas, based onurbanized areas of 50,000 or morepopulation, and Micropolitan StatisticalAreas, based on urban clusters of at least10,000 population but less than 50,000population.

Counties that do not fall withinCBSAs will represent Outside CoreBased Statistical Areas.

A NECTA receives a category in amanner similar to a CBSA and isreferred to as a Metropolitan NECTA ora Micropolitan NECTA.

Section 7. Divisions of MetropolitanStatistical Areas and New England Cityand Town Areas

(a) A Metropolitan Statistical Areacontaining a single core with apopulation of at least 2.5 million may besubdivided to form smaller groupings ofcounties referred to as MetropolitanDivisions.

A county qualifies as a main countyof a Metropolitan Division if 65 percentor more of its employed residents workwithin the county and the ratio of thenumber of jobs located in the county tothe number of employed residents of thecounty is at least .75.

A county qualifies as a secondarycounty if 50 percent or more, but lessthan 65 percent, of its employedresidents work within the county andthe ratio of the number of jobs locatedin the county to the number ofemployed residents of the county is atleast .75.



11/12


A main county automatically servesas the basis for a Metropolitan Division.For a secondary county to qualify as the

basis for forming a MetropolitanDivision, it must join with either acontiguous secondary county or acontiguous main county with which ithas the highest employment interchangemeasure of 15 or more.

After all main counties and secondarycounties are identified and grouped (ifappropriate), each additional countythat already has qualified for inclusionin the Metropolitan Statistical Area fallswithin the Metropolitan Divisionassociated with the main/secondarycounty or counties with which thecounty at issue has the highestemployment interchange measure.Counties in a Metropolitan Divisionmust be contiguous.

(b) A NECTA containing a single corewith a population of at least 2.5 million

may be subdivided to form smallergroupings of cities and towns referred toas NECTA Divisions.

A city or town will be a main cityor town of a NECTA Division if it hasa population of 50,000 or more and itshighest rate of out-commuting to anyother city or town is less than 20percent.

After all main cities and towns havebeen identified, each remaining city andtown in the NECTA will fall within theNECTA Division associated with thecity or town with which the one at issuehas the highest employment interchangemeasure.

Each NECTA Division must contain atotal population of 100,000 or more.Cities and towns first assigned to areaswith populations less than 100,000 will

be assigned to the qualifying NECTADivision associated with the city ortown with which the one at issue hasthe highest employment interchangemeasure. Cities and towns within aNECTA Division must be contiguous.

Section 8. Combining Adjacent CoreBased Statistical Areas

(a) Any two adjacent CBSAs will forma Combined Statistical Area if theemployment interchange measure

between the two areas is at least 25.

(b) Adjacent CBSAs that have anemployment interchange measure of atleast 15 and less than 25 will combineif local opinion, as reported by thecongressional delegations in both areas,favors combination.

(c) The CBSAs that combine retainseparate identities within the largerCombined Statistical Areas.

Section 9. Titles of Core BasedStatistical Areas, MetropolitanDivisions, New England City and TownDivisions, and Combined StatisticalAreas

(a) The title of a CBSA will includethe name of its Principal City with thelargest Census 2000 population. If there

are multiple Principal Cities, the namesof the second largest and third largestPrincipal Cities will appear in the titlein order of descending population size.If the Principal City with the largestCensus 2000 population is a censusdesignated place, the name of the largestincorporated place of at least 10,000population that also is a Principal Citywill appear first in the title followed bythe name of the census designatedplace.

(b) The title of a MetropolitanDivision will include the name of thePrincipal City with the largest Census2000 population located in the

Metropolitan Division. If there aremultiple Principal Cities, the names ofthe second largest and third largestPrincipal Cities will appear in the titlein order of descending population size.If there are no Principal Cities locatedin the Metropolitan Division, the title ofthe Metropolitan Division will use thenames of up to three counties in orderof descending population size.

(c) The title of a NECTA Division willinclude the name of the Principal Citywith the largest Census 2000 populationlocated in the NECTA Division. If thereare multiple Principal Cities, the names

of the second largest and third largestPrincipal Cities will appear in the titlein order of descending population size.If there are no Principal Cities locatedin the NECTA Division, the title of theNECTA Division will use the name ofthe city or town with the largestpopulation.

(d) The title of a Combined StatisticalArea will include the name of thelargest Principal City in thecombination, followed by the names ofup to two additional Principal Cities inthe combination in order of descendingpopulation size, or a suitable regional

name, provided that the CombinedStatistical Area title does not duplicatethe title of a component Metropolitan orMicropolitan Statistical Area orMetropolitan Division. Local opinionwill be considered when determiningthe titles of Combined Statistical Areas.

(e) Titles also will include the namesof any state in which the area is located.

Section 10. Update Schedule

(a) The Office of Management andBudget will define CBSAs based onCensus 2000 data in 2003.

(b) Each year thereafter, the Office ofManagement and Budget will designatenew CBSAs if:

(1) A city that is outside any existingCBSA has a Census Bureau specialcensus count of 10,000 or morepopulation, or Census Bureaupopulation estimates of 10,000 or morepopulation for two consecutive years, or

(2) A Census Bureau special censusresults in the delineation of a new urbanarea (urbanized area or urban cluster) of10,000 or more population that isoutside of any existing CBSA.

(c) In the years 2004 through 2007,outlying counties of intercensallydesignated CBSAs will qualify,according to the criteria in Section 3above, on the basis of Census 2000commuting data.

(d) The Office of Management andBudget will review the definitions of allexisting CBSAs in 2008 usingcommuting data from the Census

Bureaus American Community Survey.The central counties of CBSAsidentified on the basis of a Census 2000population count, or on the basis ofpopulation estimates or a special censuscount in the case of intercensallydefined areas, will constitute the centralcounties for purposes of the 2008 areadefinitions. New CBSAs will bedesignated in 2008 and 2009 on the

basis of Census Bureau special censuscounts or population estimates asdescribed above; outlying countyqualification in these years will be

based on 2008 commuting data from theAmerican Community Survey.

Section 11. Local Opinion

Local opinion, as used in thesestandards, is the reflection of the viewsof the public and is obtained throughthe appropriate congressionaldelegations. The Office of Managementand Budget will seek local opinion intwo circumstances:

(a) When two adjacent CBSAs qualifyfor combination based on anemployment interchange measure of atleast 15 but less than 25 (see Section 8).The two CBSAs will combine only ifthere is evidence that local opinion in

both areas favors the combination.(b) To determine the title of aCombined Statistical Area.

After decisions have been maderegarding the combinations of CBSAsand the titles of Combined StatisticalAreas, the Office of Management andBudget will not request local opinionagain on these issues until the nextredefinition of CBSAs.

Section 12. Definitions of Key Terms

Census designated place.Astatistical geographic entity that is



12/12


equivalent to an incorporated place,defined for the decennial census,consisting of a locally recognized,unincorporated concentration ofpopulation that is identified by name.

Central county.The county orcounties of a Core Based Statistical Areacontaining a substantial portion of anurbanized area or urban cluster or both,

and to and from which commuting ismeasured to determine qualification ofoutlying counties.

Combined Statistical Area.Ageographic entity consisting of two ormore adjacent Core Based StatisticalAreas (CBSAs) with employmentinterchange measures of at least 15.Pairs of CBSAs with employmentinterchange measures of at least 25combine automatically. Pairs of CBSAswith employment interchange measuresof at least 15, but less than 25, maycombine if local opinion in both areasfavors combination.

Core.A densely settledconcentration of population, comprisingeither an urbanized area (of 50,000 ormore population) or an urban cluster (of10,000 to 49,999 population) defined bythe Census Bureau, around which aCore Based Statistical Area is defined.

Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA).A statistical geographic entity consistingof the county or counties associatedwith at least one core (urbanized area orurban cluster) of at least 10,000population, plus adjacent countieshaving a high degree of social andeconomic integration with the core as

measured through commuting ties withthe counties containing the core.Metropolitan and MicropolitanStatistical Areas are the two categoriesof Core Based Statistical Areas.

Employment interchange measure.A measure of ties between two adjacententities. The employment interchangemeasure is the sum of the percentage ofemployed residents of the smaller entitywho work in the larger entity and thepercentage of employment in thesmaller entity that is accounted for byworkers who reside in the larger entity.

Geographic building block.Thegeographic unit, such as a county, that

constitutes the basic geographiccomponent of a statistical area.

Main city or town.A city or townthat acts as an employment center

within a New England City and TownArea that has a core with a populationof at least 2.5 million. A main city ortown serves as the basis for defining aNew England City and Town AreaDivision.

Main county.A county that acts asan employment center within a CoreBased Statistical Area that has a core

with a population of at least 2.5 million.A main county serves as the basis fordefining a Metropolitan Division.

Metropolitan Division.A county orgroup of counties within a Core BasedStatistical Area that contains a core witha population of at least 2.5 million. AMetropolitan Division consists of one ormore main/secondary counties thatrepresent an employment center orcenters, plus adjacent countiesassociated with the main county orcounties through commuting ties.

Metropolitan Statistical Area.ACore Based Statistical Area associated

with at least one urbanized area that hasa population of at least 50,000. TheMetropolitan Statistical Area comprisesthe central county or countiescontaining the core, plus adjacentoutlying counties having a high degreeof social and economic integration withthe central county as measured throughcommuting.

Micropolitan Statistical Area.ACore Based Statistical Area associatedwith at least one urban cluster that hasa population of at least 10,000, but lessthan 50,000. The MicropolitanStatistical Area comprises the central

county or counties containing the core,plus adjacent outlying counties having ahigh degree of social and economicintegration with the central county asmeasured through commuting.

New England City and Town Area(NECTA).A statistical geographicentity that is defined using cities andtowns as building blocks and that isconceptually similar to the Core BasedStatistical Areas in New England (whichare defined using counties as building

blocks).New England City and Town Area

(NECTA) Division.A city or town orgroup of cities and towns within a

NECTA that contains a core with apopulation of at least 2.5 million. ANECTA Division consists of a main cityor town that represents an employment

center, plus adjacent cities and townsassociated with the main city or town,or with other cities and towns that arein turn associated with the main city ortown, through commuting ties.

Outlying county.A county thatqualifies for inclusion in a Core BasedStatistical Area on the basis ofcommuting ties with the Core Based

Statistical Areas central county orcounties.

Outside Core Based StatisticalAreas.Counties that do not qualify forinclusion in a Core Based StatisticalArea.

Principal City.The largest city of aCore Based Statistical Area, plusadditional cities that meet specifiedstatistical criteria.

Secondary county.A county thatacts as an employment center incombination with a main county oranother secondary county within a CoreBased Statistical Area that has a core

with a population of at least 2.5 million.A secondary county serves as the basisfor defining a Metropolitan Division, butonly when combined with a maincounty or another secondary county.

Urban area.The generic term usedby the Census Bureau to refercollectively to urbanized areas andurban clusters.

Urban cluster.A statisticalgeographic entity to be defined by theCensus Bureau for Census 2000,consisting of a central place(s) andadjacent densely settled territory thattogether contain at least 2,500 people,

generally with an overall populationdensity of at least 1,000 people persquare mile. For purposes of definingCore Based Statistical Areas, only thoseurban clusters of 10,000 morepopulation are considered.

Urbanized area.A statisticalgeographic entity defined by the CensusBureau, consisting of a central place(s)and adjacent densely settled territorythat together contain at least 50,000people, generally with an overallpopulation density of at least 1,000people per square mile.

John T. Spotila,

Administrator, Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs.

[FR Doc. 0032997 Filed 122600; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 311001P

Areas metropolitanas año 2000 Oficina del Censo

Documents

Transcript of Areas metropolitanas año 2000 Oficina del Censo