Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

SUMMARY: OMB defines metropolitan areas (MAs) in the United States and

Puerto Rico for statistical purposes, following published standards.

Statistical purposes include the collection, tabulation, and

publication of data by Federal agencies for geographic areas. Decisions

related to the criteria used to define MAs are made by OMB in

consultation with members of the Metropolitan Area Standards Review

Committee (MASRC), a group representing various statistical agencies

within the Federal Government. The last revision of the MA standards

was issued in 1990 (see Appendix A). OMB currently is conducting a full

review of the MA concept and standards.

This Notice describes potential revisions to the MA standards based

on findings from the ongoing review. The Notice begins with a brief

history of the standards and a discussion of why they may need to be

revised. It then lists the findings of the review process to date,

distinguishing between points of general agreement and questions still

needing to be resolved. The Notice presents four approaches to defining

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas that answer in varying ways the

unresolved questions.

Issues for Comment: OMB is interested in receiving comments from

the public on (1) the suitability of the current standards, (2)

principles that should govern any proposed revisions to the standards,

(3) reactions to the four approaches outlined in this Notice, and (4)

proposals for other ways by which to define metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas. In particular, OMB seeks responses to the

following key questions that will determine how metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas will be defined in the future:

What geographic unit should be used as the ``building

block'' for defining areas for statistical purposes?

What criteria should be used to aggregate the geographic

building blocks into statistical areas?

What criteria should be used to define a set of

statistical areas of different types that together classify all the

territory of the Nation?

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

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to James D.

Fitzsimmons, Population Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC

20233-8800; fax (301) 457-2644.

Electronic Data Availability and Comments: This Federal Register

Notice is available electronically from the OMB home page on the World

Wide Web: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/fedreg.html>>.

Federal Register Notices also are available electronically from the

U.S. Government Printing Office web site: http://www.access.gpo.gov/

su____docs/aces/aces140.html>>. Questions about accessing the Federal

Register online via GPO Access may be directed by telephone to (202)

512-1530 or toll free to (888) 293-6498; by fax to (202) 512-1262; or

by E-mail to [email protected]>>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James D. Fitzsimmons, Chair,

Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee, (301) 457-2419, or E-mail

[email protected]>>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline of Notice

Part I. Background

A. What Is a Metropolitan Area?

B. What Is the Purpose of Defining Metropolitan Areas?

C. How Has the Metropolitan Area Concept Evolved?

D. Why Should the Metropolitan Area Standards Be Reviewed for

Possible Revision?

Part II. Issues Posed by the Review

A. Points of General Agreement

B. Questions Remaining to Be Resolved

Part III. Form and Function in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan

Area Definitions

A. Functional Integration

B. Metropolitan Character

C. Central Cores

D. Geographic Building Blocks for Metropolitan and

Nonmetropolitan Areas

Part IV. Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and

Nonmetropolitan Areas

A. A Commuting-Based, County-Level Approach to Defining

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

B. A Commuting-Based, Census Tract-Level Approach to Defining

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

C. A Directional Commuting, Census Tract-Level Approach to

Defining Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

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

Statistical Areas

Part V. Additional Issues for Consideration

A. Accounting for Residual Areas

B. Development of Multiple Sets of Statistical Areas

C. Settlement Types Within Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan

Areas

Part VI. Sources Cited

Part VII. Frequently Used Terms

Appendices

A. Revised Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas in the

1990s

B. OMB Memorandum M-94-22, ``Use of Metropolitan Area

Definitions''

C. Summary of the Conference on New Approaches to Defining

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

Part I. Background

A. What Is a Metropolitan Area?

Currently, an MA consists of a core area containing a large

population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high

degree of social and economic integration with that core. MAs generally

include a city or a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (UA) with

50,000 or more inhabitants. The county or counties that contain the

large city or the UA are the central counties of the MA. Additional

outlying counties are included in the MA if the counties meet specified

requirements of commuting to or from the central counties and other

selected requirements of metropolitan character. The term

``metropolitan area'' is a collective term that refers to metropolitan

statistical areas (MSAs), consolidated metropolitan statistical areas

(CMSAs), and primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs). The

current (1990) standards for defining MAs are included as Appendix A of

this Notice.

B. What Is the Purpose of Defining Metropolitan Areas?

MAs are a Federal statistical standard designed solely for the

preparation, presentation, and comparison of data. Before the MA

concept was introduced in 1949 with Standard Metropolitan Areas (SMAs),

inconsistencies between statistical area boundaries and units made

comparisons of data from Federal agencies difficult. Thus, MAs are

defined according to specific, quantitative criteria (standards) to

help government agencies, researchers, and others achieve uniform use

and comparability of data on a national scale.

OMB recognizes that some Federal and state agencies are required by

statute to use MAs for allocating program funds, setting program

standards, and implementing other aspects of their programs. In

defining MAs, however, OMB does not take into account or attempt to

anticipate any of these nonstatistical uses that may be

[[Page 70527]]

made of MAs or their associated data. Agencies that elect to use MAs

for such nonstatistical purposes are advised that the standards are

designed for statistical purposes only and that any changes to the

standards may affect the implementation of programs. This policy was

documented in OMB memorandum M-94-22, dated May 5, 1994, entitled ``Use

of Metropolitan Area Definitions'' (see Appendix B).

C. How Has the Metropolitan Area Concept Evolved?

As early as the first years of the twentieth century, the Federal

Government recognized the need to identify large cities and their

surrounding areas as single geographic entities and to provide data at

that scale for social and economic analysis. Before the adoption of the

MA concept in the late 1940s, several other kinds of related geographic

areas were defined. These areas were based on different criteria and

used by Federal agencies for data reporting purposes. Among these areas

were the following:

Industrial Districts. Perhaps the first extensive attempt by the

Federal Government to define areas based on a metropolitan concept was

the identification of industrial districts for the 1905 Census of

Manufactures. The Census Bureau published manufacturing and population

data for 13 industrial districts composed of minor civil divisions

(MCDs).

Metropolitan Districts. When adopted by the Census Bureau in 1910,

each metropolitan district generally comprised a central city of at

least 200,000 persons and all adjacent MCDs with population densities

of at least 150 persons per square mile. Beginning in 1930,

metropolitan districts were defined for all cities of at least 50,000

persons, with the additional requirement that each metropolitan

district have a population of at least 100,000. Metropolitan districts

were defined in terms of population density; measures of functional

integration (such as commuting) were not used.

Industrial Areas. Industrial areas were introduced by the Census

Bureau in the late-1920s for the Census of Manufactures to provide a

coherent, integrated unit for reporting data related to industrial

activity. Each industrial area comprised a county containing an

important manufacturing city and adjacent counties with significant

concentrations of manufacturing industries. Each of these areas usually

employed at least 40,000 factory wage earners. In 1931, there were 33

recognized industrial areas.

Labor Market Areas. Before 1950, labor market areas (LMAs) were

defined by the Bureau of Employment Security and consisted of counties

and MCDs. Since 1950, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been

responsible for defining LMAs. Current LMA definitions use MAs as

starting points and consist of aggregations of counties (see below).

Lack of geographic comparability limited the use of data reported

for these and other areas. In the mid-1940s, initial efforts to

reconcile metropolitan districts and industrial areas failed, in part

because of tensions between two groups, demographic data providers and

economic data providers. The former wanted to continue using sub-county

geographic building blocks to achieve greater precision and to maintain

historical comparability with metropolitan districts. The latter had

difficulty identifying precise locations of establishments below the

county level and also had concerns about the availability and

confidentiality of sub-county data.

The Interagency Committee on Standard Metropolitan Areas decided in

March 1948 that counties would form the building blocks for SMAs. The

Committee cited the greater availability of data for counties and

concluded that use of a unit other than the county would restrict the

amount of information available for SMAs and, consequently, would

reduce the usefulness of the concept.

SMAs were first used for reporting data from the 1947 Census of

Manufactures. The conceptual basis for the SMA was a community of

nonagricultural workers who resided in and around a large city and were

socially and economically linked with the central city as measured by

commuting flows and telephone calls.

Changes to the standards since their adoption for the 1950

decennial census are detailed in Table 1. Few significant changes were

made through the 1960s; those that were made affected the designation

of central cities forming the cores of MAs. The standards became more

complex in the 1970s and 1980s, in part to recognize the increasing

variation in patterns of urban settlement. Requirements for central

cities were adjusted for the 1980s, with the result that more cities

were designated as central. Additional changes at that time meant MAs

included fewer outlying counties, which needed to satisfy commuting

requirements as well as a number of other criteria, including:

population growth rate, percent urban population, percent of population

living inside a UA, and overall population density. The 1990 (current)

standards differ only modestly from those of the previous decade.

Since their adoption in the late 1940s, the MA standards have

acknowledged that within states in New England, cities and towns are

administratively more important than counties, and that a wide variety

of data are compiled for these areas. For these reasons, cities and

towns have been used as the building blocks of MAs in New England. The

nonagricultural worker requirement that was present in the earlier

standards was not applied in New England. Also, population density

requirements differed between New England and elsewhere.

The standards for New England MAs remain different from the

standards for the rest of the country. New England County Metropolitan

Areas'county-based alternatives to the city-and town-based MAs of that

region--were introduced in 1975 to facilitate comparisons between areas

in New England and elsewhere.

In addition to MAs, other statistical area classifications

currently are in use. These include:

Labor Market Areas. BLS currently defines LMAs, which are used for

a variety of purposes, including reporting local area unemployment

statistics. LMAs follow county boundaries except in New England, where

towns and cities are the geographic building blocks. BLS defines major

LMAs based on MSAs and PMSAs as defined by OMB. Outside of MAs, BLS

defines small LMAs by aggregating counties (or towns) on the basis of

commuting. LMAs are non-overlapping and geographically exhaustive.

Economic Areas. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) defines

economic areas (EAs) for reporting geographically detailed economic

data and for regional economic analysis. In delineating EAs, BEA

identifies economic nodes. These nodes consist of 310 MSAs and PMSAs

(NECMAs in New England) plus 38 nonmetropolitan counties. Each county

not included in these nodes is analyzed to determine the node with

which it is most closely associated. Measures such as commuting

patterns and regional newspaper circulation are used to aggregate

counties into ``component economic areas,'' which are then aggregated

to form the final EAs. EAs are county-based, nonoverlapping, and

geographically exhaustive.

In sum, the MA concept is part of an historical lineage of

statistical geographic areas and is one of several

[[Page 70528]]

current areas used by Federal agencies for reporting data.

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

Revision?

The MA standards, like other statistical standards, require review

to ensure their continued usefulness. Previous reviews and revisions of

the MA standards were completed in 1958, 1971, 1975, 1980, and 1990.

Comments received in recent years indicate there are four widely

held opinions regarding the current MA standards that argue for their

revision:

Many users believe the current standards are overly

complex and burdened with ad hoc criteria. Simplifying the standards

would improve the chances that the system and its associated data would

be understood.

The MA concept has not changed significantly since 1950,

yet population distribution and activity patterns in the United States

have changed as a result of changes in transportation and other

technologies, home/workplace relationships, and patterns of retail and

other commercial location. Revised MA standards may better represent

increasingly decentralized settlement and activity patterns.

Computer-related advances in data collection, storage, and

analysis, especially in technologies related to data geocoding (data

linked to its geographic location of occurrence), make it feasible to

consider a sub-county unit as the basic geographic building block for

constructing statistical areas to represent settlement.

MAs do not exhaustively classify the territory of the

United States. As a result, social and economic linkages within the

residual, nonmetropolitan territory are not taken into account

appropriately in statistical data series.

[[Page 70529]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.042

[[Page 70530]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.043

[[Page 70531]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.044

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70532]]

Part II. Issues Posed by the Review

The MA standards are reviewed for possible revisions before each

decennial census. The current review began early in this decade and

already has included commissioned research, publications,

presentations, discussions, and a conference (see Appendix C for notes

from the 1995 ``Conference on New Approaches to Defining Metropolitan

and Nonmetropolitan Areas''). This review process has elicited the

views of Federal Government data providers, data users in the private

and academic sectors, and other analysts who use MA data and

definitions. Results to date include both points of general agreement

and questions remaining to be resolved.

A. Points of General Agreement

There seems to be general agreement on the following:

The Federal Government should continue to define standard

statistical areas at the metropolitan level.

Familiar components of settlement, such as those

represented by today's MA definitions, should be in evidence in a new

system.

Revised standards should broaden territorial coverage by

including and officially recognizing nonmetropolitan components of the

settlement system.

These statistical areas should be defined according to

simplified standards that are applied consistently in all parts of the

country using the same geographic building blocks.

If the revised standards define metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas using sub-county building blocks, an associated,

alternative set of county-based areas also is desired.

B. Questions Remaining to Be Resolved

1. What criteria should be used to define areas that exhaust the

territory of the Nation?

One criticism of the current MA standards is that they do not

account for all of the territory of the United States. Although

tremendous variation in settlement patterns exists throughout the

country, the current system defines individual MAs and leaves all

territory outside MAs simply as ``nonmetropolitan.'' It has been

suggested that all parts of the U.S. territory, from the most to the

least populated, should be assigned to a statistical area at the

metropolitan or nonmetropolitan level. One approach to account for more

of the country's territory would define statistical areas around cores

of some minimum size that contain less than the 50,000 population

minimum required by current MAs. Reducing the required core population

threshold for statistical areas, however, probably still would leave

some residual territory, the amount dependent on the core size

requirement.

Another approach would be to classify areas based on a measure of

settlement form such as population density. This approach would account

for all of the territory of the country, although some of the resulting

statistical areas probably would be small in geographic extent,

population size, or both.

A related issue is the classification of types of locales, such as

inner city, suburban, exurban, and rural, and whether such types should

be identified within metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. The

definitions of MAs in the past have not included such categories.

2. What geographic unit should be used as the building block for

defining statistical areas?

MAs currently consist of entire counties, except in New England

where towns and cities form the building blocks. Problems with using

counties in this capacity have been apparent since the earliest

discussions of MAs, as revealed in this 1946 comment on the relative

merits of the MCD-based metropolitan district program:

* * * [T]he metropolitan district, based on small subdivisions of a

county, comes much closer to representing the central concept of a

metropolis and its satellite territory than does the metropolitan

county or group of counties. The metropolitan county arose as a mere

approximation to the metropolitan district, made necessary by the fact

that intercensus population data were compiled on a county rather than

on a minor civil division basis. The use of smaller territorial units

than metropolitan counties * * * leads to a much more precise analysis

of labor and housing markets (Bureau of the Census 1946).

These observations are still pertinent today. Wide regional

variation in county size presents a problem when comparing data for

different MAs. Further, the large size of some counties can mask

smaller, densely populated clusters of settlement, so that patterns of

social and economic linkages within counties are difficult to

recognize. The use of smaller geographic building blocks, such as

county subdivisions or census tracts, might help alleviate these

problems.

Although there were critical comments, a key advantage to using

counties as the geographic building block also was apparent in the

1940s: a wide range of data is available for counties, with the result

that areas composed of counties also have considerable data available

for them. (The range of Federal Government data available at the county

level that also is, or could be, available for smaller areas is under

review.) Counties also are familiar to data users, and their relatively

small number may be seen as an advantage. These issues are taken up in

more detail in Part III.D.

3. What criteria should be used to aggregate the geographic units into

statistical areas?

The current MA system is based on the observation that large urban

centers have both form and function. The form, or structural

component--what we see on the landscape--is measured using such

variables as population size and density. Settlement form largely

determines the identification of central cities and central counties.

The functional component--interactions of people and activities among

places as measured by daily commuting flows--is key to the

identification of qualified outlying counties. Substantial agreement

exists that population density (or possibly housing unit density) and

daily commuting continue to be the best means for defining areas

consistently nationwide. At the same time, however, many observers

concur that both the structural and functional components of cities and

their surroundings have changed significantly since MAs were first

defined. These components also have grown increasingly complex and

difficult to measure. Part IV presents a classification based solely on

measures of form (see Part IV.D), as well as other classifications (see

Parts IV.A, B, and C) based on a combination of measures of form (to

identify central cores) and measures of function (to identify outlying

areas integrated with the core).

4. Should the definition process follow strictly statistical rules, or

should it take into account local opinion?

The current standards take local opinion into account in specified

circumstances. Application of strictly statistical rules for definition

purposes would have the advantage of minimizing ambiguity and making

definition of areas less time-consuming. Consideration of local

opinion, however, can provide room for accommodating some issues of

local significance without impairing the integrity of the system.

[[Page 70533]]

5. What should be the frequency of updating?

In the past, many observers have argued for minimizing changes in

area definitions during the course of a decade to ensure that data

bases can be maintained consistently and economically. The counter-

argument is that definitions should be updated to reflect changed

conditions as rapidly as the data permit. The frequency of updating

depends in part on decisions concerning basic geographic units,

criteria for aggregation, and, ultimately, data availability. Recent

practice has been to review areas annually on the basis of Census

Bureau population estimates and special censuses.

Part III. Form and Function in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan

Area Definitions

Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas have characteristics that

are structural, relating to population settlement form (population

density, for instance, is a structural measure), and functional,

reflecting geographic patterns of social and economic linkages that

contribute to the development of an entire area (examples include daily

commuting patterns and shopping trips). If a metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan classification is purely structural, such as would be

the case with areas based solely on population density (and as was the

case with metropolitan districts before 1950), then only the degree of

settlement is considered. Settlement form sometimes corresponds to

patterns of activity and can serve as a surrogate for functional

elements. If a system is purely functional and defined solely by

measuring activity, then there is no clear depiction of the urban

center from which influences arise and around which activity takes

place. Current MAs make use of both structural and functional measures.

This portion of the Notice addresses the topics of functional

integration, metropolitan character (structural characteristics),

central cores, and geographic units used to define metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas. Throughout this discussion, the phrase

``metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas'' means those areas defined

around urban centers of varying size and complexity. ``Metropolitan''

refers to those areas defined around larger cores (current MAs have

cores with at least 50,000 population); ``nonmetropolitan'' refers to

areas defined around smaller cores. These terminology conventions are

for the immediate purposes of this discussion.

A. Functional Integration

1. Introduction

MAs have represented areas of urban influence extending beyond city

limits. The concept of the MA--a core area containing a large

population nucleus, together with adjacent areas that have substantial

measurable interactions with that core--relies heavily on the notion of

functional integration in determining geographic extent. This section

discusses metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area functional integration,

identifying commuting as the most appropriate indicator of functional

integration.

2. Increasing Complexity of Commuting Patterns

The functional measure used in the MA standards has been the daily

journey to work. Commuting identifies the extent of each MA in an

equitable and uncomplicated way. By establishing place-to-place links

between workers' homes and places of employment, commuting has provided

a measure of the economic interactions within an area. MAs are units

with distinctive identities based, in part, on where people live and

where they go to work.

Recently, however, some scholars have suggested that as the United

States becomes more interdependent, both internally and with the rest

of the world, the concept of metropolitan functional integration needs

to be examined more closely (Berry 1995). In addition, the increasing

popularity of working at home raises questions about the relevance of

commuting in defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

Researchers (Fisher and Mitchelson 1981, Lewis 1983, Gordon and

Richardson 1996, Dear and Flusty 1998) have commented on the growing

complexity of metropolitan form and commuting patterns. Harvey (1989)

and Fishman (1990) have noted changes in urban form that reflect larger

economic forces. These changes call into question the dominance of a

large population center over adjacent communities that have high levels

of social and economic interactions with the center. Others, like

Pressman (1985) and Castells (1989), have identified a new, broader

functional integration, citing a variety of technological innovations,

including: (1) the expansion of cellular phone and Internet use; (2)

the global supremacy of American entertainment, news, and advertising;

(3) the market swings driven by political events in distant countries;

(4) the migration of factory out-sourcing and back-office operations to

low-wage countries; and (5) the speed and flexibility of global finance

and ability to move large sums of money around the world

instantaneously. All of these developments suggest a change whereby

individual places and areas become less important than the network

structure itself, and small places become single nodes in a complex

system of social and economic linkages created and organized under

constantly shifting economic and political circumstances. These

innovations point to the growing interdependence of places in general

and some blurring of individual place identities.

It is equally clear, however, that the Nation remains the sum of

many economic and social parts. Local and regional economies and labor

markets continue to show different specialities and levels of

performance. Local and regional character still exists, built in part

upon identification of place of residence or work and awareness of the

locality's history and geography.

The challenge in defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is

to select appropriate functions or activities that capture economic and

social integration within areas and the differences between areas.

Before reconsidering commuting as a measure of functional integration,

the following section discusses alternative measures of spatial

interaction.

3. Alternative Measures

The Internet provides the newest major medium for

information flows across the United States. The aspatial nature of the

Internet, however, poses difficulties for measuring functional

integration, which assumes the ability to identify the origins and

destinations of flows. The origin of each Internet session--the

location of the user--generally is identifiable, but the destination is

unclear: is it the location of the service provider, the location of

the server on which a web page resides, or the physical location of the

owner of the web page? Although Internet use generally involves a

telephone call to a specific provider location, this is only to gain

access to the wider web; the distance between the user and the location

of the owner of the accessed web page is unimportant. Because the link

between a user and a web page recedes into the background, such

linkages defy identification as measures of functional integration

between communities.

Telephone traffic patterns were used in early MA

definitions until commuting data became more widely

[[Page 70534]]

available and standardized. Issues concerning telephone service

coverage largely have disappeared in recent decades.

Cellular telephone systems provide a measure of the

functional extent of metropolitan and some nonmetropolitan areas and

highlight the role played by highway corridors. Coverage is uneven,

however, due to competition between companies and the spatial

segregation of different companies' customers. Standardizing the

rapidly changing information about users and coverage areas is

difficult.

Media markets, or penetration patterns, offer an image of

regions to marketers and advertisers, but many of the data are

proprietary and exhibit uneven coverage. The advent of the Internet,

national editions of newspapers, and cable and satellite television

blurs the traditionally local flavor of media markets.

Consumer spending could, in principle, provide a view of

the functional extent of regional and metropolitan areas. Consumer

expenditure surveys, however, do not provide much data for individual

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas because of limited sample sizes.

In general, these alternative measures of functional integration

are not as useful as commuting patterns because they: (1) sometimes

depend on data that are not collected by Federal agencies and that may

be subject to errors of unknown kind and magnitude; (2) sometimes are

not generally accessible by the public (i.e., the measures are

proprietary, sometimes copyrighted or for sale); (3) are without

observations that are evenly distributed across the U.S. territory; and

(4) are not measurable in terms of specific, common geographic units.

4. Continued Usefulness of Commuting Patterns as a Measure

Notwithstanding criticism of continued reliance on information

about the daily journey to work, it remains the most reliable and

broadly available measure of functional integration for two principle

reasons:

Commuting to work is still a significant activity for the

vast majority of workers. Recent years have seen a rise in alternative

work-residence arrangements. Shortened or irregular work weeks,

flextime, full-and part-time work at home, and telecommuting some or

all of the time are gaining in importance. The Census Bureau reported a

55 percent increase in those working at home between 1980 and 1990,

from 2.2 million to 3.4 million workers. Still, those working at home

represented only three percent of all workers in 1990. Ninety-seven

percent of workers still commute to work and have separate location

spheres for place-of-work and place-of-residence. This long-term

pattern reflects the nature of many jobs, for instance, where service

provision is location-specific or product manufacture occurs in a fixed

location.

The spatial patterns of commuting are more complex today

than in previous decades, but no less important. The spatial structure

of the urban environment is less consistently monocentric than was the

case in the early part of the twentieth century. Given the diffusion of

persons and jobs away from the core, commuting patterns are less likely

to resemble a hub-and-spoke model than a polycentric structure of

multiple employment nodes serving a region's needs. The increased

complexity of these patterns, however, has not meant a decrease in

their importance.

Over time, commuting patterns in many areas have become more

complicated to delineate. Jobs have followed people out of the central

city (and the central county), but the traditional urban core, with an

employment-intensive central business district, still exists amidst

high job growth in suburban areas. Commuting often is multidirectional,

with no single dominant flow. The net commuting flow between any two

areas may be quite low, while the gross flows may be substantial.

Work is still a dominant organizing activity in most people's

lives. While urban settlement form has changed, the basic movement of

workers traveling to a different location from where they live

continues. The geographic extent of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan

areas ``depends upon the commuting range, itself historically

determined by social and technological conditions'' (Harvey 1989). The

journey-to-work activity is nearly universal, even as the geographic

nature of commuting has changed in recent decades. The challenge is to

model and measure the current nature of commuting patterns to delineate

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

B. Metropolitan Character

1. Introduction

Since SMAs were first defined in 1949, counties have needed to

exhibit, in addition to integration (as measured by commuting), other

attributes referred to collectively as ``metropolitan character'' to

qualify as outlying. As the March 1958 MA standards noted, ``The

criteria of metropolitan character relate primarily to the attributes

of the county as a place of work or as a home for a concentration of

non-agricultural workers.'' In practice, this has meant an emphasis

primarily on population density as one aspect of what makes an outlying

county ``metropolitan.'' This section addresses the suitability of

including measures of metropolitan character--focusing on population

density--in standards for defining areas in the next decade.

2. Density and Other Measures of Metropolitan Character

The initial inclusion of population density in the MA criteria

reflected some common, contemporary assumptions about U.S. settlement

patterns in 1949:

An easily understood built environment: cities were

densely settled centers of population and economic activity set against

a backdrop of sparsely settled territory.

Population density as a proxy for distance from the

central business district: population density declined as distance from

an urban center increased.

Relationship of distance from the urban center and

population density with social, economic, and cultural attributes of

the population: urban and rural communities, for example, were

understood to be different in characteristics ranging from industry and

occupation to educational attainment and family size.

Most important, metropolitan form and function were

invariably linked; that is, metropolitan territory that was linked

socially and economically necessarily had visible landscape

characteristics and was typified by high relative population density.

Five decades of urban, suburban, and exurban growth may have

subsequently altered the meaning of ``metropolitan character.'' Since

1949, additional measures of metropolitan character--rapid population

growth, percentage of urban population, and presence of UA population--

have been added to the standards to measure other important attributes.

Up-to-date MA standards should continue to reflect the evolving nature

of settlement patterns and demographic characteristics in the United

States. Change in this aspect of the standards is not new: for example,

the 1980 MA standards eliminated a metropolitan character criterion

pertaining to non-agricultural workers; the steep drop in agricultural

employment nationwide had made such a criterion irrelevant.

Enormous variation in population density still exists in the United

States, from the densely populated sections of

[[Page 70535]]

some older cities to the sparsely settled areas of the interior West.

An increasing share of the Nation's population, however, resides in a

built environment that is of neither extremely high nor extremely low

density. The percentage of the population living in rural areas has

declined from approximately 29 to 24 since 1950, and the percentage of

the population living in central cities of metropolitan areas has

declined from 33 to 31 despite increases in the number of central

cities. In contrast, the percentage of the Nation's population living

within MAs but outside central cities has doubled, from 23 to 46. The

Nation's population steadily has been moving away from landscapes of

population density extremes, both high and low.

Population growth in nonmetropolitan America is occurring

predominantly in the smaller cities and towns, particularly in areas

adjacent to or near MAs. One consequence of this growth of intermediate

density areas is a blurring of many of the sharp differences in

population density that once existed between urban and rural areas or

between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

Improvements in communications technology and transportation

infrastructure also have blunted the differences between high-density

and low-density areas. In the past, telephones, well-paved roads, and

railroads connected rural areas with their urban markets, but the

friction of distance was much higher than today; ideas and cultural

attitudes traveled according to weekly, monthly, and seasonal rhythms.

In 1949, settlement form still was intertwined closely with

function. Areas having high population densities also were those that

were linked closely with urban centers. The 1949 SMA standards were

written before the construction of interstate highways and could not

have anticipated the changes in commuting and settlement patterns

brought about by high-speed highways. These highways improved access to

rural, low density areas that previously were beyond the scope of most

urban influences and daily commuting. With less expensive long distance

telephone service, interstate highways providing quick and easy access

to cities and towns, satellite uplinks and commercial television

broadcasting nationally, and the Internet, population density is a less

significant variable. Population density no longer correlates with

differences in industry, occupation, family structure, and other

variables to the extent that it did 30 to 50 years ago. It is more

difficult to argue that sparsely settled areas must meet different

criteria of integration with central cores than areas with higher

population densities. Consequently, population density has become less

relevant as a direct measure of ways in which communities are linked

socially and economically.

C. Central Cores

1. Introduction

Cores of metropolitan regions continue to be vital centers of

activity even as the decentralization of many economic and social

functions continues. Central business districts contain significant

clusters of government facilities; corporate headquarters; finance,

insurance, and real estate firms; entertainment complexes; and services

that cater to these facilities. Many establishments located in suburban

areas provide services to central city clients and depend heavily upon

them. While the core has changed over time, it remains a key component

of metropolitan regions.

The MA standards always have explicitly incorporated central cores

as one of the major components in the definition of individual areas

(see Table 1). Two kinds of changes in central core requirements are

under consideration--changing minimum population requirements and

changing criteria for the definition of cores.

2. Changing Minimum Population Requirements

One option under review would raise the minimum population level

for the definition of MA cores from 50,000 to 100,000. Doubling the

current threshold would take into account the significant increase

(over 100 percent) in the Nation's population since 1930 (the first

year in which the 50,000 person minimum was used in identifying cores

of metropolitan districts) and the consequent relative decrease in the

significance of a core of 50,000 population. The new threshold would

facilitate greater comparability with another major statistical data

set, the public use microdata samples (PUMS) from the decennial census,

which are used extensively by researchers examining metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan issues (Fotheringham and Pellegrini 1996).

Along with an increase in minimum population size for MA cores, the

classification would be expanded to address smaller cores as well. By

including provision for one or two additional sets of areas, the new

standards could better account for gradations in population focused

around urban centers of varying size throughout the United States. If

MA cores were to have a minimum of 100,000 persons, then other sets of

areas could be defined using cores of (1) at least 10,000 persons and

less than 50,000 persons, and (2) at least 50,000 persons and less than

100,000 persons. Identifying coherent nonmetropolitan areas based

around smaller population centers provides a potential improvement for

analysts and researchers who are dissatisfied with a system that leaves

nonmetropolitan areas largely undifferentiated.

3. New Criteria for Defining Cores

In addition to using places and Census Bureau-defined UAs based on

population and population density to define metropolitan or

nonmetropolitan cores, at least four other criteria could be used. One

alternative would be to use housing unit density as the primary

defining characteristic. A second alternative would be to combine two

characteristics, population and employment. This would involve

calculating ratios that compare the number of individuals employed in a

geographic area to the number of residents in the same area. The

explicit use of such an employment measurement in the definition of a

core would be a logical extension of the use of another employment-

related statistic, commuting patterns, to define those areas that are

integrated with the core. A third option would be to rely solely on

employment as the defining characteristic by delineating cores on the

basis of employment density, defined as the number of jobs per unit of

area.

A fourth alternative would use commuting data directly to identify

cores as those areas that exhibit strong evidence of multi-directional

commuting. In this approach, multi-directional commuting indicates

interdependence within the core of an urban area and could be used to

define inner city and inner suburban territory. Outlying territory

integrated with a particular core would contain mostly uni-directional

commuting flows toward that core and could be used to define outer

suburban territory.

These different approaches to defining cores of metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas reflect changes in settlement and commuting

trends, as well as technological improvements in geographic analysis;

yet, they remain consistent with the tradition of identifying the

Nation's large urban centers.

[[Page 70536]]

D. Geographic Building Blocks for Metropolitan Areas and

Nonmetropolitan Areas

1. Introduction

This section addresses the relative merits of various potential

geographic building blocks. The geographic unit used to define

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is important to data providers

and users due to: (1) its effect on the geographic extent of a

statistical area; (2) its meaningfulness in describing economic and

social integration between communities; and (3) the ability of Federal

agencies to provide data for comparable statistical areas and their

components. The choice of whether to use counties or county

subdivisions as building blocks for MAs was a central issue in the

1940s during development of the MA program; resolution of the issue at

that time favored greater availability of data over greater geographic

precision in defining social and economic linkages.

The concerns raised in the 1940s also are central issues in this

review. Counties are familiar geographic units offering the advantage

of a wider range of statistically reliable economic and demographic

data. Because of their geographic extent, however, counties can include

territory and population not functionally integrated with a specific

core. Sub-county entities offer greater resolution when analyzing

economic and demographic patterns, and increased precision when

defining statistical areas. These smaller units are at a disadvantage,

however, because fewer economic and demographic data series are

available for sub-county entities than for counties, and there would be

less comparability of units defined on this basis with previously

defined metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

2. Characteristics of the Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area

Building Blocks

The geographic entity used as a building block should have the

following characteristics:

Consistency. The geographic building block should be

delineated in a consistent fashion across the Nation. The degree to

which this is the case both within a state and from one state to

another affects the ability to make meaningful comparisons of

demographic and economic data.

Data Availability and Utility. Data for a geographic

building block should be available from a wide variety of sources and

should facilitate the linkage of various data sets.

Stability of Boundaries. The ability of the geographic

building block to be flexible in portraying demographic and economic

change over time in areas is important when defining and analyzing

social and economic linkages between communities.

Familiarity. The geographic unit used to define

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas should be meaningful and

recognizable to a wide range of data users.

Table 2 details the advantages and disadvantages of using each of

five geographic units (counties, county subdivisions, census tracts,

ZIP Codes, and grid cells) as building blocks in relation to the

characteristics outlined above. The following paragraphs summarize the

significant issues from Table 2 and discuss related issues of

confidentiality and data reliability.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70537]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.045

[[Page 70538]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.046

BILLING CODE 311-01-C

[[Page 70539]]

Counties. Except in New England, counties currently are used to

define MAs. Counties are well-known, with boundaries that rarely

change, and they are useful for analyzing data over time. Data

currently are available for counties from a wide variety of Federal,

state, and local agencies and less frequently are limited by disclosure

and statistical reliability issues than sub-county units. Counties,

however, are established according to state laws and have as their

primary purpose the administration of local government and provision of

programs and services. As a result, there is little consistency in

population size and land area among counties throughout the United

States. The large size of counties in the West often poses challenges

to measuring and analyzing localized shifts in population.

County Subdivisions. County subdivisions currently are used to

define MAs in New England, and before 1950 were used to define

metropolitan districts. County subdivisions include MCDs, such as towns

and townships, and census county divisions (CCDs). MCDs are

governmental or administrative entities defined according to state

laws. CCDs are defined for statistical purposes by local officials

using nationally consistent criteria and guidelines issued by the

Census Bureau. As with counties, the population sizes and land areas of

county subdivisions vary both within state and from one state to

another. Governmentally functioning MCDs in the Northeast as well as

most CCDs generally have stable boundaries; elsewhere, MCD boundaries

may change because of annexations or mergers. Redistricting of

administrative MCDs, particularly in Virginia and North Carolina, can

result in substantial changes each decade. Accounting for these changes

could require significant retabulations of data for metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas, potentially compromising comparability of data

over time. The volume of economic and demographic data collected and

published for county subdivisions varies, with greater amounts

available for MCDs with functioning governments and lesser amounts for

MCDs without functioning governments and CCDs. Despite variations in

population size and instability of boundaries for some MCDs and CCDs,

county subdivisions could provide a compromise between the

disadvantages posed by the geographic extent of counties and the more

limited availability of economic data for some other sub-county

geographic units.

Census Tracts. Local officials define census tracts using

nationally consistent criteria and guidelines established by the Census

Bureau. Census tracts have a consistent population size range (between

1,500 and 8,000, with an optimum of 4,000) to ensure statistical

reliability of data. Census tracts vary in size and shape and tend to

reflect contemporary local settlement patterns. Census tracts are meant

to facilitate analysis of time-series data at a sub-county level, and

are generally stable. Because they are defined in terms of population

count, however, census tracts are capable of portraying change over

time by changing boundaries. If a tract increases in population, it can

be split to form new census tracts that aggregate to the original

boundaries. For the 1990 decennial census, approximately 30 percent of

all census tracts had boundary changes. Although demographic data

generally are available for census tracts, a key disadvantage is the

dearth of economic data available at the census tract level. Data for

census tracts, however, are becoming increasingly important for

understanding and analyzing patterns of home ownership and economic

development, as well as the general social and physical environment

within metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

ZIP Codes. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) establishes ZIP Codes to

facilitate efficient mail delivery. ZIP Codes are linear rather than

areal (i.e., they are routes that mail carriers walk or drive) and as a

result do not have discrete boundaries. In some instances, when the

volume of mail is particularly high, a ZIP Code may refer to a specific

building, a floor within a building, or even a specific office. Because

ZIP Codes exist for operational purposes, they can be taken out of use

when the population of an area declines or when the USPS consolidates

post offices. The USPS, however, sometimes reuses such ZIP Codes in a

different location, thus creating a false sense of comparability if

used as geographic areas. Despite their shortcomings as geographic

units, ZIP Code use is, nevertheless, ubiquitous for collecting and

reporting information on demographic and economic characteristics as

well as for carrying out surveys and market analysis studies that

report on consumption patterns and lifestyle characteristics.

Grid Cells. Grid cells are not in use currently by Federal

statistical agencies. If established, however, they could provide ideal

units for analyzing population change within stable boundaries. If

relatively small in geographic extent, they also could be useful in

measuring population change across space. Grid cells would be defined

consistently nationwide and all would encompass a similar amount of

territory. Although grid cells may offer advantages from delineation,

measurement, and analysis standpoints, their lack of familiarity and

relationship with geographic areas that are more real and familiar to

people offer significant disadvantages to their use. In addition,

adoption of grid cells would require data providers to convert from use

of current geographic entities. Selection of grid cell size would

require careful consideration of confidentiality and statistical

reliability concerns.

3. Quality and Availability of Data

In general, the quality of data for particular areas is related to

the allocation of questionnaire responses to specific geographic

entities and to the statistical reliability of the data derived from a

sample. The geographic precision of data is only as good as the

completeness of location information provided in the response, and the

quality of geographic codes assigned to it. This limitation affects the

ability to report data at varying levels of geography.

Respondent confidentiality also must be considered when determining

which geographic area to use as a building block, particularly if data

are to be reported for components of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan

areas. In general, the larger the number of observations (persons,

households, establishments within a specific industry) within a

geographic entity, the greater the ability to protect respondent

confidentiality.

Not all Federal data can be provided for every level of geography,

and the frequency with which Federal data are available also can vary

by level of geography. Sample size limitations for some demographic

survey data make survey results reliable only at higher levels of

geography. The diffuse nature of modern manufacturing processes renders

some economic data, for instance the amount of value added to a product

at each step in the manufacturing process, difficult to portray at

levels of geography below the state or Nation. Data that are available

only from the decennial census place limitations on the frequency of

updating some statistical areas. The uncertain availability of

intercensal population estimates for census tracts, and the likelihood

that tract-level commuting data from the American Community Survey will

not be available for all census tracts until 2008, also will affect the

ability to update metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

[[Page 70540]]

4. Summary

The choice of a building block should focus on achieving the most

precise geographic delineation of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan

areas possible, given the constraints of data availability. Collecting,

processing, and tabulating data at sub-county levels of geography are

important technical issues that must be resolved within individual

Federal statistical agencies if a sub-county geographic unit is to be

used to define metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

Counties and census tracts offer the greatest promise as potential

building blocks for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas based on

current availability and reliability of statistical data, general

stability of boundaries over time, consistency of definitions, and

familiarity among data users. Counties and census tracts, therefore,

are used in the examples of alternative methods for defining

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas that follow in Part IV.

Part IV. Alternative Approaches to Defining Metropolitan and

Nonmetropolitan Areas

This part presents four alternative approaches to defining

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas: (1) a commuting-based, county-

level approach; (2) a commuting-based, census tract-level approach; (3)

a directional commuting, census tract-level approach; and (4) a

comparative population density, county-level approach. Table 3

summarizes how each approach addresses issues raised in Parts I and II

of this Notice.

All four of these approaches differ from the current (1990) MA

standards in many respects but have points in common with them as well.

The first three approaches share with the current standards a reliance

on commuting patterns, but depart from the standards' other criteria

for inclusion of outlying areas in an MA. None of these three

approaches uses population density, presence of urban population, or

rapid population growth to evaluate outlying areas. The fourth approach

uses population density as an indicator of the relative intensity of

social and economic activity rather than attempting to identify

individual cores or to quantify core-outlying area relationships.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.047

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70542]]

Although these approaches use either counties or census tracts as

the building blocks for statistical areas, each could be implemented

using other geographic units discussed in Part III.D. The population

and commuting thresholds presented for these approaches were selected

by analyzing 1990 population and commuting patterns but are intended

primarily for illustrative purposes and are subject to modification

based on further research and on comments received in response to this

Notice. In general, each approach should be read, considered, and

commented upon in terms of its adequacy in defining and describing

social and economic ties among communities throughout the United

States.

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

and Nonmetropolitan Areas

The MA has been successful as a standard statistical representation

of the social and economic linkages between urban centers and outlying

areas. This success is evident in MAs' continued use across broad areas

of data collection, presentation, and analysis. Nevertheless, some

users of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area data have strongly

expressed the view that the current standards are overly complex and

burdened with ad hoc components. This first proposed alternative

approach explicitly aims to provide a simpler method of defining

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan regions.

Four kinds of areas are identified in this approach: metropolitan

regions, defined around cores of at least 100,000 persons; mesopolitan

regions, defined around cores of at least 50,000 persons and less than

100,000 persons; and micropolitan regions, defined around cores of at

least 10,000 persons and less than 50,000 persons. Counties not

included in a metropolitan, mesopolitan, or micropolitan region will

constitute rural community areas.

In this approach, counties are the building blocks (see Figure 1).

While this is in keeping with the current standards for most of the

United States, it is a departure from current practice in New England.

Outlying counties are included in metropolitan, mesopolitan, and

micropolitan regions solely on the basis of commuting. Adjacent areas

are combined when commuting rates indicate that the central counties

are linked socially and economically. When metropolitan regions are

combined, the initial metropolitan regions are recognized as primary

metropolitan regions and the combined entity is recognized as a

consolidated metropolitan region.

There are several advantages to this approach. First, counties are

familiar geographic units for which a wide range of statistically

reliable social and economic data are readily available. Second, the

use of counties eases comparison with current and past MA definitions.

Third, because of the greater availability of data for counties than

for sub-county entities, statistical area definitions using counties

can be updated more frequently than others. The potential availability

of nationwide annual county-level commuting data from the Census

Bureau's American Community Survey starting in 2003 raises the

possibility of reviewing all definitions on an annual basis. Under the

current standards, definition activity during intercensal years is

largely limited to cases where new MAs can be designated on the basis

of population estimates or special censuses.

There are, however, disadvantages to this approach as well. Because

of their geographic extent, counties can include territory and

population not functionally integrated with a specific core. The large

geographic size of some counties often poses challenges to measuring

and analyzing localized shifts in populations.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.048

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70544]]

1. Criteria for Defining Metropolitan Regions Using the Commuting-

Based, County-Level Approach

a. Requirement for Qualification as a Metropolitan Region

Each metropolitan region must include a Census Bureau-defined UA of

at least 100,000 persons.

b. Identification of Central Counties of a Metropolitan Region

The central county or counties of the metropolitan region are those

counties where at least 50 percent of the population resides in the

qualifier UA(s), or that contain at least 50 percent of the population

of the qualifier UA(s). A central county of one metropolitan region

cannot be included as an outlying county in another metropolitan region

in the initial steps for defining metropolitan regions (see IV.A.1.d

below).

c. Inclusion of Outlying Counties

A county is included in the metropolitan region as an outlying

county if at least 25 percent of its resident workers commute to the

central county or counties, or at least 15 percent of its resident

workers commute to the central county or counties and at least 15

percent of its employment is accounted for by workers residing in the

central county or counties.

A county that qualifies as an outlying county of more than one

metropolitan region will be included in the metropolitan region with

which it has the highest commuting exchange. A county that has a

combined commuting exchange with central counties of two or more

metropolitan regions that meets or exceeds the thresholds listed above,

and is contiguous with counties already qualified for inclusion in

those metropolitan regions, will be included in the metropolitan region

with which it has the highest commuting exchange.

The counties included in the metropolitan region must form a

continuous geographic entity. A central county of one metropolitan

region cannot be classified as an outlying county of another

metropolitan region at this stage in the definition process.

d. Combination of Adjacent Metropolitan Regions

Two adjacent metropolitan regions are combined if a central county

of one metropolitan region qualifies as an outlying county of the

other. If two or more metropolitan regions are combined, the

metropolitan regions as defined before the combination will be

designated as primary metropolitan regions and the area resulting from

the combination will be designated as a consolidated metropolitan

region.

e. Titles of Metropolitan Regions

The first name in the title of a metropolitan region or primary

metropolitan region will be the name of the incorporated place with the

largest population in the metropolitan region. The names of up to two

additional incorporated places that are at least one-third the size of

the largest incorporated place will be included in the metropolitan

region or primary metropolitan region title in order of descending

population rank.

The title of a consolidated metropolitan region will include the

names of up to three incorporated places, including the first named

incorporated places in the titles of component primary metropolitan

regions (to a maximum of three) in order of descending population rank

of incorporated places.

2. Criteria for Defining Mesopolitan Regions and Micropolitan Regions

The criteria for defining mesopolitan regions and micropolitan

regions are the same as those for defining metropolitan regions, with

two exceptions: the requirements for qualification and the criteria

pertaining to combining mesopolitan and micropolitan regions. For the

sake of brevity, only the requirements for qualification and criteria

for combining adjacent mesopolitan regions and micropolitan regions are

presented here.

a. Requirements for Qualification of Mesopolitan Regions and

Micropolitan Regions

Each mesopolitan region must contain no part of a metropolitan

region and must include a Census Bureau-defined UA or, outside of UAs,

an incorporated place of at least 50,000 persons and less than 100,000

persons. Each micropolitan area must contain no part of a metropolitan

or mesopolitan region and must include an incorporated place of at

least 10,000 persons and less than 50,000 persons.

b. Combining Adjacent Mesopolitan Regions and Micropolitan Regions

Two adjacent mesopolitan regions (or two adjacent micropolitan

regions) are combined if a central county of one mesopolitan region (or

one micropolitan region) qualifies as an outlying county of the other.

3. Identification of Rural Community Areas

Counties not included in a metropolitan, mesopolitan, or

micropolitan region will form the components of rural community areas.

Contiguous counties will be grouped according to local opinion to form

individual rural community areas within each state, subject to

specified conditions. Titles for rural community areas will be based on

the same criteria used to title metropolitan, mesopolitan, and

micropolitan regions.

B. A Commuting-Based, Census Tract-Level Approach to Defining

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

This second approach employs a two-stage process. First, it

identifies statistical settlement areas based around cores of at least

10,000 persons and their associated daily influence areas. Second, it

identifies metropolitan, mesopolitan, and micropolitan regions. Census

tracts are the geographic units used in this approach. In the first

stage, each statistical settlement area core is identified and linked

with all qualifying statistical settlement area outlying census tracts

on the basis of commuting, creating a system of overlapping areas. Any

core or outlying census tract may be part of two or more statistical

settlement areas. This outcome is meant to depict the overlapping and

nested nature of social and economic linkages between communities

throughout the United States. To account for all the territory of the

United States, rural community areas are identified representing census

tracts not contained within statistical settlement areas or their daily

influence areas.

The second stage of this approach results in a non-overlapping

classification, where each statistical area is mutually exclusive of

all other statistical areas (see Figure 2). Criteria are employed to

assign each census tract to only one metropolitan, mesopolitan, or

micropolitan region. Census tracts not included in any of these areas

are designated as either urban-influenced or rural-influenced,

depending on whether the tracts meet specified criteria relating to

commuting ties with cores of metropolitan, mesopolitan, or micropolitan

regions.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.049

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70546]]

There are several advantages to this approach. Identifying

overlapping statistical areas in stage one of the delineation process

depicts the multiple linkages among communities. Using census tracts as

building blocks offers greater resolution when analyzing social and

economic patterns and increased precision when defining statistical

areas. Census tracts are defined nationwide using a consistent set of

population guidelines; they are capable of portraying change over time

and across space as their boundaries are updated to reflect population

and settlement pattern changes.

There are disadvantages to this approach as well. First, the

limited availability of economic and demographic data for census tracts

at this time limits their use in analysis. Second, it is more difficult

to compare areas defined using census tracts with MAs defined currently

and in the past using counties. Third, the uncertain availability of

intercensal population estimates for census tracts and the likelihood

that tract-level commuting data from the Census Bureau's American

Community Survey will not be available for all tracts until 2008 could

result in a lack of data to update areas during much of the coming

decade. As a result, metropolitan, mesopolitan, and micropolitan

regions could be defined after the 2000 decennial census, but not

updated until 2008 or later. Fourth, tract-level commuting data from

the 2000 census may be less certain in some nonmetropolitan areas

(where lists of commercial addresses are less complete and geocoding

place-of-work locations therefore is more difficult) than in current

MAs. These uncertainties in the quality of place-of-work geocoding may

reduce the reliability of journey-to-work data for census tracts with

small numbers of commuters.

1. Criteria to Establish Statistical Settlement Areas and Their Daily

Influence Areas

a. Requirement for Qualification as a Statistical Settlement Area

Each statistical settlement area must include either a Census

Bureau-defined UA or, outside of UAs, an incorporated place of at least

10,000 persons.

b. Identification of the Central Core of a Statistical Settlement Area

The core of a statistical settlement area consists of the census

tract(s) in which 20 percent or more of the population falls within the

UA or place identified in the previous step. In addition, at least 70

percent of the workers living in the statistical settlement area core

must work within the core. This last criterion ensures that places that

are strictly ``bedroom communities'' are not identified as cores of

statistical settlement areas.

c. Qualification of Outlying Areas

A census tract is included in a statistical settlement area as an

outlying census tract if at least 25 percent of resident workers in

that tract commute to work in the core, or if at least 25 percent of

the employment in the census tract is accounted for by workers residing

in the core.

d. Titles of Statistical Settlement Areas

The title of a statistical settlement area will include the name of

the incorporated place with the largest population. The names of up to

two additional incorporated places that are at least one-third the size

of the largest place will be included in the statistical settlement

area title in order of descending population rank.

e. Identification of Daily Influence Areas

A census tract is included in the daily influence area of a

statistical settlement area if at least 5 percent but less than 25

percent of the resident workers in that tract commute to work in the

core of the statistical settlement area, or if at least 5 percent but

less than 25 percent of the employment in the census tract is accounted

for by workers residing in the core of the statistical settlement area.

f. Identification of Rural Community Areas

Census tracts not included in any statistical settlement area or

daily influence area will form the components of rural community areas.

Contiguous census tracts will be grouped according to specified

conditions. Titles for rural community areas will be based on the same

criteria used to title statistical settlement areas.

2. Identification of Metropolitan Regions, Mesopolitan Regions, and

Micropolitan Regions

Stage two in this approach provides criteria for identifying

mutually exclusive metropolitan, mesopolitan, and micropolitan regions,

and then classifies the remaining territory as urban-influenced or

rural-influenced.

a. Assigning Territory in Individual Statistical Settlement Areas

A census tract that is part of the core of more than one

statistical settlement area will be assigned to the statistical

settlement area in which it has a larger population within the

associated qualifier UA. A census tract that is in the core of one

statistical settlement area and outlying to one or more other

statistical settlement areas will be included in the statistical

settlement area in which it is part of the core.

A census tract that qualifies for inclusion as an outlying census

tract in more than one statistical settlement area will be assigned to

the statistical settlement area with which it has the highest level of

commuting exchange.

At no time may a statistical settlement area contain discontiguous

census tracts.

b. Combining Statistical Settlement Areas

Statistical settlement areas will be combined if the entire core of

one is integrated with the entire core of the other according to the

commuting thresholds contained in IV.B.1.c above.

c. Qualification of Outlying Census Tracts in Combined Statistical

Settlement Areas

After two or more statistical settlement areas are combined, a

census tract will qualify for inclusion as an outlying census tract in

the combined area if its commuting exchange with the combined

statistical settlement area core(s) meets the criteria outlined in

IV.B.1.c above.

d. Distinguishing Between Metropolitan Regions, Mesopolitan Regions,

and Micropolitan Regions

Any statistical settlement area that contains a Census Bureau-

defined UA of at least 100,000 persons will be designated a

metropolitan region. Any statistical settlement area not identified as

a metropolitan region will be designated as a mesopolitan region if it

contains a Census Bureau-defined UA of at least 50,000 persons and less

than 100,000 persons, or if outside a UA, an incorporated place of at

least 50,000 persons. Any statistical settlement area not identified as

a metropolitan or mesopolitan region will be designated as a

micropolitan region.

e. Titles of Metropolitan Regions, Mesopolitan Regions, and

Micropolitan Regions

Each metropolitan, mesopolitan, or micropolitan region title will

include the name of the incorporated place with the largest population.

The names of up to two additional incorporated places that are at least

one-third the size of the largest place will be included in the

metropolitan, mesopolitan, or micropolitan region title in order of

descending population rank.

[[Page 70547]]

f. Identification of Urban-Influenced and Rural-Influenced Census

Tracts

After all metropolitan, mesopolitan, and micropolitan regions are

defined, any unassigned census tract will be identified as urban-

influenced if at least 5 percent but less than 25 percent of the

resident workers in that tract commute to work in the core of a

metropolitan, mesopolitan, or micropolitan region, or if at least 5

percent but less than 25 percent of the employment in the census tract

is accounted for by workers residing in the core of a metropolitan,

mesopolitan, or micropolitan region. Any census tract that does not

meet these commuting criteria will be classified as rural-influenced.

C. A Directional Commuting, Census Tract-Level Approach to Defining

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

The directional commuting approach also is a census tract-based

system. It relies on the direction and relative strength of commuting

flows to measure social and economic linkages. This concept can be

visualized by imagining typical commuters driving toward a hypothetical

center of metropolitan or nonmetropolitan population in the morning and

away from it in the evening. This approach measures the mean weighted

direction of all commuting flows from a particular tract toward a

population center, rather than measuring the percentage of workers who

commute between central cores and outlying areas (see Figure 3).

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P'

[[Page 70548]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.050

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70549]]

The spatial characteristics of commuting flows never have been

explicitly incorporated into the MA standards, even though the links

between residence and work are inherently spatial. New research using

disaggregated commuting flow data can measure flow characteristics that

have been observed by highway and transit planners for decades.

The directional approach uses the weighted mean direction of

commuting flows by census tract to associate census tracts with

population centers. If the weighted mean flow of a given census tract

is in the direction of a nearby population center, then the tract is

included within the same statistical area as that center.

The directional approach for creating areas has one major

advantage. It can mitigate shortcomings with geocoding place-of-work

data by generalizing commuting flow. Lack of sufficient place-of-work

address information may make the geocoding of tract-level commuting

data from the 2000 decennial census difficult in some nonmetropolitan

areas where lists of commercial addresses are less complete than in

current MAs. Uncertainties in the quality of place-of-work geocoding

may reduce the reliability of sub-county journey-to-work data in the

absence of techniques such as directional statistical methods.

Several disadvantages also are associated with this approach. The

linkage of a census tract with a center of population is subject to a

specified level of angular tolerance and is subject as well to

limitations of the commuting data. Implementation of this approach at

the census tract-level limits annual updating of all metropolitan,

mesopolitan, and micropolitan region definitions using commuting data

from the American Community Survey until at least 2008. Other

disadvantages associated with this approach are similar to those

outlined in the commuting-based, census tract-level approach discussed

above.

1. Criteria for Defining Metropolitan Regions, Mesopolitan Regions, and

Micropolitan Regions

a. Requirements for Qualification

Each metropolitan region must include a Census Bureau-defined UA of

at least 100,000 persons. Each mesopolitan region must contain no part

of a metropolitan region and must include either a Census Bureau-

defined UA of at least 50,000 persons and less than 100,000 persons, or

if outside a UA, an incorporated place of at least 50,000 persons. Each

micropolitan region must contain no part of a metropolitan or

mesopolitan region and must contain an incorporated place of at least

10,000 persons and less than 50,000 persons.

b. Identification of Metropolitan Region, Mesopolitan Region, and

Micropolitan Region Population Centers

Population centers are not cores per se but rather are starting

points for the statistical analysis of commuting flows. The center

point used in measuring directionality of commuting flows toward a

metropolitan region is the ``internal point'' (see Part VII,

``Frequently Used Terms'') of the qualifier UA of 100,000 or more

persons; in the case of mesopolitan regions, the center point used is

the internal point of the qualifier UA of at least 50,000 and less than

100,000 persons, or, outside UAs, the internal point of the most

populous incorporated place having at least 50,000 persons. The center

point used in measuring directionality of commuting flows toward a

micropolitan region is the internal point of the most populous

incorporated place having at least 10,000 persons and less than 50,000

persons.

c. Calculation of Mean Weighted Direction of Commuting Flows

Statistical areas are delineated based on the weighted mean

direction of commuting flows for census tracts with respect to

population centers. A trigonometric formula is used to produce a

weighted mean direction of flow for each tract of residence. Based on

that value, a tract is assigned to the relevant nearby population

center--the UA or place that lies directly in the path of the flow

vector.

To associate census tracts' mean commuting flows with population

centers, it is necessary to specify an angle of inclusion. This means

determining a level of tolerance so that when a directional mean flow

is toward a center of population but does not ``hit'' it directly, the

flow is still associated with the center.

d. Qualification of Census Tracts for Inclusion in a Metropolitan

Region, Mesopolitan Region, or Micropolitan Region

A census tract qualifies for inclusion in a metropolitan,

mesopolitan, or micropolitan region if the largest flow of resident

workers in the census tract is in the direction of the metropolitan,

mesopolitan, or micropolitan region population center. If the flows are

split evenly between two population centers, then local opinion will be

sought to determine the census tract's assignment.

Metropolitan, mesopolitan, and micropolitan regions may not contain

discontiguous census tracts. Under this approach, it is possible that

the mean weighted commuting flows from census tracts close to a

population center may point in a direction away from the center and in

an opposite direction of more remote tracts; in such instances, the

central census tracts will be included in the metropolitan,

mesopolitan, or micropolitan region.

2. Identification of Rural Community Areas

Census tracts not included in a metropolitan, mesopolitan, or

micropolitan region will form the components of rural community areas.

Contiguous census tracts will be grouped according to local opinion,

subject to specified conditions, to form individual rural community

areas within each state.

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

Areas

The three approaches to defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan

areas just described rely upon commuting as the measure of linkages

between central and outlying areas. Journey-to-work data, however, do

not accurately depict the activity patterns of people without a

regular, fixed work location, such as those who work in sales,

contracting, construction and landscaping trades, and as day- and

itinerant-laborers; also missed are people who work at home (or people

not counted in the workforce). In addition, the daily journey to work

does not describe the many other, non-work activities that define

relationships between individuals and communities, such as trips

associated with shopping, recreation, and social and religious

activities.

Residential population density can serve as a surrogate for other

measures of activity in the absence of nationally consistent and

reliable data sets describing all daily and weekly movements of

individuals. Under this fourth proposed approach, an index is

calculated to reflect relative settlement intensities of counties. The

index number assigned to any given county is determined by multiplying

its population density ranking ratio at the state level with its

ranking ratio at the national level (see below). This provides a

relative measure of activity intensity for comparative purposes

nationwide by taking into account both the national and state contexts.

For instance, Natrona County, Wyoming, which constitutes the Casper

Metropolitan Statistical Area,

[[Page 70550]]

has a low overall population density when compared with most other

counties in the United States, but it would be assigned a value that

also reflects its relative importance within Wyoming.

This approach has several advantages. First, because the

classification is based solely on residential population density, each

county's index value can be calculated quickly after 2000 decennial

census population counts become available (and without waiting for the

later processing of journey-to-work data). Thereafter, the

classification could be updated annually using Census Bureau population

estimates. Second, a wide range of statistically reliable social and

economic data are readily available for counties. Third, the use of

counties facilitates comparability with past MA definitions, even

though this approach differs markedly from the current MA standards.

Fourth, population density can provide information about the intensity

of activity or potential activity within a geographic area.

There are disadvantages to this approach as well. The obvious

drawback is that social and economic linkages between counties are not

described directly. Also, the large land area of some counties tends to

lower overall population densities, and as a result, the index value

for such a county would be relatively low in spite of relatively high

population densities in some parts of the county (San Bernardino

County, California provides a good example). Because population density

is calculated by dividing total population by total land area, local,

sub-county variations in population distribution patterns are not

revealed.

1. Steps in Defining Density-Based Statistical Areas

a. The overall residential population density for each county is

calculated by dividing total population by total land area.

b. All counties within a given state are ranked according to

population density. The highest-density county is assigned the rank N,

where N equals the number of counties in the state. The second-highest-

density county is assigned the rank N-1; third-highest, N-2; and so

forth. For example, if there are 100 counties in a state, then the

county with the highest population density has a rank of 100; the

county with the second highest population density is 99.

c. The state ranking ratio (SRR) of each county is calculated by

dividing the rank of the county by the total number of counties in the

state, using the following equation:

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

d. After assigning each county a ranking ratio within the state,

steps a, b, and c are repeated at the national level. In this

iteration, N will represent the number of counties within the United

States (see Figure 4a).

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70551]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.051

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70552]]

e. Each county is assigned an index number (I) by multiplying its

state ranking ratio (SRR) and the national ranking ratio (NRR) using

the following equation:

SRR x NRR = I

This produces an index value that can be used to classify and

compare counties throughout the United States in terms of population

density, and thus relative social and economic importance (see Figure

4b).

2. Identification of Residential Density-Based Statistical Areas

This approach would produce index values for all counties that can

be used for classification into as many density-based levels as needed.

A five-level classification that ranges between an index value of 0.0

to .19 at the low end and a value of .80 to 1.0 at the high end

captures most recognizable aspects of the settlement pattern of the

United States. Contiguous counties in the same classification level

then can be identified as individual density-based statistical areas.

3. Titles of Density-Based Statistical Areas

The title of a density-based statistical area will include the name

of the incorporated place with the largest population within that area.

The names of up to two additional incorporated places that are at least

one-third the size of the largest place will be included in the title

in order of descending population rank.

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 70553]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21DE98.052

BILLING CODE 3110-01-C

[[Page 70554]]

Part V. Additional Issues for Consideration

This portion of the Notice briefly discusses a few issues that were

not fully addressed in Parts I through IV. These issues are: (1) how to

account for residual areas or exhaust the territory of the Nation

within a statistical area classification; (2) how best to meet data

producers' and users' desires for both county-based and sub-county-

based classifications; and (3) how to identify various settlement

categories, such as inner city, suburban, exurban, and rural areas, in

ways that are useful when analyzing and understanding settlement and

economic patterns within metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

A. Accounting for Residual Areas

Three of the four approaches presented in Part IV for defining

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas relied on commuting patterns as

a measure of linkages between outlying and central areas. In all three

of these approaches, however, some residual territory could not be

linked with the central areas. This section discusses methods for

minimizing this residual territory when defining metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas. These methods could be used individually or in

combination.

One means of reducing residual territory is to establish a minimum

commuting threshold low enough to ensure that all or nearly all

territory is included within a metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area.

Although this approach would result in areas that account for all the

territory of the Nation, the necessary commuting threshold would be so

low as to call into question the meaningfulness of social and economic

linkages between centers and some outlying areas. As a result, the

conceptual integrity of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas would be

compromised.

A second method involves identifying cores of varying minimum sizes

around which metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas are defined using a

commuting threshold that is sufficiently high to portray meaningful

linkages. This approach does not eliminate the possibility that

residual territory will remain, but reduces the extent of residual

territory to a more meaningful set of areas. This approach is taken in

Parts IV.A and IV.C.

A variant of this second approach reduces the extent of residual

territory by defining influence zones associated with each metropolitan

and nonmetropolitan area, as outlined in Part IV.B. An outlying area

that does not qualify for inclusion in a metropolitan or

nonmetropolitan area could fall within the influence area of a

metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area. Still, the extent of residual

territory is reduced rather than eliminated.

A third approach involves using additional measures of social and

economic linkages, such as newspaper circulation, media market

penetration, and commodity flows, in addition to commuting criteria, to

eliminate residual territory. These other measures would be used as a

last resort after all outlying areas are added to a metropolitan or

nonmetropolitan area on the basis of commuting. This approach

eliminates residual areas by assigning all territory to metropolitan or

nonmetropolitan areas but in doing so establishes a two-tiered system

of qualification. As a result, outlying areas within a particular

metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area may be linked with the core, but

by different criteria.

B. Development of Multiple Sets of Statistical Areas

Some data users have expressed an interest in both a county-based

classification, which offers greater availability of data, and sub-

county-based classifications, which offer greater geographic precision

when defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Data providers

and users could choose the classifications that best fit their research

and analysis needs, guided by advice about appropriate uses of each

classification. The substantial downside to this approach is the

potential confusion resulting from the existence of two or more

parallel classifications. Data providers also would be faced with

increased costs for preparing data according to two or more

classifications.

C. Settlement Types Within Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

Data providers and users have expressed a desire for official

classification of a variety of settlement types--such as inner city,

inner and outer suburb, and exurban--within metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas. A key aspect of this issue has been the lack of

an official designation of what constitutes ``suburban'' territory.

Designations of such settlement types are not essential to defining

social and economic linkages among communities within metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas, but they are useful for analyzing and

understanding settlement patterns. A separate settlement classification

system that would be consistent with metropolitan and nonmetropolitan

areas may be appropriate.

Measures that could be employed in delineating inner city, inner

suburban, outer suburban, and exurban territory include, in some

combination:

median housing unit age or year of housing unit

construction;

commuting interchange with central core;

directionality of commuting patterns;

population or housing density; and

road density.

High population density, older housing stock, multidirectional

commuting, and contiguity with the inner city are typical of inner

suburban areas, for example. Outer suburban areas are typified by

moderate population density and age of housing stock and moderately

unidirectional commuting flows. Exurban areas typically are of low

population density, but are distinguished from other sparsely settled

territory by newer housing and unidirectional commuting flows.

Part VI. Sources Cited

Berry, Brian J.L. 1995. ``Capturing Evolving Realities: Statistical

Areas for the American Future.'' In Dahmann, Donald C. and James D.

Fitzsimmons (eds.) Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas: New

Approaches to Geographical Definition. Working Paper 12. Population

Division, Bureau of the Census.

Bureau of the Census. 1946. ``Report of the Census Bureau

Subcommittee on Metropolitan Areas.''

Castells, Manuel. 1989. The Informational City. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.

Dear, Michael and Steven Flusty. 1998. ``Postmodern urbanism.''

Annals of the Association of American Geographers Vol. 88 (1): 50-

72.

Fisher, James S. and Ronald L. Mitchelson. 1981. ``Extended and

internal commuting in the transformation of the intermetropolitan

periphery.'' Economic Geography Vol. 57 (3): 189-207.

Fishman, Robert. 1990. ``America's New City,'' The Wilson Quarterly

Vol. 14: 24-48.

Fotheringham, A.S. and P.A. Pellegrini. 1996. ``Disaggregate

Migration Modeling: A comparison of Microdata sources from the U.S.,

U.K., and Canada,'' Area Vol. 28 (3): 347-357.

Gordon, Peter and Harry W. Richardson. 1996. ``Beyond

polycentricity.'' Journal of the American Planning Association Vol.

62 (3): 289-295.

Harvey, David. 1989. The Urban Experience. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Lewis, Peirce. 1983. ``The geographic roots of America's urban

troubles.'' University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University,

College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Vol. 52 (3)

Pressman, N. 1985. ``Forces for spatial change.'' In Brotchie, J.,

et al., eds. The

[[Page 70555]]

Future of Urban Form. London: Croom Helm.

Part VII. Frequently Used Terms

(An asterisk (*) denotes terms proposed for the purposes of this

Notice)

Census county division (CCD)--A statistical subdivision of a

county, established cooperatively by the Census Bureau and state and

local government authorities, for the presentation of decennial census

data in 21 states where minor civil divisions either do not exist or

are unsatisfactory for the collection, presentation, and analysis of

census statistics.

Census tract--A small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision

of a county, delineated cooperatively by local statistical areas

program participants and the Census Bureau. Census tracts for the 2000

decennial census will have between 1,500 and 8,000 inhabitants.

Central city--The largest city of a metropolitan statistical area

or a consolidated metropolitan statistical area, plus additional cities

that meet specified statistical criteria.

Central county--The county or counties of an MA containing the

largest city or urbanized area, and to and from which commuting is

measured to determine qualification of outlying counties.

Consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA)--A geographic

entity defined by OMB for statistical purposes. An area becomes a CMSA

if it meets the requirements to qualify as a metropolitan statistical

area, has a population of 1,000,000 or more, contains component parts

that qualify as primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs), and

local opinion favors PMSA designation. Whole counties are components of

CMSAs, except in New England, where they are composed of cities and

towns.

County subdivision--A legal (minor civil division) or statistical

(census county division) subdivision of a county.

* Daily influence area (DIA)--Territory that is minimally

associated with a statistical settlement area.

Functional integration--The linkage of geographic entities

according to patterns of social or economic interactions.

Geocoding--The practice of assigning data to a specific geographic

location and a set of geographic codes.

* Geographic building block--The geographic unit, such as census

tract, county subdivision, or county, that forms the basic geographic

component of a metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area.

Internal point--A point, generally marking the central location

within a geographic entity.

* Mesopolitan region--A geographic entity containing a core area of

at least 50,000 persons and less than 100,000 persons plus adjacent

communities having a high degree of social and economic integration

with that core.

Metropolitan area (MA)--A collective term, established by OMB and

used for the first time in 1990, to refer to metropolitan statistical

areas, consolidated metropolitan statistical areas, and primary

metropolitan statistical areas.

* Metropolitan region--A geographic entity containing a core area

of at least 100,000 persons plus adjacent communities having a high

degree of social and economic integration with that core.

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)--A geographic entity, defined

by OMB for statistical purposes, containing a core area with a large

population center and adjacent communities having a high degree of

social and economic integration with that center. Qualification of an

MSA requires the presence of a city with 50,000 or more inhabitants, or

the presence of an urbanized area and a total population of at least

100,000 (75,000 in New England). MSAs are composed of entire counties,

except in New England where the components are cities and towns.

* Micropolitan region--A geographic entity containing a core area

of at least 10,000 persons and less than 50,000 persons plus adjacent

communities having a high degree of social and economic integration

with that core.

Minor civil division (MCD)--A type of governmental unit that is the

primary legal subdivision of a county, created to govern or administer

an area rather than a specific population. MCDs are recognized by the

Census Bureau as the county subdivisions of 28 states and the District

of Columbia.

New England county metropolitan area (NECMA)--County-based areas

defined by OMB to provide an alternative to the city-and town-based

metropolitan statistical areas and consolidated metropolitan

statistical areas in New England.

Outlying county--The county or counties that qualify for inclusion

in a metropolitan area based on commuting ties with central counties

and other specified measures of metropolitan character.

Population density--A measure of the number of people per

geographic unit, usually expressed in terms of people per square mile

or per square kilometer.

Population growth rate--The change in a population during a given

period, as determined by births, deaths, and net migration, and

commonly expressed as a percentage of the initial population.

Primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA)--A county or group of

counties that meet specified statistical criteria and receive local

opinion support for recognition as a component of a consolidated

metropolitan statistical area under OMB's metropolitan area standards.

Qualifier urbanized area--The urbanized area that results in

qualification of a metropolitan area.

* Rural community area (RCA)--A geographic entity containing

geographic units not included within a statistical settlement area,

metropolitan region, mesopolitan region, or micropolitan region, nor

within associated influence areas, and defined partly in accordance

with local opinion.

* Statistical settlement area (SSA)--A geographic entity containing

a core of at least 10,000 persons and surrounding communities that are

linked socially and economically, as measured by commuting.

Urbanized area (UA)--A statistical geographic area defined by the

Census Bureau, consisting of a central place(s) and adjacent densely

settled territory that together contain at least 50,000 people,

generally with an overall population density of at least 1,000 people

per square mile.

Donald R. Arbuckle,

Acting Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Appendix A--Revised Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas in

the 1990s

Part I. Overview

Part I gives the structure of this document. Part II describes

the changes from the previous standards and the reasons for the

changes. Part III gives the official metropolitan area standards for

the 1990s. Part IV gives a list of definitions of key terms and

guidelines used in the standards. The terms in Part IV are listed in

alphabetical order.

In Part III, sections 1 through 7 contain the basic standards

for defining metropolitan statistical areas in all States except the

New England States. They specify standards for determining: how

large a population nucleus must be to qualify as an MSA (section 1);

the central county/counties of the MSA (section 2); additional

outlying counties with sufficient metropolitan character and

integration to the central county/counties to qualify for inclusion

in the MSA (section 3); the central city or cities of each MSA

(section 4); whether two adjacent MSAs qualify to be combined

(section 5); four categories or levels of MSAs, based on the total

population

[[Page 70556]]

of each area (section 6); and the title of each MSA (section 7).

Sections 8 through 10 provide a framework for identifying PMSAs

within an MSA of at least one million population. If such PMSAs are

identified, the larger area of which they are components is

designated a CMSA.

Sections 11 through 15 apply only to the New England States. In

these States, metropolitan areas are composed of cities and towns

rather than whole counties. Sections 11, 12, and 13 specify how New

England MSAs are defined and titled. Sections 14 and 15 show how

CMSAs and PMSAs are defined and titled.

Section 16 sets forth the standards for updating definitions

between decennial censuses.

Part II. Changes in the Standards for the 1990s

The metropolitan area standards for the 1990s generally reflect

a continuity with those adopted for the 1980s, and they maintain the

basic concepts originally developed in 1950. The substantive

modifications of the standards are specified below. Some other

modifications have been made that involve word changes but not

substance.

1. Effective April 1, 1990, the set of areas known as

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), Primary Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (PMSAs), and Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical

Areas (CMSAs) will be designated collectively as Metropolitan Areas

(MAs). The reason for this change is to distinguish between the

individual areas known as MSAs and the set of all areas.

2. A small group of counties containing a portion of a city's

urbanized area will now qualify as outlying, even though their

population density is relatively low. This change allows the

inclusion in metropolitan areas of entire urbanized areas.

3. Counties included solely because they contain at least 2,500

population in a central city now will be assigned outlying county

rather than central county status (section 3A(6)). This will ensure

that additional outlying counties will not be designated solely

because of commuting with a county including a small portion of the

central city.

4. The largest city, and other cities of at least 15,000 in a

secondary noncontiguous urbanized area within a metropolitan

statistical area, now may be identified as central cities, provided

that the other requirements for central cities are met (sections 4E

and 4F). This allows cities that perform as central cities in

secondary noncontiguous urbanized areas to be designated as central

cities.

5. The employment criterion for inclusion in an area title is

deleted; only the population criteria remain (section 7). This

change was made because in 1980 only one area qualified based on

employment.

6. A place qualifying as a central city but with less than one-

third the population of the largest city may now be included in the

metropolitan statistical area title if strongly supported by local

opinion (section 7A(3)). Communities often have strong views on the

way their MSAs are titled. This change allows taking these views

into account.

7. The presence of a small portion (less than 2,500 population)

of the largest city of a CMSA in a county no longer precludes

consideration of that county as a PMSA (section 8B(4)). Such a small

portion of a city does not alter the characteristics of the PMSA.

8. We have added standards for intercensal updating of

metropolitan areas (section 16). These standards existed separately,

but we felt they should be incorporated into the published

standards.

9. Qualifying percentages and ratios are considered to one

decimal and ratios on the basis of two decimals (in each case, one

less decimal than previously) (Part IV). The previous standards

implied a level of accuracy that was not justified.

10. Several technical adjustments were made (Part IV). For

example, localities in Puerto Rico officially known as aldeas in

1980, are now termed comunidades.

Part III. Official Standards for Metropolitan Areas

Basic Standards. Sections 1 through 7 apply to all States except

the six New England States, that is, Connecticut, Maine,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. They also

apply to Puerto Rico.1

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

\1\ Those provisions of sections 1 through 7 that are applicable

to New England are specified in the standards relating to New

England (sections 11 through 15).

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

Section 1. Population Size Requirements for Qualification

Each metropolitan statistical area must include:

A. A city of 50,000 or more population, or 2

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

\2\ An MSA designated on the basis of census data according to

standards in effect at the time of designation will not be

disqualified on the basis of lacking a city of at least 50,000

population.

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

B. A Census Bureau defined urbanized area of at least 50,000

population, provided that the component county/counties of the

metropolitan statistical area have a total population of at least

100,000.3

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

\3\ An MSA designated on the basis of census data according to

standards in effect at the time of designation will not be

disqualified on the basis of lacking an urbanized area of at least

50,000 or a total MSA population of at least 100,000.

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

Section 2. Central Counties

The central county/counties of the MSA are:

A. Those counties that include a central city (see section 4) of

the MSA, or at least 50 percent of the population of such a city,

provided the city is located in a qualifier urbanized area; and B.

Those counties in which at least 50 percent of the population lives

in the qualifier urbanized area(s).

Section 3. Outlying Counties

A. An outlying county is included in an MSA if any one of the

six following conditions is met:

(1) At least 50 percent of the employed workers residing in the

county commute to the central county/counties, and either

(a) The population density of the county is at least 25 persons

per square mile, or

(b) At least 10 percent, or at least 5,000, of the population

lives in the qualifier urbanized area(s);

(2) From 40 to 50 percent of the employed workers commute to the

central county/counties, and either

(a) The population density is at least 35 persons per square

mile, or

(b) At least 10 percent, or at least 5,000, of the population

lives in the qualifier urbanized area(s);

(3) From 25 to 40 percent of the employed workers commute to the

central county/counties and either the population density of the

county is at least 50 persons per square mile, or any two of the

following conditions exist:

(a) Population density is at least 35 persons per square mile,

(b) At least 35 percent of the population is urban,

(c) At least 10 percent, or at least 5,000, of the population

lives in the qualifier urbanized area(s);

(4) From 15 to 25 percent of the employed workers commute to the

central county/counties,4 the population density of the

county is at least 50 persons per square mile, and any two of the

following conditions also exist:

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

\4\ Also accepted as meeting this commuting requirement are:

(a) The number of persons working in the county who live in the

central county/counties is equal to at least 15 percent of the

number of employed workers living in the county; or

(b) The sum of the number of workers commuting to and from the

central county/counties is equal to at least 20 percent of the

number of employed workers living in the county.

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

(a) Population density is at least 60 persons per square mile,

(b) At least 35 percent of the population is urban,

(c) Population growth between the last two decennial censuses is

at least 20 percent,

(d) At least 10 percent, or at least 5,000, of the population

lives in the qualifier urbanized area(s);

(5) From 15 to 25 percent of the employed workers commute to the

central county/counties,4 the population density of the

county is less than 50 persons per square mile, and any two of the

following conditions also exist:

(a) At least 35 percent of the population is urban,

(b) Population growth between the last two decennial censuses is

at least 20 percent,

(c) At least 10 percent, or at least 5,000, of the population

lives in the qualifier urbanized area(s);

(6) At least 2,500 of the population lives in a central city of

the MSA located in the qualifier urbanized area(s).5

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

\5\ See section 4 for the standards for identifying central

cities.

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

B. If a county qualifies on the basis of commuting to the

central county/counties of two different MSAs, it is assigned to the

area to which commuting is greatest, unless the relevant commuting

percentages are within 5 points of each other, in which case local

opinion about the most appropriate assignment will be considered.

[[Page 70557]]

C. If a county qualifies as a central county under section 2 and

also qualifies as an outlying county of another metropolitan area

under section 3A on the basis of commuting to (or from) another

central county, both counties become central counties of a single

merged MSA.

Section 4. Central Cities

The central city/cities of the MSA are:

A. The city with the largest population in the MSA;

B. Each additional city with a population of at least 250,000 or

with at least 100,000 persons working within its limits;

C. Each additional city with a population of at least 25,000, an

employment/residence ratio of at least 0.75, and at least 40 percent

of its employed residents working in the city;

D. Each city of 15,000 to 24,999 population that is at least

one-third as large as the largest central city, has an employment/

residence ratio of at least 0.75, and has at least 40 percent of its

employed residents working in the city;

E. The largest city in a secondary noncontiguous urbanized area,

provided it has at least 15,000 population, an employment/residence

ratio of at least 0.75, and has at least 40 percent of its employed

residents working in the city;

F. Each additional city in a secondary noncontiguous urbanized

area that is at least one-third as large as the largest central city

of that urbanized area, that has at least 15,000 population and an

employment/residence ratio of at least 0.75, and that has at least

40 percent of its employed residents working in the city.

Section 5. Combining Adjacent Metropolitan Statistical Areas

Two adjacent MSAs defined by sections 1 through 4 are combined

as a single MSA provided:

A. The total population of the combination is at least one

million, and:

(1) The commuting interchange between the two MSAs is equal to:

(a) At least 15 percent of the employed workers residing in the

smaller MSA, or

(b) At least 10 percent of the employed workers residing in the

smaller MSA, and

(i) The urbanized area of a central city of one MSA is

contiguous with the urbanized area of a central city of the other

MSA, or

(ii) A central city in one MSA is included in the same urbanized

area as a central city in the other MSA; and

(2) At least 60 percent of the population of each MSA is urban.

B. The total population of the combination is less than one

million and:

(1) Their largest central cities are within 25 miles of one

another, or their urbanized areas are contiguous; and

(2) There is definite evidence that the two areas are closely

integrated with each other economically and socially; and

(3) Local opinion in both areas supports the combination.

Section 6. Levels

A. Each MSA defined by sections 1 through 5 is categorized in

one of the following levels based on total population:

Level A--MSAs of 1 million or more;

Level B--MSAs of 250,000 to 999,999;

Level C--MSAs of 100,000 to 249,999; and

Level D--MSAs of less than 100,000.

B. Areas assigned to Level B, C, or D are designated as MSAs.

Areas assigned to Level A are not finally designated or titled until

they have been reviewed under sections 8 and 9.

Section 7. Titles of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)

A. The title of an MSA assigned to Level B, C, or D includes the

name of the largest central city, and up to two additional city

names, as follows:

(1) The name of each additional city with a population of at

least 250,000;

(2) The names of the additional cities qualified as central

cities by section 4, provided each is at least one-third as large as

the largest central city; and

(3) The names of other central cities (up to the maximum of two

additional names) if local opinion supports the resulting title.

B. An area title that includes the names of more than one city

begins with the name of the largest city and lists the other cities

in order of their population according to the most recent national

census.6

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

\6\ The largest central city included in an existing

metropolitan area title will not be resequenced in or displaced from

that title until both its population and the number of persons

working within its limits are exceeded by those of another city

qualifying for the area title.

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

C. In addition to city names, the title contains the name of

each State in which the MSA is located.

Standards for Primary and Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(PMSAs and CMSAs).

Sections 8 through 10 apply to Level A metropolitan statistical

areas outside New England.

Section 8. Qualifications for Designation of Primary Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (PMSAs)

Within a Level A MSA:

A. Any county or group of counties that was designated an SMSA

on January 1, 1980, will be designated a PMSA, unless local opinion

does not support its continued separate designation for statistical

purposes.

B. Any additional county/counties for which local opinion

strongly supports separate designation will be considered for

identification as a PMSA, provided one county is included that has:

(1) At least 100,000 population;

(2) At least 60 percent of its population urban;

(3) Less than 35 percent of its resident workers working outside

the county; and

(4) Less than 2,500 population of the largest central city of

the Level A MSA.

C. A set of two or more contiguous counties for which local

opinion strongly supports separate designation, and that may include

a county or counties that also could qualify as a PMSA under section

8B, also will be considered for designation as a PMSA, provided:

(1) Each county meets requirements (1), (2), and (4) of section

8B, and has less than 50 percent of its resident workers working

outside the county;

(2) Each county in the set has a commuting interchange of at

least 20 percent with the other counties in the set; and

(3) The set of two or more contiguous counties has less than 35

percent of its resident workers working outside its area.

D. Each county in the interim Level A MSA, not included within a

central core under sections 8A through C, is assigned to the

contiguous PMSA to whose central core commuting is greatest,

provided this commuting is:

(1) At least 15 percent of the county's resident workers;

(2) At least 5 percentage points higher than the commuting flow

to any other PMSA central core that exceeds 15 percent; and

(3) Larger than the flow to the county containing the Level A

MSA's largest central city.

E. If a county has qualifying commuting ties to two or more PMSA

central cores and the relevant values are within 5 percentage points

of each other, local opinion is considered before the county is

assigned to any PMSA.

F. The interim PMSA definitions resulting from these procedures

(including possible alternative definitions, where appropriate) are

submitted to local opinion. Final definitions of PMSAs are made

based on these standards, and a review of local opinion.

G. If any primary metropolitan statistical area or areas have

been recognized under sections 8 A through F, the balance of the

Level A metropolitan statistical area, which includes its largest

central city, also is recognized as a primary metropolitan

statistical area.7

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

\7\ If section 8G would result in the balance of the Level A

metropolitan statistical area including a noncontiguous county, this

county will be added to the contiguous primary metropolitan

statistical area to which the county has the greatest commuting.

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

Section 9. Levels and Titles of Primary Metropolitan Statistical

Areas

A. PMSAs are categorized in one of four levels according to

total population, following the standards of Section 6A.

B. PMSAs are titled in either of two ways:

(1) Using the names of up to three cities in the primary

metropolitan statistical area that have qualified as central cities

of the Level A MSA under section 4, following the standards of

section 7 for selection and sequencing; or

(2) Using the names of up to three counties in the PMSA,

sequenced in order from largest to smallest population.

C. Local opinion on the most appropriate title will be

considered.

[[Page 70559]]

Section 10. Designation and Titles of Consolidated Metropolitan

Statistical Areas

A. A Level A metropolitan statistical area in which two or more

primary metropolitan statistical areas are identified by section 8

is designated a consolidated metropolitan statistical area. If no

primary metropolitan statistical areas are defined, the Level A area

remains a metropolitan statistical area, and is titled according to

section 7.

B. Consolidated metropolitan statistical areas are titled

according to the following guidelines. Local opinion is always

sought before determining the title of a consolidated metropolitan

statistical area.

(1) The title of each area includes up to three names, the first

of which is always the name of the largest central city in the area.

A change in the first-named city in the title will not be made until

both its population and the number of persons working within its

limits are exceeded by the those of another city in the consolidated

area.

(2) The preferred basis for determining the two remaining names

is:

(a) The first city (or county) name that appears in the title of

the remaining primary metropolitan statistical area with the largest

total population; and

(b) The first city (or county) name that appears in the title of

the primary metropolitan statistical area with the next largest

total population.

(3) A regional designation may be substituted for the second

and/or third names in the title if there is strong local support and

the proposed designation is unambiguous and suitable for inclusion

in a national standard.

Standards for New England

In the six New England States of Connecticut, Maine,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the cities

and towns are administratively more important than the counties, and

a wide range of data is compiled locally for these entities.

Therefore, the cities and towns are the units used to define

metropolitan areas in these States. The New England standards are

based primarily on population density and commuting. As a basis for

measuring commuting, a central core is first defined for each New

England urbanized area.

In New England, there is an alternative county-based definition

of MSAs known as the New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs)

(see Part IV).

Section 11. New England Central Cores

A central core is determined in each New England urbanized area

through the definition of two zones.

A. Zone A comprises:

(1) The largest city in the urbanized area;

(2) Each additional place in the urbanized area or in a

contiguous urbanized area that qualifies as a central city under

section 4, provided at least 15 percent of its resident employed

workers work in the largest city in the urbanized area;8

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

\8\ Also accepted as meeting this commuting requirement are:

(a) The number of persons working in the subject city or town

who live in the specified city or area is equal to at least 15

percent of the employed workers living in the subject city or town;

or

(b) The sum of the number of workers commuting to and from the

specified city or area is equal to at least 20 percent of the

employed workers living in the subject city or town.

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

(3) Each additional city or town at least 50 percent of whose

population lives in the urbanized area or a contiguous urbanized

area, provided at least 15 percent of its resident employed workers

work in the largest city in the urbanized area plus any additional

central cities qualified by section 11A(2).8

B. Zone B comprises each city or town that has:

(1) At least 50 percent of its population living in the

urbanized area or in a contiguous urbanized area; and

(2) At least 15 percent of its resident employed workers working

in Zone A.8

C. The central core comprises Zone A, Zone B, and any city or

town that is physically surrounded by Zones A or B, except that

cities or towns that are not contiguous with the main portion of the

central core are not included.

D. If a city or town qualifies under sections 11A through C for

more than one central core, it is assigned to the core to which

commuting is greatest, unless the relevant commuting percentages are

within 5 points of each other, in which case local opinion as to the

most appropriate assignment also is considered.

Section 12. Outlying Cities and Towns

A. A city or town contiguous to a central core as defined by

section 11 is included in its metropolitan statistical area if:

(1) It has a population density of at least 60 persons per

square mile and at least 30 percent of its resident employed workers

work in the central core; or

(2) It has a population density of at least 100 persons per

square mile and at least 15 percent of the employed workers living

in the city or town work in the central core.9

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

\9\ This commuting requirement is also considered to have been

met if:

(a) The number of persons working in the city or town who live

in the central core is equal to at least 15 percent of the employed

workers living in the city or town.

(b) The sum of the number of workers commuting to and from the

central core is equal to at least 20 percent of the employed workers

living in the city or town.

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

B. If a city or town has the qualifying level of commuting to

two different central cores, it is assigned to the metropolitan

statistical area to which commuting is greatest, unless the relevant

commuting percentages are within 5 points of each other, in which

case local opinion as to the most appropriate assignment also is

considered.

C. If a city or town has the qualifying level of commuting to a

central core, but has greater commuting to a nonmetropolitan city or

town, it will not be assigned to any metropolitan statistical area

unless the relevant commuting percentages are within 5 points of

each other, in which case local opinion as to the most appropriate

assignment will also be considered.

Section 13. Applicability of Basic Standards to New England

Metropolitan Statistical Areas

A. An area defined by sections 11 and 12 qualifies as a

metropolitan statistical area if it contains a city of at least

50,000 population or has a total population of at least

75,000.10

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

\10\ A New England metropolitan statistical area designated on

the basis of census data according to standards in effect at the

time of designation will not be disqualified on the basis of lacking

a total population of at least 75,000.

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

B. The area's central cities are determined according to the

standards of section 4.

C. Two adjacent New England metropolitan statistical areas are

combined as a single metropolitan statistical area provided the

conditions of section 5A are met. Section 5B is not applied in New

England.

D. Each New England metropolitan statistical area defined by

sections 13A through C is categorized in one of the four levels

specified in section 6A. Areas assigned to Level B, C, or D are

designated as metropolitan statistical areas. Areas assigned to

Level A are not finally designated until they have been reviewed

under sections 14 and 15.

E. New England metropolitan statistical areas are titled

according to the standards of section 7.

Section 14. Qualification for Designation of Primary Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (PMSAs)

The following are qualifications within a Level A metropolitan

statistical area in New England:

A. Any group of cities and towns that was recognized as a

standard metropolitan statistical area on January 1, 1980, will be

recognized as a primary metropolitan statistical area, unless local

opinion does not support its continued separate recognition for

statistical purposes.

B. Any additional group of cities and/or towns for which local

opinion strongly supports separate recognition will be considered

for designation as a primary metropolitan statistical area, if:

(1) The total population of the group is at least 75,000;

(2) It includes at least one city with a population of 15,000 or

more, an employment/residence ratio of at least 0.75, and at least

40 percent of its employed residents working in the city;

(3) It contains a core of communities, each of which has at

least 50 percent of its population living in the urbanized area, and

which together have less than 40 percent of their resident workers

commuting to jobs outside the core; and

(4) Each community in the core also has:

(a) At least 5 percent of its resident workers working in the

component core city identified in section 14B(2), or at least 10

percent working in the component core city or in places already

qualified for this core; this percentage also must be greater than

that to any other core or to the largest city of the Level A MSA;

and

(b) At least 20 percent commuting interchange with the component

core city together with other cities and towns already

[[Page 70559]]

qualified for the core; this interchange also must be greater than

with any other core or with the largest city of the Level A MSA.

C. Contiguous component central cores may be merged as a single

core if:

(1) Section 14B would qualify the component core city of one

core for inclusion in the other core; and

(2) There is substantial local support for treating the two as a

single core.

D. Each city or town in the interim Level A MSA not included in

a core under sections 14A through C is assigned to the contiguous

PMSA to whose core its commuting is greatest, if:

(1) This commuting is at least 15 percent of the place's

resident workers; and

(2) The commuting interchange with the core is greater than with

the Level A MSA's largest city.

E. If a city or town has qualifying commuting ties to two or

more cores and the relevant values are within 5 percentage points of

each other, local opinion is considered before the place is assigned

to any PMSA.

F. The interim PMSA definitions resulting from these procedures

(including possible alternative definitions, where appropriate) are

submitted to local opinion. Final definitions of PMSAs are made

based on these standards, and a review of local opinion.

G. If any primary metropolitan statistical area or areas have

been recognized under sections 14A through F, the balance of the

Level A metropolitan statistical area, which includes its largest

city, also is recognized as a primary metropolitan statistical area.

11

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

\11\ If section 14G results in the balance of the Level A

metropolitan statistical area including a noncontiguous city or

town, this place will be added to the contiguous primary

metropolitan statistical area to which it has the greatest

commuting.

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

Section 15. Levels and Titles of Primary Metropolitan Statistical

Areas and Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas in New

England

A. New England primary metropolitan statistical areas are

categorized in one of four levels according to total population,

following section 6A.

B. New England primary metropolitan statistical areas are titled

using the names of up to three cities in the primary area that have

qualified as central cities under section 4, following the standards

of section 7 for selection and sequencing.

C. Each Level A metropolitan statistical area in New England in

which primary metropolitan statistical areas have been identified

and supported by local opinion (according to section 14) is

designated a consolidated metropolitan statistical area. Titles of

New England consolidated metropolitan statistical areas are

determined following the standards of section 10. A Level A

metropolitan statistical area in which no primary metropolitan

statistical areas have been defined is designated a metropolitan

statistical area, and is titled according to the rules of section 7.

Section 16. Intercensal Metropolitan Area Changes

A. Definitions.

(1) A Census Count is a special census conducted by the U.S.

Bureau of the Census or a decennial census count updated to reflect

annexations and boundary changes since the census.

(2) A Census Bureau Estimate is a population estimate issued by

the U.S. Bureau of the Census for an intercensal year.

B. Qualification for Designation of a Metropolitan Statistical

Area. The qualifications for designation are as follows:

(1) A city reaches 50,000 population according to a Census Count

or Census Bureau Estimate.

(2) A nonmetropolitan county containing an urbanized area (UA)

defined by the Bureau of the Census at the most recent decennial

census reaches 100,000 population according to a Census Count or

Census Bureau Estimate. If the potential metropolitan statistical

area centered on the urbanized area consists of two or more

counties, their total population must reach 100,000. In New England,

the cities and towns qualifying for the potential metropolitan

statistical area must reach a total population of 75,000.

(3) The Census Bureau defines a new urbanized area based on a

Census Count after the decennial census, and the potential

metropolitan statistical area containing the urbanized area meets

the population requirements of section 16.B(2).

If a metropolitan statistical area is qualified intercensally by

a Census Bureau Estimate, the qualification must be confirmed by the

next decennial census, or the area is disqualified.

C. Addition of Counties. Counties are not added to metropolitan

statistical areas between censuses, except as follows:

(1) If a central city located in a qualifier urbanized area

extends into a county not included in the metropolitan statistical

area and the population of the portion of the city in the county

reaches 2,500 according to a Census Count, then the county qualifies

as an outlying county and is added to the metropolitan statistical

area.

(2) If a metropolitan statistical area qualified intercensally

under section 16B meets the requirements of section 5B for

combination with a metropolitan statistical area already recognized,

that combination may take place and thereby alter the definition of

the existing metropolitan statistical area.

D. Qualification for Designation of a Central City. A Census

Count serves to qualify a central city (section 4) that has failed

to qualify solely because its population was smaller than required--

for example, it did not qualify as the largest city of the

metropolitan statistical area (section 4A), or was below 250,000

(4B), below 25,000 (4C), or below 15,000 (4D-F). If qualification

requires comparison with the population of another city, comparison

is made with the latest available Census Bureau Estimate or Census

Count of the population of the other city.

E. Area Titles. The title of a metropolitan statistical area,

primary metropolitan statistical area, or consolidated metropolitan

statistical area may be altered to include the name of a place that

has newly qualified as a central city on the basis described in

section 16D, and that also meets the requirements of section 7. Such

a change is made by adding the new name at the end of the existing

title, but cannot be made if the title already contains three names.

Names in area titles are not resequenced except on the basis of a

decennial census.

F. Other aspects of the metropolitan area definitions are not

subject to change between censuses.

Part IV. General Procedures and Definitions

This part specifies certain important guidelines regarding the

data and procedures used in implementing the standards. It also

gives definitions for ``city,'' ``urbanized area,'' and other key

terms.

General Procedures

Local Opinion. Local opinion is the reflection of the views of

the public on specified matters relating to the application of the

standards for defining metropolitan areas, obtained through the

appropriate congressional delegation, and considered after the

thresholds in the statistical standards have been met. Members of

the congressional delegation will be urged to contact a wide range

of groups in their communities, including business or other leaders,

Chambers of Commerce, planning commissions, and local officials, to

solicit comments on specified issues. OMB will consider all

pertinent local opinion material on these matters in determining the

final definition and title of the area. After a decision has been

made on a particular matter, OMB will not again request local

opinion on the same question until after the next national census.

Local opinion is considered for:

(a) Combining two adjacent metropolitan statistical areas (of

less than one million population) whose central cities are within 25

miles of each other (section 5B).

(b) Metropolitan statistical area titles (section 7A(3)).

(c) Identifying primary metropolitan statistical areas within

consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (sections 8 and 14).

(d) Titling primary metropolitan statistical areas (sections 9

and 15).

(e) Titling consolidated metropolitan statistical areas after

identification of the largest city (sections 10 and 15).

(f) Assignment of a county or place that, based on commuting, is

eligible for inclusion in more than one area (sections 3B, 8E, 11D,

12B and 12C, and 14E).

New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs). The New England

County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs) provide an alternative to the

official city-and-town-based metropolitan statistical areas in that

region for the convenience of data users who desire a county-defined

set of areas.

The NECMA for a metropolitan statistical area includes:

1. The county containing the first-named city in the

metropolitan statistical area title. In some cases, this county will

contain the

[[Page 70560]]

first-named city of one or more additional metropolitan statistical

areas.

2. Each other county which has at least half of its population

in the metropolitan statistical area(s) whose first-named cities are

in the county identified in step 1.

The NECMA for a consolidated metropolitan statistical area also

is defined by the above rules, except that the New England portion

of the consolidated metropolitan statistical area which includes New

York City is used as the basis for defining a separate NECMA. No

NECMAs are defined for individual primary metropolitan statistical

areas.

The central cities of a NECMA are those cities in the NECMA that

qualify as central cities of a metropolitan statistical area or

consolidated metropolitan statistical area; some central cities may

not be included in any NECMA title.

The title of the NECMA includes each city in the NECMA that is

the first-named title city of a metropolitan area, in descending

order of metropolitan statistical area (or primary metropolitan

statistical area) total population. Other cities that appear in

metropolitan area titles are included only if the resulting NECMA

title would consist of no more than three names.

Levels for NECMAs are determined following section 6A of the

official metropolitan area standards.

Percentages, Densities, and Ratios. Percentages and densities

are computed to the nearest tenth (one decimal); ratios are computed

to the nearest one hundredth (two decimals); and comparisons between

them are made on that basis.

Populations. In general, the population data required by the

standards are taken from the most recent national census. However,

in certain situations either (1) the results of a special census

taken by the Bureau of the Census, or (2) a population estimate

published by the Bureau of the Census may be used to meet the

requirements of the standards (section 16).

Review of Cutoffs and Values. OMB has promulgated these

standards with the advice of the Federal Executive Committee on

Metropolitan Areas, following an open period of public comment.

After the 1990 decennial census data become available, the Federal

Executive Committee will review the census data and their

implications for the cutoffs and values used in the standards, and

will report to OMB the results of its review.

Definitions of Key Terms

Central Core--The counties (or cities and towns in New England)

that are eligible for initial delineation as primary metropolitan

statistical areas because they meet specified population and

commuting criteria.

City--The term ``city'' includes:

(a) Any place incorporated under the laws of its State as a

city, village, borough (except in Alaska), or town (except in the

New England States, New York, and Wisconsin). These comprise the

category of incorporated places recognized in Bureau of the Census

publications.

(b) In Hawaii, any place recognized as a census designated place

by the Bureau of the Census in consultation with the State

government; in Puerto Rico, any place recognized as a zona urbana or

a comunidad by the Bureau of the Census in consultation with the

Commonwealth government. (Hawaii and Puerto Rico do not have legally

defined cities corresponding to those of most States.)

(c) Any township in Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, or

Pennsylvania, and any town in the New England States, New York, or

Wisconsin, at least 90 percent of whose population is classified by

the Bureau of the Census as urban, provided it does not contain any

part of a dependent incorporated place.

Commuting Interchange--The commuting interchange between two

areas is the sum of the number of workers who live in either of the

areas but work in the other.

County--For purposes of the standards, the term ``county''

includes county equivalents, such as parishes in Louisiana and

boroughs and census areas (formerly census divisions) in Alaska.

Certain States contain cities that are independent of any county;

such independent cities in Maryland, Missouri, and Nevada are

treated as county equivalents for purposes of the standards.

In Virginia, where most incorporated places of more than 15,000

are independent of counties, the standards usually regard each such

city as included in the county from which it was originally formed,

or primarily formed. In certain exceptional cases, the city itself

is treated as a county equivalent, as follows:

(a) An independent city that has absorbed its parent county

(Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Suffolk, Virginia Beach); and

(b) An independent city associated with an urbanized area other

than the one with which its parent county is primarily associated

(for example, Colonial Heights).

A county included in a metropolitan area is either a central

(section 2), or an outlying (section 3) county. An outlying county

must be contiguous with a central county or with an outlying county

that has already qualified for inclusion.

Employment/Residence Ratio--This ratio is computed by dividing

the number of persons working in the city by the number of resident

workers with place of work reported. (These items are taken from the

most recent national census.) For example, a city with an equal

number of jobs and working residents has an employment/residence

ratio of 1.00.

Interim Area--An area that meets the requirements of sections 1

through 4, or sections 11 through 13, for metropolitan statistical

area qualification, which needs to be further examined to determine:

(1) if it qualifies for combination with any adjacent interim area,

(2) its final level, based on population; and (3) if the area has 1

million or more population, the identification of primary

metropolitan statistical areas, if any, and the preferences,

expressed through local opinion, for consolidated or individual

identity.

Largest Central City--The largest central city of a metropolitan

area is the central city with the greatest population at the time of

the initial metropolitan area designation. Once determined, the

largest central city will not be replaced until both its population

and the number of persons working within its limits are exceeded by

those of another city in the area.

Outcommuting--The number (or percent) or workers living in a

specified area, such as a city or a county, whose place of work is

located outside that area.

Qualifier Urbanized Area--The qualifier urbanized area(s) for a

metropolitan statistical area are:

1. The urbanized area that resulted in qualification under

section 1B or the urbanized area containing the city that resulted

in qualification under section 1A.

2. Any other urbanized area whose largest city is located in the

same county as the largest city of the urbanized area identified in

paragraph one above, or has a least 50 percent of its population in

that county.

Secondary Noncontiguous Urbanized Area--An additional urbanized

area within a metropolitan statistical area that has no common

boundary of more than a mile with the main urbanized area around

which the metropolitan statistical area is defined.

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area--The term used from 1959

to 1983 to describe the statistical system of metropolitan areas,

and the areas as individually defined. It was preceded by Standard

Metropolitan Area (SMA) from 1950 to 1959, and superseded by

Metropolitan Statistical Area in 1983. That term was adopted when

the current system formally recognizing consolidated metropolitan

statistical areas and their component primary metropolitan

statistical areas was put in place. The term Metropolitan Area (MA)

is used to describe the system and the areas collectively, but the

individual areas will retain the MSA, CMSA, and PMSA nomenclature.

Urban--The Bureau of the Census classifies as urban:

(a) The population living in urbanized areas; plus

(b) The population in other incorporated or census designated

places of at least 2,500 population at the most recent national

census.

Urbanized Area--An area defined by the Bureau of the Census

according to specific criteria, designed to include the densely

settled area around a large place. The definition is based primarily

on density rather than governmental unit boundaries. An urbanized

area must have a total population of at least 50,000. (See qualifier

urbanized area and secondary noncontiguous urbanized area).

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

Definitions''

May 5, 1994

M-94-22

MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

FROM: Leon E. Panetta

SUBJECT: Use of Metropolitan Area Definitions

On December 28, 1992, the Office of Management and Budget issued

revised metropolitan area (MA) definitions to reflect shifts in

population and other demographic changes that had occurred during

the preceding decade. At the time the revisions

[[Page 70561]]

were announced, we provided guidance (OMB Bulletin 93-05) to Federal

departments and agencies concerning the use of MA definitions for

statistical purposes.

During the past year, we have received a substantial number of

letters from Members of Congress, local government officials, and

others involved with administering various Federal programs. For the

most part, their correspondence has been related to nonstatistical

uses of the MA definitions in the allocation of Federal program

funds. Their concerns have highlighted the need to reiterate the

purposes for which OMB defines metropolitan areas and our advice

with respect to other uses agencies may make of these definitions.

The metropolitan area classification provides a nationally

consistent set of definitions suitable for collecting, tabulating,

and publishing Federal statistics. The definitions of metropolitan

areas are established and maintained solely for statistical

purposes. In periodically reviewing and revising the MA definitions,

OMB does not take into account or attempt to anticipate any

nonstatistical uses that may be made of the definitions, nor will

OMB modify the definitions to meet the requirements of any

nonstatistical program.

We recognize that some legislation specifies the use of

metropolitan areas for programmatic purposes, including allocating

Federal funds. For example, the Health Care Financing Administration

uses MAs to define labor market areas and gather hospital wage data

that are used in developing a hospital wage index for the labor

related portion of a hospital's standardized Medicare payment. The

Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development

Block Grant (CDBG) program targets 70 percent of CDBG funds to

``entitlement communities'' which include cities of 50,000 or more

or central cities of MAs. We will continue to work with the Congress

to clarify the foundations of the metropolitan area definitions and

the resultant, often unintended consequences of their use for

nonstatistical purposes.

In cases where there is no statutory requirement and an agency

elects to use the MA definitions in a nonstatistical program, it is

the sponsoring agency's responsibility to ensure that the

definitions are appropriate for such use. When an agency is

publishing for comment a proposed regulation that would use the MA

definitions for a nonstatistical purpose, the agency should seek

public comment on the proposed use of the MA definitions.

I would appreciate your sharing this information with others in

your department or agency.

Note: The latest version of OMB Bulletin 93-05, referenced

above, is OMB Bulletin No. 98-06, issued on June 23, 1998.

Appendix C--Summary of the Conference on New Approaches to Defining

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas

This conference, held on November 29-30, 1995 in Bethesda,

Maryland, constituted part of the Office of Management and Budget's

metropolitan area standards review that is to be completed by spring

2000. The conference provided an open forum for discussion of

proposed alternative approaches to defining metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas, as well as discussion of the current

metropolitan area standards. Presentations of findings from four

commissioned studies of alternative approaches to defining areas

were the centerpiece of the conference. Papers from these studies

were published in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas: New

Approaches to Geographical Definition, Population Division Working

Paper No. 12, Bureau of the Census.

Conference Points of General Agreement

The Federal Government should define standard

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

The metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas defined

should cover the entire territory of the United States and better

account for the full range of settlement patterns than do the

current, dichotomous metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan

residual.

Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas should be

defined according to the same set of rules for all parts of the

country.

A county-based set of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan

areas is necessary, but also there should be alternative, sub-county

unit-based areas.

Familiar components of settlement--including those

represented by today's metropolitan area definitions--should be in

evidence in a new system.

Conference Views on Major Questions

The conference explicitly addressed a list of major questions

that are fundamental to any set of areas defined by the Federal

Government. These same questions had been addressed in the

commissioned studies that were the centerpiece of the conference.

Presented here are summaries of the conference discussions of these

questions.

What should be the basic geographic units for defining areas?

There was strong consensus that there must be a county-based set of

defined areas for reasons of data availability, comparability, and

familiarity, but also there were comments favoring additional sets

of areas based on sub-county units for greater precision and special

purposes. There were suggestions that multiple sets of areas should

be provided, along with documentation on appropriate uses of those

sets. There also were suggestions that the Census Bureau and the

Office of Management and Budget should facilitate ``do-it-yourself''

definitions by making readily available as much small-area data as

possible.

What should be the criteria for aggregating the basic units?

Commuting data as obtained from the decennial census were regarded

as the best measure for defining areas by most individuals

addressing this question. Other data-including electronic media and

newspaper market penetration data, local traffic study data, and

wholesale distribution data-are available and usable for specific

purposes. Population and housing density data are useful for some

purposes within the definition task. Employment density also

received mention.

Should there be hierarchies or multiple sets of areas? As

already noted, there were comments favoring use of different

geographic units to define sets of areas that would be available for

different purposes. There also was discussion--without any clear

outcome--of classifying entities within a nationwide metropolitan/

nonmetropolitan definition framework into such categories as inner

city and suburban.

What kinds of areas should receive official recognition? Inner

city, suburban, and exurban all received mention as areas that

should be recognized within metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas,

but this issue was not fully addressed.

Should a new system provide nationwide territorial coverage?

There was strong agreement that the areas defined should cover the

Nation's entire territory.

Should the definition process follow strictly statistical rules

or allow a role for local opinion? There were reservations regarding

the usefulness of local opinion in a program of standard statistical

areas, but the majority view expressed was that soliciting local

opinion can serve a useful purpose, particularly in providing room

for accommodation on some issues of local significance without

threatening the integrity of the national system. The incorporation

of local opinion, two individuals noted, should come early in the

definition process.

What should be the frequency of updating? There was little

discussion of this topic, as the frequency of updating depends

heavily on decisions concerning basic geographic units, criteria for

aggregation, and data availability.

Should the Federal Government define metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas? The overall view was strongly in favor of

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas being defined, although a few

individuals seemed to support the idea of ceasing the Federal

Government's activity in this arena altogether. Areas defined by the

Federal Government offer to a wide community of data users the

advantage of direct data comparability, i.e., data from different

sources for areas with the same boundaries. This advantage may rise

in importance in the face of programs shifting to states. There also

were those who argued in favor of a standard set of areas on the

grounds that such areas were useful for non-statistical program

administration. Others noted that the absence of a standard set of

areas probably would produce competing sets of areas from different

Federal agencies.

[FR Doc. 98-33676 Filed 12-18-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P