Wednesday,
December 27, 2000
Part IX
Office of
Management and
Budget
Standards for Defining Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Statistical Areas; Notice
82228
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Notices
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
Standards for Defining Metropolitan
and Micropolitan Statistical Areas
AGENCY
: Executive Office of the
President, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs.
ACTION
: Notice of decision.
SUMMARY
: This Notice announces OMB’s
adoption of Standards for Defining
Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas. These new standards
replace and supersede the 1990
standards for defining Metropolitan
Areas. In arriving at its decision, OMB
accepted many of the recommendations
of the interagency Metropolitan Area
Standards Review Committee (the
Review Committee) as published in the
August 22, 2000 Federal Register. In
response to public comment, and with
the further advice of the Review
Committee, OMB modified the
recommended criteria for titling
Combined Statistical Areas, identifying
Principal Cities, and determining
Metropolitan Divisions. The new
standards appear at the end of this
Notice in Section D.
The Supplementary Information in
this Notice provides background
information on the standards (Section
A), a brief synopsis of the public
comments OMB received in response to
the August 22, 2000 Federal Register
notice (Section B), and OMB’s decisions
on the final recommendations of the
Review Committee (Section C).
The adoption of these new standards
will not affect the availability of Federal
data for geographic areas such as states,
counties, county subdivisions, and
municipalities. For the near term, the
Census Bureau will tabulate and publish
data from Census 2000 for all
Metropolitan Areas in existence at the
time of the census (that is, those areas
defined as of April 1, 2000).
EFFECTIVE DATE
: This Notice is effective
immediately. OMB plans to announce
definitions of areas based on the new
standards and Census 2000 data in
2003. Federal agencies should begin to
use the new area definitions to tabulate
and publish statistics when the
definitions are announced.
ADDRESSES
: Please send correspondence
about OMB’s decision to Katherine K.
Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10201 New Executive Office
Building, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503; fax: (202) 395–
7245.
Electronic Availability and Addresses:
This Federal Register notice, and the
three previous notices related to the
review of the Metropolitan Area
standards, are available electronically
from the OMB web site: http://
www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/fedreg/
index.html and from the Census Bureau
web site: http://www.census.gov/
population/www/estimates/masrp.html.
Federal Register notices also are
available electronically from the U.S.
Government Printing Office web site:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/
aces/aces140.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Suzann Evinger, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, (202) 395–
7315; or E-mail:
pop.frquestion@census.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
A. Background
The Metropolitan Area program has
provided standard statistical area
definitions for 50 years. In the 1940s, it
became clear that the value of
metropolitan data produced by Federal
agencies would be greatly enhanced if
agencies used a single set of geographic
definitions for the Nation’s largest
centers of population and activity. Prior
to that time, Federal agencies defined a
variety of statistical geographic areas at
the metropolitan level (including
‘‘metropolitan districts,’’ ‘‘industrial
areas,’’ ‘‘labor market areas,’’ and
‘‘metropolitan counties’’) using different
criteria applied to different geographic
units. Because of variations in
methodologies and the resulting
inconsistencies in area definitions, one
agency’s statistics were not directly
comparable with another agency’s
statistics for any given area. OMB’s
predecessor, the Bureau of the Budget,
led the effort to develop what were then
called ‘‘Standard Metropolitan Areas’’
in time for their use in the 1950 census
reports. Since then, comparable data
products for Metropolitan Areas have
been available. Because of the
usefulness of the Metropolitan Area
standards and data products, many have
asked that the standards take into
account more territory of the United
States. Extending the standard to
include the identification of
Micropolitan Statistical Areas responds
to those requests.
1. Concept and Uses
The general concept of a Metropolitan
Statistical Area or a Micropolitan
Statistical Area is that of an area
containing a recognized population
nucleus and adjacent communities that
have a high degree of integration with
that nucleus. The purpose of the
Standards for Defining Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Statistical Areas is to
provide nationally consistent
definitions for collecting, tabulating,
and publishing Federal statistics for a
set of geographic areas. To this end, the
Metropolitan Area concept has been
successful as a statistical representation
of the social and economic linkages
between urban cores and outlying,
integrated areas. This success is evident
in the continued use and application of
Metropolitan Area definitions across
broad areas of data collection,
presentation, and analysis. This success
also is evident in the use of statistics for
Metropolitan Areas to inform the debate
and development of public policies and
in the use of Metropolitan Area
definitions to implement and administer
a variety of nonstatistical Federal
programs. These last uses, however,
raise concerns about the distinction
between appropriate uses—collecting,
tabulating, and publishing statistics as
well as informing policy—and
inappropriate uses—implementing
nonstatistical programs and determining
program eligibility. OMB establishes
and maintains these areas solely for
statistical purposes.
In order to preserve the integrity of its
decision making with respect to
reviewing and revising the standards for
designating areas, OMB believes that it
should not attempt to take into account
or anticipate any public or private sector
nonstatistical uses that may be made of
the definitions. It cautions that
Metropolitan Statistical Area and
Micropolitan Statistical Area definitions
should not be used to develop and
implement Federal, state, and local
nonstatistical programs and policies
without full consideration of the effects
of using these definitions for such
purposes.
Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas—collectively called
Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs)—
should not serve as a general purpose
geographic framework for nonstatistical
activities and may or may not be
suitable for use in program funding
formulas. The Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Statistical Area Standards
do not equate to an urban-rural
classification; all counties included in
Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas and many other
counties contain both urban and rural
territory and populations. Programs that
base funding levels or eligibility on
whether a county is included in a
Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical
Area may not accurately address issues
or problems faced by local populations,
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Notices
82229
organizations, institutions, or
governmental units. For instance,
programs that seek to strengthen rural
economies by focusing solely on
counties located outside Metropolitan
Statistical Areas could ignore a
predominantly rural county that is
included in a Metropolitan Statistical
Area because a high percentage of the
county’s residents commute to urban
centers for work. Although the inclusion
of such a county in a Metropolitan
Statistical Area indicates the existence
of economic ties, as measured by
commuting, with the central counties of
that Metropolitan Statistical Area, it
may also indicate a need to provide
programs that would strengthen the
county’s rural economy so that workers
are not compelled to leave the county in
search of jobs.
Program designs that treat all parts of
a CBSA as if they were as urban as the
densely settled core ignore the rural
conditions that may exist in some parts
of the area. Under such programs,
schools, hospitals, businesses, and
communities that are separated from the
urban core by large distances or difficult
terrain may experience the same kinds
of challenges as their counterparts in
rural portions of counties that are
outside CBSAs. Although some
programs do permit large Metropolitan
Area counties to be split into ‘‘urban’’
and ‘‘rural’’ portions, smaller
Metropolitan Area counties also can
contain isolated rural communities.
Geographic information systems
technology has progressed significantly
over the past 10 years, making it
practical for government agencies and
organizations to assess needs and
implement appropriate programs at a
local geographic scale when
appropriate. OMB urges agencies,
organizations, and policy makers to
review carefully the goals of
nonstatistical programs and policies to
ensure that appropriate geographic
entities are used to determine eligibility
for and the allocation of Federal funds.
2. Evolution and Review of the
Metropolitan Area Standards
From the beginning of the
Metropolitan Area program, OMB has
reviewed the Metropolitan Area
standards and, if warranted, revised
them in the years preceding their
application to new decennial census
data. Periodic review of the standards is
necessary to ensure their continued
usefulness and relevance. Our current
review of the Metropolitan Area
standards—the Metropolitan Area
Standards Review Project—has been the
fifth such review. It has addressed, as a
first priority, user concerns with the
conceptual and operational complexity
of the standards as they have evolved
over the decades. Our three previous
Federal Register notices have discussed
this and other key concerns, as well as
major milestones of the review.
In the fall of 1998, OMB chartered the
Metropolitan Area Standards Review
Committee (the Review Committee). We
charged it with examining the 1990
Metropolitan Area standards in view of
work completed earlier in the decade
and providing recommendations for
possible changes to those standards. The
Review Committee included
representatives from the Bureau of the
Census (Chair), Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
Economic Research Service
(Agriculture), National Center for Health
Statistics, and, ex officio, OMB. The
Census Bureau provided research
support to the Review Committee.
This is the fourth and final Notice
pertaining to the Metropolitan Area
Standards Review Project. OMB
presented four alternative approaches to
defining statistical areas in a December
21, 1998 Federal Register notice,
‘‘Alternative Approaches to Defining
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan
Areas’’ (63 FR 70526–70561). That
Notice also included a discussion of the
evolution of the standards for defining
Metropolitan Areas as well as the
standards that were used to define
Metropolitan Areas during the 1990s.
OMB presented the Review
Committee’s initial recommendations in
an October 20, 1999 Federal Register
notice entitled, ‘‘Recommendations
From the Metropolitan Area Standards
Review Committee to the Office of
Management and Budget Concerning
Changes to the Standards for Defining
Metropolitan Areas’’ (64 FR 56628–
56644). OMB then published the Review
Committee’s final report and
recommendations for revised standards
in an August 22, 2000 Federal Register
notice entitled ‘‘Final Report and
Recommendations From the
Metropolitan Area Standards Review
Committee to the Office of Management
and Budget Concerning Changes to the
Standards for Defining Metropolitan
Areas’’ (65 FR 51060–51077). The final
recommendations presented in that
Notice reflected some of the concerns
raised in comments in response to the
Review Committee’s initial
recommendations.
3. Future Directions
a. Statistical Area Research Projects
Our review of the Metropolitan Area
standards over the past 10 years has
raised a number of issues and suggested
alternative approaches that warrant
continued research and consideration.
Ongoing research projects will improve
understanding of the Nation’s patterns
of settlement and activity and how best
to portray them. For example, Census
Bureau staff are investigating the
feasibility of developing a census tract
level classification to identify settlement
and land use categories along an urban-
rural continuum. The Economic
Research Service, in conjunction with
the Office of Rural Health Policy in the
Department of Health and Human
Services and the University of
Washington, has developed a
nationwide census tract level rural-
urban commuting area classification.
This classification is available from the
Economic Research Service web site:
http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/briefing/
rural/ruca/rucc.htm. These research
efforts may lead to pilot projects at the
Census Bureau or other agencies in the
future.
b. Review of the Relationship Between
Statistical Geographic Classifications
and Other Federal Programs
The review of the Metropolitan Area
standards also prompted comments
about the use of Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Statistical Area definitions
in the design and administration of
nonstatistical Federal programs and
funding formulas. Although this
relationship was not a criterion in
reviewing the standards, the Review
Committee and OMB recognize the
existence and importance of this
relationship. Comments received
throughout the review indicated a need
to distinguish more clearly between
using Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas to collect, tabulate, and
publish statistics that measure economic
and social conditions to inform public
policy, and the use of the area
definitions as a framework to determine
eligibility or allocate funds for
nonstatistical programs. Further, the
Review Committee and OMB, as well as
many commenters, recognize the need
to begin a collaborative, interagency
process that could result in the
development of geographic area
definitions that are appropriate for the
administration of nonstatistical
programs. Such a process could result in
the identification of existing geographic
area definitions and modifications to
them that are already in use by agencies
(for instance, there are at least six
definitions of ‘‘urban’’ or ‘‘urban place’’
currently in use by Federal agencies),
and in the development of guidelines
that explain appropriate use of specific
area definitions in various
82230
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Notices
circumstances. A longer-term goal of
such an effort could be the development
of one or more geographic area
classifications designed specifically for
use in the administration of
nonstatistical Federal programs or of
guidance for agencies that need to
define geographic areas appropriate for
use with specific programs.
B. Summary of Comments Received in
Response to the August 22, 2000
Federal Register Notice
The August 22, 2000 Federal Register
notice requested comment on the
Review Committee’s final
recommendations to OMB concerning
revisions to the standards for defining
Metropolitan Areas.
OMB received 1,672 comment letters
from individuals (1,483), municipalities
and counties (88), regional planning and
nongovernmental organizations (62),
Members of Congress (25), state
governments (13), and Federal agencies
(1). Of the 1,672 letters, 1,314 offered
comments regarding the Fort Worth,
Texas area; all of these letters dealt with
the identification of Metropolitan
Divisions within the Dallas-Fort Worth-
Arlington area and with the criteria for
titling Combined Areas. OMB also heard
concerns about the identification of
Metropolitan Divisions and Combined
Area titles from 141 other commenters
from around the country.
Thirty-two commenters expressed
concern about the potential effects of
the proposed changes to the
Metropolitan Area standards on
nonstatistical Federal programs. Eight
commenters were concerned about the
effect on programs oriented toward rural
areas, particularly if Micropolitan Areas
were not treated as ‘‘rural’’ for purposes
of Federal programs. Nine commenters
expressed concern about the impact of
the recommended standards on health-
related programs. Several commenters
suggested that OMB undertake research
on the programmatic impact of the
recommended standards. Others
suggested that OMB state more strongly
that it does not define Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Areas for use in
administering and determining
participation in Federal nonstatistical
programs.
Eight commenters addressed the
Review Committee’s recommendations
about the qualification requirements for
areas and central counties. Three
commenters supported the Review
Committee’s recommendation that areas
should qualify for CBSA status if a core
of sufficient size—a Census Bureau
defined urban cluster of at least 10,000
population or an urbanized area of at
least 50,000 population—was present.
Three commenters questioned the way
in which the recommended standards
would use urban clusters and urbanized
areas as cores to qualify central
counties, in particular when a core
crosses county lines but the portion of
the core in one county is not sufficient
to qualify that county as central.
OMB received six comments about
terminology in the proposed standards.
Three commenters expressed support
for the Review Committee’s
recommendation to retain the term
‘‘metropolitan’’ in reference to areas
containing at least one core of 50,000 or
more population. These commenters
also expressed support for the use of the
term ‘‘micropolitan’’ in reference to
areas containing cores of at least 10,000
and less than 50,000 population. Several
commenters expressed concern that the
term ‘‘Core Based Statistical Area’’
would not be popular among users; only
one commenter, however, supported
dropping the term. One commenter
favored using the terms ‘‘megapolitan’’
and ‘‘macropolitan’’ to distinguish
between areas containing cores of at
least one million and 50,000 population,
respectively, as discussed in the October
20, 1999 Federal Register notice.
Twenty-six commenters remarked on
the Review Committee’s
recommendations for identifying
categories of CBSAs. Five commenters
expressed support for the identification
of two categories of CBSAs—
metropolitan and micropolitan. Three
commenters opposed identification of
Micropolitan Areas because of the
potential, but as yet unknown, impact
such areas might have on the allocation
of funds to Metropolitan Areas. One
commenter expressed a similar concern
without opposing the identification of
Micropolitan Areas. Seven commenters
favored the qualification of any county
containing 100,000 or more population
as a Metropolitan Area. Two
commenters suggested that Combined
Areas should be treated as CBSAs and
that their component entities should be
treated as Metropolitan Divisions.
Twelve commenters remarked on the
Review Committee’s recommendation to
use the county as the geographic
building block for CBSAs. Four
commenters expressed support for the
continued use of counties as building
blocks. Three commenters expressed
support for the use of minor civil
divisions as building blocks for a
primary set of statistical areas in New
England. Five commenters expressed
concern about the use of counties as
building blocks, noting that some
geographically large counties may
contain populations that are not
integrated with the CBSA to which the
county qualifies. Several of these
comments referred specifically to
Douglas County, NV, which has
commuting ties with the South Lake
Tahoe area in the eastern end of El
Dorado County, CA. Populations in the
western end of El Dorado County,
however, are more closely aligned with
the Sacramento, CA area. When the
recommended standards were applied
to 1990 census data as a demonstration
of the standards, the South Lake Tahoe
area (El Dorado County, CA and Douglas
County, NV) qualified to merge with the
Sacramento area.
Forty-three commenters responded
regarding the recommended criteria for
qualifying outlying counties. Nearly all
commenters supported the use of
commuting data in determining the
qualification of outlying counties.
Thirteen of the commenters suggested
that other measures should be used in
addition to commuting. Six of these
commenters suggested including a
county in a Metropolitan Area if it is
part of that area’s metropolitan planning
organization for transportation planning
purposes. One commenter noted that
commuting to work is a less relevant
measure of interaction in areas that have
high percentages of retirees. Three
commenters suggested that commuting
is too simplistic and is an insufficient
measure of all social and economic
interactions between areas. One
commenter took issue with the specific
wording of the decennial census
questionnaire’s place of work question,
which was the basis of commuting data
used to define Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Areas under the standards
recommended by the Review
Committee. Nineteen commenters
specifically responded regarding the
commuting threshold used in qualifying
outlying counties. Three commenters
supported a 25 percent commuting
threshold for outlying county
qualification, as the Review Committee
recommended; one commenter
suggested reducing the threshold to less
than 25 percent, and another
specifically proposed a 20 percent
threshold. Eleven commenters favored a
15 percent commuting threshold for
outlying county qualification; these
commenters generally drew attention to
a particular county that did not qualify
at the 25 percent level. Three
commenters expressed general support
for the Review Committee’s
recommendations but did not mention a
specific commuting threshold.
OMB received 157 comments about
the recommendations for merging and
combining adjacent CBSAs. Nearly all
commenters supported the
recommendation to merge or combine
