Small Business Size Standards: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, 42211-42225 [2012-17442]
Download as PDF
42211
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
register in the CCR database and certify
in the Online Representations and
Certifications Application (ORCA) that
they are small at least once annually.
Therefore, businesses opting to
participate in those programs must
comply with CCR and ORCA
requirements. There are no costs
associated with either CCR registration
or ORCA certification. Changing size
standards alters the access to SBA’s
programs that assist small businesses,
but does not impose a regulatory burden
because they neither regulate nor
control business behavior.
4. What are the relevant Federal rules,
which may duplicate, overlap or
conflict with the rule?
Under § 3(a)(2)(C) of the Small
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(c),
Federal agencies must use SBA’s size
standards to define a small business,
unless specifically authorized by statute
to do otherwise. In 1995, SBA published
in the Federal Register a list of statutory
and regulatory size standards that
identified the application of SBA’s size
standards as well as other size standards
used by Federal agencies (60 FR 57988
(November 24, 1995)). SBA is not aware
of any Federal rule that would duplicate
or conflict with establishing size
standards.
However, the Small Business Act and
SBA’s regulations allow Federal
agencies to develop different size
standards if they believe that SBA’s size
standards are not appropriate for their
programs, with the approval of SBA’s
Administrator (13 CFR 121.903). The
Regulatory Flexibility Act authorizes an
Agency to establish an alternative small
business definition, after consultation
with the Office of Advocacy of the U.S.
Small Business Administration (5 U.S.C.
601(3)).
5. What alternatives will allow the
Agency to accomplish its regulatory
objectives while minimizing the impact
on small entities?
By law, SBA is required to develop
numerical size standards for
establishing eligibility for Federal small
business assistance programs. Other
than varying size standards by industry
and changing the size measures, no
practical alternative exists to the
systems of numerical size standards.
List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 121
Administrative practice and
procedure, Government procurement,
Government property, Grant programs—
business, Individuals with disabilities,
Loan programs—business, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, SBA proposes to amend part
13 CFR part 121 as follows:
PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 121
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 662,
and 694a(9).
2. In § 121.201, in the table, revise the
entries for ‘‘237210’’, and ‘‘Except’’
under entry ‘‘237990’’, to read as
follows:
§ 121.201 What size standards has SBA
identified by North American Industry
Classification System codes?
*
*
*
*
*
SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS BY NAICS INDUSTRY
NAICS
Codes
Size standards
in millions of
dollars
NAICS U.S. Industry title
*
237210
*
Except,
*
*
*
*
Land Subdivision ....................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
Dredging and Surface Cleanup Activities 2 ............................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
Size standards
in number of
employees
*
$25.5
*
2 30.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
code 237990—Dredging: To be considered small for purposes of Government procurement, a firm must perform at least 40 percent of
the volume dredged with its own equipment or equipment owned by another small dredging concern.
2 NAICS
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 28, 2012.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012–17440 Filed 7–17–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13 CFR Part 121
RIN 3245–AG36
Small Business Size Standards: Arts,
Entertainment, and Recreation
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jul 17, 2012
The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) proposes to
increase the small business size
standards for 17 industries in North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) Sector 71, Arts,
Entertainment, and Recreation. As part
of its ongoing comprehensive review of
all size standards, SBA has evaluated all
size standards in NAICS Sector 71 to
determine whether the existing size
standards should be retained or revised.
This proposed rule is one of a series of
proposed rules that examines size
standards of industries grouped by
NAICS Sector. SBA issued a White
Paper entitled ‘‘Size Standards
Methodology’’ and published a notice in
the October 21, 2009 issue of the
Federal Register that the document is
SUMMARY:
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
available on its Web site at
www.sba.gov/size for public review and
comments. The ‘‘Size Standards
Methodology’’ White Paper explains
how SBA establishes, reviews and
modifies its receipts based and
employee based small business size
standards. In this proposed rule, SBA
has applied its methodology that
pertains to establishing, reviewing and
modifying a receipts based size
standard.
SBA must receive comments to
this proposed rule on or before
September 17, 2012.
DATES:
You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 3245–AF36, by one of
the following methods: (1) Federal
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42212
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov; follow the
instructions for submitting comments;
or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:
Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Size
Standards Division, 409 Third Street,
SW., Mail Code 6530, Washington, DC
20416. SBA will not accept comments
submitted by email.
SBA will post all comments to this
proposed rule on www.regulations.gov.
If you wish to submit confidential
business information (CBI) as defined in
the User Notice at www.regulations.gov,
you must submit such information to
U.S. Small Business Administration,
Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Size
Standards Division, 409 Third Street,
SW., Mail Code 6530, Washington, DC
20416, or send an email to
sizestandards@sba.gov. Highlight the
information that you consider to be CBI
and explain why you believe SBA
should hold this information as
confidential. The SBA will review your
information and determine whether it
will make the information public.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jorge Laboy-Bruno, Economist, Size
Standards Division, (202) 205–6618 or
sizestandards@sba.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To
determine eligibility for Federal small
business assistance, SBA establishes
small business definitions (referred to as
size standards) for private sector
industries in the United States. SBA
uses two primary measures of business
size—average annual receipts and
average number of employees. SBA uses
financial assets, electric output, and
refining capacity to measure the size of
a few specialized industries. In
addition, SBA’s Small Business
Investment Company (SBIC), Certified
Development Company (504) and 7(a)
Loan Programs use either the industry
based size standards or net worth and
net income based alternative size
standards to determine eligibility for
those programs. At the start of the
current comprehensive size standards
review, there were 41 different size
standards covering 1,141 NAICS
industries and 18 sub-industry activities
(‘‘exceptions’’ in SBA’s Table of size
standards). Thirty-one of these size
standards were based on average annual
receipts, seven were based on average
number of employees, and three were
based on other measures.
Over the years, SBA has received
comments that its size standards have
not kept up with changes in the
economy, in particular the changes in
the Federal contracting marketplace and
industry structure. The last time SBA
conducted a comprehensive review of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
all size standards was during the late
1970s and early 1980s. Since then, most
reviews of size standards were limited
to a few specific industries in response
to requests from the public and Federal
agencies. SBA also makes periodic
inflation adjustments to its monetary
based size standards. The SBA’s latest
inflation adjustment to size standards
was published in the Federal Register
on July 18, 2008 (73 FR 41237).
Because of changes in the Federal
marketplace and industry structure
since the last overall review, SBA
recognizes that current data may no
longer support some of its existing size
standards. Accordingly, in 2007, SBA
began a comprehensive review of all
size standards to determine if they are
consistent with current data, and to
adjust them when necessary. In
addition, on September 27, 2010, the
President of the United States signed the
Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs
Act). The Jobs Act directs SBA to
conduct a detailed review of all size
standards and to make appropriate
adjustments to reflect market
conditions. Specifically, the Jobs Act
requires SBA to review at least one-third
of all size standards during every 18month period from the date of its
enactment and do a complete review of
all size standards not less frequently
than once every 5 years thereafter.
Reviewing existing small business size
standards and making appropriate
adjustments based on current data are
also consistent with Executive Order
13563 on improving regulation and
regulatory review.
Rather than review all size standards
at one time, SBA is reviewing a group
of industries within an NAICS Sector.
An NAICS Sector generally consists of
25 to 75 industries, except for the
manufacturing sector, which has
considerably more industries. Once SBA
completes its review of size standards
for industries in an NAICS Sector, it
will issue a proposed rule to revise size
standards for those industries for which
currently available data and other
relevant factors support doing so.
Below is a discussion of SBA’s size
standards methodology for establishing
receipts based size standards, which
SBA applied to this proposed rule,
including analyses of industry structure,
Federal procurement trends and other
factors for industries reviewed in this
proposed rule, the impact of the
proposed revisions to size standards on
Federal small business assistance, and
the evaluation of whether a revised size
standard would exclude dominant firms
from being considered small.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Size Standards Methodology
SBA has recently developed a ‘‘Size
Standards Methodology’’ for
establishing, reviewing and modifying
size standards when necessary. SBA has
published this document on its Web site
at www.sba.gov/size for public review
and comments and also included it, as
a supporting document, in the
electronic docket of this proposed rule
at www.regulations.gov. SBA does not
apply every feature of its methodology
to every size standard evaluation
because not all features are appropriate
for every industry. For example, since
all industries in NAICS Sector 71 have
receipts based size standards, the
methodology described in this proposed
rule applies to establishing receipts
based standards. However, the
methodology is made available in its
entirety for parties who are interested in
SBA’s overall approach to establishing,
evaluating, and modifying small
business size standards. SBA always
explains its analysis in individual
proposed and final rules relating to size
standards for specific industries.
SBA welcomes comments from the
public on a number of issues concerning
its ‘‘Size Standards Methodology,’’ such
as suggestions on alternative approaches
to establishing and modifying size
standards; whether there are alternative
or additional factors that SBA should
consider; whether SBA’s approach to
small business size standards makes
sense in the current economic
environment; whether SBA’s use of
anchor size standards is appropriate in
the current economy; whether there are
gaps in SBA’s methodology because of
the lack of comprehensive data; and
whether there are other facts or issues
that SBA should consider. Comments on
the SBA’s methodology should be
submitted via: (1) the Federal
eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov; the docket
number is SBA–2009–0008; follow the
instructions for submitting comments;
or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:
Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Size
Standards Division, 409 Third Street
SW., Mail Code 6530, Washington, DC
20416. As with comments received to
this and other proposed rules, SBA will
post all comments on its methodology
on www.regulations.gov. As of July 18,
2012, SBA has received 13 comments to
its ‘‘Size Standards Methodology.’’ The
comments are available to the public at
www.regulations.gov. SBA continues to
welcome comments on its methodology
from interested parties.
Congress granted discretion to SBA’s
Administrator to establish detailed
small business size standards. 15 U.S.C.
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
632(a)(2). Section 3(a)(3) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(3))
requires that ‘‘* * * the [SBA]
Administrator shall ensure that the size
standard varies from industry to
industry to the extent necessary to
reflect the differing characteristics of the
various industries and consider other
factors deemed to be relevant by the
Administrator.’’ Accordingly, the
economic structure of an industry serves
as the underlying basis for developing
and modifying small business size
standards. SBA identifies the small
business segment of an industry by
examining data on the economic
characteristics defining the industry
structure itself (as described below). In
addition to the analysis of an industry’s
structure, SBA also considers current
economic conditions, together with its
own mission, program objectives, and
the Administration’s current policies,
suggestions from industry groups and
Federal agencies, and public comments
on the proposed rule, when it
establishes small business size
standards. SBA also examines whether
a size standard based on industry and
other relevant data successfully exclude
businesses that are dominant in the
industry.
This proposed rule includes
information regarding the factors SBA
evaluated and the criteria the Agency
used to propose any adjustments to size
standards in NAICS Sector 71. It also
explains why SBA has proposed to
adjust some size standards in NAICS
Sector 71 but not others. This proposed
rule affords the public an opportunity to
review and comment on SBA’s
proposals to revise size standards in
NAICS Sector 71 as well as on the data
and methodology it uses to evaluate and
revise a size standard.
Industry Analysis
For the current comprehensive size
standards review, SBA has established
three ‘‘base’’ or ‘‘anchor’’ size
standards—$7.0 million in average
annual receipts for industries that have
receipts based size standards, 500
employees for manufacturing and other
industries that have employee based
size standards (except for Wholesale
Trade), and 100 employees for
industries in the Wholesale Trade
Sector. SBA established 500 employees
as the anchor size standard for
manufacturing industries at its
inception in 1953. Shortly thereafter,
SBA established $1 million in average
annual receipts as the anchor size
standard for nonmanufacturing
industries. SBA has periodically
increased the receipts based anchor size
standard for inflation, and it stands
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
today at $7 million. Since 1986, SBA
has set 100 employees as the size
standard for all industries in the
Wholesale Trade Sector for SBA’s
financial assistance programs. However,
NAICS codes for Wholesale Trade
Industries (NAICS Sector 42) and their
100 employee size standards for the
Wholesale Trade Sector do not apply to
Federal procurement programs. Rather,
for Federal procurement purposes the
size standard is 500 employees for all
industries in Wholesale Trade (NAICS
Sector 42), and for all industries in
Retail Trade (NAICS Sector 44–45)
under the SBA’s nonmanufacturer rule
(13 CFR 121.406(b)).
These long-standing anchor size
standards have stood the test of time
and gained legitimacy through practice
and general public acceptance. An
anchor size standard is neither a
minimum nor a maximum. It is a
common size standard for a large
number of industries that have similar
economic characteristics and serves as a
reference point in evaluating size
standards for individual industries. SBA
uses the anchor in lieu of trying to
establish precise small business size
standards for each industry. Otherwise,
theoretically, the number of size
standards might be as high as the
number of industries for which SBA
establishes size standards (1,141).
Furthermore, the data SBA analyzes are
static, but the U.S. economy is not.
Hence, absolute precision is impossible.
Therefore, SBA presumes an anchor size
standard is appropriate for a particular
industry unless that industry displays
economic characteristics that are
considerably different from others with
the same anchor size standard.
When evaluating a size standard, SBA
compares the economic characteristics
of the specific industry under review to
the average characteristics of industries
with one of the three anchor size
standards (referred to as the ‘‘anchor
comparison group’’). This allows SBA to
assess the industry structure and to
determine whether the industry is
appreciably different from the other
industries in the anchor comparison
group. If the characteristics of a specific
industry under review are similar to the
average characteristics of the anchor
comparison group, the anchor size
standard is considered appropriate for
that industry. SBA may consider
adopting a size standard below the
anchor when: (1) All or most of the
industry characteristics are significantly
smaller than the average characteristics
of the anchor comparison group; or (2)
other industry considerations strongly
suggest that the anchor size standard
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42213
would be an unreasonably high size
standard for the industry.
If the specific industry’s
characteristics are significantly higher
than those of the anchor comparison
group, a size standard higher than the
anchor size standard may be
appropriate. The larger the differences
are between the characteristics of the
industry under review and those of the
anchor comparison group, the larger
will be the difference between the
appropriate industry size standard and
the anchor size standard. To determine
a size standard above the anchor size
standard, SBA analyzes the
characteristics of a second comparison
group. For industries with receipts
based size standards, including those in
NAICS Sector 71 that are reviewed in
this proposed rule, SBA has developed
a second comparison group consisting
of industries with the highest levels of
receipts based size standards. To
determine the level of a size standard
above the anchor size standard, SBA
analyzes the characteristics of this
second comparison group. The size
standards for this group of industries
range from $23 million to $35.5 million
in average annual receipts, with the
weighted average size standard for the
group being $29 million. SBA refers to
this comparison group as the ‘‘higher
level receipts based size standard
group.’’
The primary factors that SBA
evaluates when analyzing the structural
characteristics of an industry include
average firm size, startup costs and
entry barriers, industry competition,
and distribution of firms by size. SBA
also evaluates, as an additional primary
factor, the possible impact that revising
size standards might have on Federal
contracting assistance to small
businesses. These are, generally, the five
most important factors SBA examines
when establishing or revising a size
standard for an industry. However, SBA
will also consider and evaluate other
information that it believes is relevant to
a particular industry (such as
technological changes, growth trends,
SBA’s financial assistance, other
program factors, etc.). SBA also
considers possible impacts of size
standard revisions on eligibility for
Federal small business assistance,
current economic conditions, the
Administration’s policies, and
suggestions from industry groups and
Federal agencies. Public comments on a
proposed rule also provide important
additional information. SBA thoroughly
reviews all public comments before
making a final decision on its proposed
size standard. Below are brief
descriptions of each of the five primary
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42214
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
factors that SBA has evaluated in each
industry in NAICS Sector 71 being
reviewed in this proposed rule. A more
detailed description of this analysis is
provided in the SBA’s ‘‘Size Standards
Methodology,’’ available at https://
www.sba.gov/size.
1. Average firm size. SBA computes
two measures of average firm size:
Simple average and weighted average.
For industries with receipts based size
standards, the simple average is the total
receipts of the industry divided by the
total number of firms in the industry.
The weighted average firm size is the
sum of weighted simple averages in
different receipts size classes, where
weights are the shares of total industry
receipts for respective size classes. The
simple average weighs all firms within
an industry equally, regardless of their
size. The weighted average overcomes
that limitation by giving more weight to
larger firms.
If the average firm size of an industry
under review is significantly higher
than the average firm size of industries
in the anchor comparison industry
group, this will generally support a size
standard higher than the anchor size
standard. Conversely, if the industry’s
average firm size is similar to or
significantly lower than that of the
anchor comparison industry group, it
will be a basis to adopt the anchor size
standard, or, in rare cases, a standard
lower than the anchor.
2. Startup costs and entry barriers.
Startup costs reflect a firm’s initial size
in an industry. New entrants to an
industry must have sufficient capital
and other assets to start and maintain a
viable business. If new firms entering a
particular industry have greater capital
requirements than firms in industries in
the anchor comparison group, this can
be a basis for establishing a size
standard higher than the anchor
standard. In lieu of data on actual
startup costs, SBA uses average assets as
a proxy measure to assess the levels of
capital requirements for new entrants to
an industry.
To calculate average assets, SBA
begins with the sales to total assets ratio
for an industry from the Risk
Management Association’s Annual
Statement Studies. The SBA then
applies these ratios to the average
receipts of firms in that industry. An
industry with a significantly higher
level of average assets than that of the
anchor comparison group is likely to
have higher startup costs; this in turn
will support a size standard higher than
the anchor. Conversely, if the industry
has a significantly smaller average assets
compared to the anchor comparison
group, the anchor size standard, or, in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
rare cases, one lower than the anchor,
may be appropriate.
3. Industry competition. Industry
competition is generally measured by
the share of total industry receipts
generated by the largest firms in an
industry. SBA generally evaluates the
share of industry receipts generated by
the four largest firms in each industry.
This is referred to as the ‘‘four-firm
concentration ratio,’’ a commonly used
economic measure of market
competition. SBA compares the fourfirm concentration ratio for an industry
under review to the average four-firm
concentration ratio for industries in the
anchor comparison group. If a
significant share of economic activity
within the industry is concentrated
among a few relatively large companies,
all else being equal, SBA will establish
a size standard higher than the anchor
size standard. SBA does not consider
the four-firm concentration ratio as an
important factor in assessing a size
standard if its value for an industry
under review is less than 40 percent.
For industries in which the four-firm
concentration ratio is 40 percent or
more, SBA examines the average size of
the four largest firms in determining a
size standard.
4. Distribution of firms by size. SBA
examines the shares of industry total
receipts accounted for by firms of
different receipts and employment size
classes in an industry. This is an
additional factor that SBA evaluates in
assessing competition within an
industry. If most of an industry’s
economic activity is attributable to
smaller firms, this would indicate that
small businesses are competitive in that
industry. This supports adopting the
anchor size standard. If most of an
industry’s economic activity is
attributable to larger firms, this would
indicate that small businesses are not
competitive in that industry. This
would support adopting a size standard
above the anchor.
Concentration among firms is a
measure of inequality of distribution. To
evaluate the degree of inequality of
distribution within an industry, SBA
computes the Gini coefficient by
constructing the Lorenz curve. The
Lorenz curve presents the cumulative
percentages of units (firms) along the
horizontal axis and the cumulative
percentages of receipts (or other
measures of size) along the vertical axis.
(For further detail, please refer to SBA’s
‘‘Size Standards Methodology’’ on its
Web site at www.sba.gov/size.) Gini
coefficient values vary from zero to one.
If an industry’s total receipts reflect
equal distribution among the industries,
the Gini coefficient will equal zero. If a
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
single firm accounts for an industry’s
total receipts, the Gini coefficient will
equal one.
SBA compares the Gini coefficient
value for an industry under review with
that for industries in the anchor
comparison group. If an industry shows
a higher Gini coefficient value than
industries in the anchor comparison
industry group this may, all else being
equal, warrant a higher size standard
than the anchor. Conversely, if an
industry shows a similar or lower Gini
coefficient than industries in the anchor
group, the anchor standard, or, in some
cases, a standard lower than the anchor,
may be adopted.
5. Impact on Federal contracting and
SBA’s loan programs. SBA examines the
possible impact a size standard change
may have on Federal small business
assistance. This most often focuses on
the share of Federal contracting dollars
awarded to small businesses in the
industry in question. In general, if the
small business share of Federal
contracting in an industry with
significant Federal contracting is
appreciably less than the small business
share of the industry’s total receipts,
there is justification for considering a
size standard higher than the existing
size standard. The disparity between the
small business Federal market share and
industry-wide small business share may
be due to various factors, such as
extensive administrative and
compliance requirements associated
with Federal contracts, different skill
sets required for Federal contracts as
compared to typical commercial
contracting work, and the size of
Federal contracts. These, and other
factors, will likely influence the type of
firms that compete for Federal contracts.
By comparing the Federal contracting
small business share with the industrywide small business share, SBA
includes in its size standards analysis
the latest Federal contracting trends.
This analysis may support a size
standard larger than the current size
standard.
SBA considers Federal contracting
trends in the size standards analysis
only if: (1) The small business share of
Federal contracting dollars is at least 10
percent lower than the small business
share of total industry receipts; and (2)
the amount of total Federal contracting
averages $100 million or more during
the latest three fiscal years. These
thresholds reflect a significant level of
contracting where a revision to a size
standard may have an impact on
contracting opportunities to small
businesses.
Besides the impact on small business
Federal contracting, SBA also evaluates
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the influence of a proposed size
standard on SBA’s loan programs. For
this, SBA examines the volume and
number of SBA’s guaranteed loans
within an industry and the size of firms
obtaining those loans. This allows SBA
to assess whether the existing or
proposed size standard for a particular
industry may restrict the level of
financial assistance to small firms. If the
analysis shows that current size
standards have impeded financial
assistance to small businesses, this can
support higher size standards. However,
if small businesses under current size
standards have been receiving
significant amounts of financial
assistance through SBA’s loan programs,
or if the businesses receiving SBA’s
financial assistance are much smaller
than the existing size standards, this
factor may not be considered in
determining the size standards.
Sources of Industry and Program Data
The SBA’s primary source of industry
data used in this proposed rule is a
special tabulation of the data from 2007
Economic Census (see www.census.gov/
econ/census07/) prepared by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau)
for the Agency. The special tabulation
provides SBA with data on the number
of firms, number of establishments,
number of employees, annual payroll,
and annual receipts of companies by
NAICS Sector (2-digit level), Subsector
(3-digit level), Industry Group (4-digit
level), Industry (6-digit level). These
data are arrayed by various classes of
firms’ size based on the overall number
of employees and receipts of the entire
enterprise (all establishments and
affiliated firms) from all industries. The
special tabulation enables SBA to
evaluate average firm size, the four-firm
concentration ratio, and distribution of
firms by various receipts and
employment size classes.
In some cases, where data were not
available due to disclosure prohibitions
in the Census Bureau’s tabulation, SBA
either estimated missing values using
available relevant data or examined data
at a higher level of industry aggregation,
such as at the NAICS 2-digit (Sector), 3digit (Subsector) or 4-digit (Industry
Group) level. In some instances, SBA
had to base its analysis only on those
factors for which data were available or
estimates of missing values were
possible.
To calculate average assets, SBA used
sales to total assets ratios from the Risk
Management Association’s Annual
Statement Studies, 2008–2010.
To evaluate Federal contracting
trends, SBA examined data on Federal
contract awards for fiscal years 2008–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
2010. The data are available from the
U.S. General Service Administration’s
Federal Procurement Data System—
Next Generation (FPDS–NG).
To assess the impact on financial
assistance to small businesses, SBA
examined data on its own guaranteed
loan programs for fiscal years 2008–
2010.
Data sources and estimation
procedures SBA uses in its size
standards analysis are documented in
detail in the SBA’s ‘‘Size Standards
Methodology’’ White Paper, which is
available at www.sba.gov/size.
Dominance in Field of Operation
Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. § 632(a)) defines a small
business concern as one that is: (1)
Independently owned and operated; (2)
not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) within a specific small business
definition or size standard established
by the SBA’s Administrator. SBA
considers as part of its evaluation
whether a business concern at a
proposed size standard would be
dominant in its field of operation. For
this, SBA generally examines the
industry’s market share of firms at the
proposed size standard. Market share
and other factors may indicate whether
a firm can exercise a major controlling
influence on a national basis in an
industry where a significant number of
business concerns are engaged. If a
contemplated size standard would
include a dominant firm, SBA would
consider a lower size standard to
exclude the dominant firm from being
defined as small.
Selection of Size Standards
To simplify size standards for the
ongoing comprehensive review of
receipts based size standards, SBA has
proposed to select size standards from a
limited number of levels. For many
years, SBA has been concerned about
the complexity of determining small
business status caused by a large
number of varying receipts based size
standards (see 69 FR 13130 (March 4,
2004) and 57 FR 62515 (December 31,
1992)). At the start of current
comprehensive size standards review,
there were 31 different levels of receipts
based size standards. They ranged from
$0.75 million to $35.5 million, and
many of them applied to one or only a
few industries. SBA believes that to
have so many different size standards
with small variations among them is
unnecessary and difficult to justify
analytically. To simplify managing and
using size standards, SBA proposes that
there be fewer size standard levels. This
will produce more common size
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42215
standards for businesses operating in
related industries. This will also result
in greater consistency among the size
standards for industries that have
similar economic characteristics.
SBA proposes, therefore, to apply one
of eight receipts based size standards to
each industry in NAICS Sector 71. The
eight ‘‘fixed’’ receipts based size
standard levels are $5 million, $7
million, $10 million, $14 million, $19
million, $25.5 million, $30 million, and
$35.5 million. To establish these eight
receipts based size standard levels, SBA
considered the current minimum, the
current maximum, and the most
commonly used current receipts based
size standards. At the start of the current
comprehensive size standards review,
the most commonly used receipts based
size standards clustered around the
following: $2.5 million to $4.5 million,
$7 million, $9 million to $10 million,
$12.5 million to $14.0 million, $25.0
million to $25.5 million, and $33.5
million to $35.5 million. SBA selected
$7 million as one of eight fixed levels
of receipts based size standards because
it is also an anchor standard for receipts
based standards. The lowest or
minimum receipts based size level will
be $5 million. Other than the size
standards for agriculture and those
based on commissions (such as real
estate brokers and travel agents), $5
million include those industries with
the lowest receipts based standards,
which ranged from $2 million to $4.5
million. Among the higher level size
clusters, SBA has set four fixed levels:
$10 million, $14 million, $25.5 million,
and $35.5 million. Because there are
large intervals between some of the
fixed levels, SBA also established two
intermediate levels: Namely, $19
million between $14 million and $25.5
million, and $30 million between $25.5
million and $35.5 million. These two
intermediate levels reflect roughly the
same proportional differences as
between the other two successive levels.
To simplify size standards further,
SBA may propose a common size
standard for closely related industries.
Although the size standard analysis may
support a separate size standard for each
industry, SBA believes that establishing
different size standards for closely
related industries may not always be
appropriate. For example, in cases
where many of the same businesses
operate in the same multiple industries,
a common size standard for those
industries might better reflect the
Federal marketplace. This might also
make size standards among related
industries more consistent than separate
size standards for each of those
industries. All industries in NAICS
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
42216
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Sector 71 currently have the common $7
million size standard. However, the
latest industry data neither supported
the current common $7 million nor a
different common size standard for all
industries within the Sector.
Furthermore, the industry specific
results showed too much variation to
support common size standards for
industries even at the 4-Digit NAICS
Industry Group level.
Evaluation of Industry Structure
SBA evaluated the structure of all 25
industries in NAICS Sector 71, Arts,
Entertainment and Recreation, to assess
the appropriateness of the current size
standards. As described above, SBA
compared data on the economic
characteristics of each industry in
NAICS Sector 71 to the average
characteristics of industries in two
comparison groups. The first
comparison group consists of all
industries with $7.0 million size
standards and is referred to as the
‘‘receipts based anchor comparison
group.’’ Because the goal of SBA’s size
standards review is to assess whether a
specific industry’s size standard should
be the same as or different from the
anchor size standard, this is the most
logical group of industries to analyze. In
addition, this group includes a
sufficient number of firms to provide a
meaningful assessment and comparison
of industry characteristics.
If the characteristics of an industry
under review are similar to the average
characteristics of industries in the
anchor comparison group, the anchor
size standard is generally considered
appropriate for that industry. If an
industry’s structure is significantly
different from industries in the anchor
group, a size standard lower or higher
than the anchor size standard might be
appropriate. The level of the new size
standard is based on the difference
between the characteristics of the
anchor comparison group and a second
industry comparison group. As
described above, the second comparison
group for receipts based size standards
consists of industries with the highest
receipts based size standards, ranging
from $23 million to $35.5 million. The
average size standard for this group is
$29 million. SBA refers to this group of
industries as the ‘‘higher level receipts
based size standard comparison group.’’
SBA determines differences in industry
structure between an industry under
review and the industries in the two
comparison groups by comparing data
on each of the industry factors,
including average firm size, average
assets size, the four-firm concentration
ratio, and the Gini coefficient of
distribution of firms by size. Table 1,
Average Characteristics of Receipts
Based Comparison Groups, below,
shows two measures of the average firm
size (simple and weighted), the average
assets size, the four-firm concentration
ratio, the average receipts of the four
largest firms, and the Gini coefficient for
both anchor level and higher level
comparison groups for receipts based
size standards.
TABLE 1—AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF RECEIPTS BASED COMPARISON GROUPS
Avg. firm size
($ million)
Avg. assets
size
($ million)
Receipts based comparison group
Simple
average
Anchor Level ............................................
Higher Level .............................................
1.32
5.07
Weighted
average
19.63
116.84
Four-firm
concentration
ratio
(%)
Avg. receipts
of four largest
firms
($ million) *
16.6
32.1
196.4
1,376.0
0.84
3.20
Gini
coefficient
0.693
0.830
* To be used for industries with a four-firm concentration ratio of 40% or greater.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Derivation of Size Standards Based on
Industry Factors
For each industry factor in Table 1,
Average Characteristics of Receipts
Based Comparison Groups, above, SBA
derives a separate size standard based
on the differences between the values
for the industry under review and the
values for the two comparison groups. If
the industry value for a particular factor
is near the corresponding factor for the
anchor comparison group, SBA will
consider the $7.0 million anchor size
standard appropriate for that factor.
An industry factor with a value
significantly above or below the anchor
comparison group will generally
warrant a size standard above or below
the $7.0 million anchor. The new size
standard in these cases is based on the
proportional difference between the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
industry value and the values for the
two comparison groups.
For example, if an industry’s simple
average receipts are $3.3 million, that
would support a $19 million size
standard. The $3.3 million level is 52.8
percent between the average firm size of
$1.32 million for the anchor comparison
group and $5.07 million for the higher
level comparison group (($3.30
million¥$1.32 million) ÷ ($5.07
million¥$1.32 million) = 0.528 or
52.8%). This proportional difference is
applied to the difference between the
$7.0 million anchor size standard and
average size standard of $29 million for
the higher level size standard group and
then added to $7.0 million to estimate
a size standard of $18.616 million
([{$29.0 million¥$7.0 million} * 0.528]
+ $7.0 million = $18.616 million). The
final step is to round the estimated
$18.616 million size standard to the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
nearest fixed size standard level, which
in this example is $19 million.
SBA applies the above calculation to
derive a size standard for each industry
factor. Detailed formulas involved in
these calculations are presented in the
SBA’s ‘‘Size Standards Methodology,’’
available on SBA’s Web site at
www.sba.gov/size. (However, note that
figures in the ‘‘Size Standards
Methodology’’ White Paper are based on
2002 Economic Census data and are
different from those presented in this
proposed rule. That is because when
SBA prepared its ‘‘Size Standards
Methodology,’’ the 2007 Economic
Census data were not yet available.)
Table 2, Values of Industry Factors and
Support Size Standards, below, shows
ranges of values for each industry factor
and the levels of size standards
supported by those values.
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
42217
TABLE 2—VALUES OF INDUSTRY FACTORS AND SUPPORTED SIZE STANDARDS
If
simple avg.
receipts size
($ million)
Or if
weighted avg.
receipts size
($ million)
Or if
avg.
assets size
($ million)
Or if
avg. receipts of largest
four firms
($ million)
Or if
Gini coefficient
<1.15 .............................
1.15 to 1.57 ...................
1.58 to 2.17 ...................
2.18 to 2.94 ...................
2.95 to 3.92 ...................
3.93 to 4.86 ...................
4.87 to 5.71 ...................
>5.71 .............................
<15.22 .........................
15.22 to 26.26 .............
26.27 to 41.73 .............
41.74 to 61.61 .............
61.62 to 87.02 .............
87.03 to 111.32 ...........
111.33 to 133.41 .........
>133.41 .......................
<0.73 ...........................
0.73 to 1.00 .................
1.01 to 1.37 .................
1.38 to 1.86 .................
1.87 to 2.48 .................
2.49 to 3.07 .................
3.08 to 3.61 .................
>3.61 ...........................
<142.8 .........................
142.8 to 276.9 .............
277.0 to 464.5 .............
464.6 to 705.8 .............
705.9 to 1,014.1 ..........
1,014.2 to 1,309.0 .......
1,309.1 to 1,577.1 .......
>1,577.1 ......................
<0.686 .........................
0.686 to 0.702 .............
0.703 to 0.724 .............
0.725 to 0.752 .............
0.753 to 0.788 .............
0.789 to 0.822 .............
0.823 to 0.853 .............
>0.853 .........................
Derivation of Size Standards Based on
Federal Contracting Factor
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Besides industry structure, SBA also
evaluates Federal contracting data to
assess how successful small businesses
are at obtaining Federal contracts under
current size standards. For the current
comprehensive size standards review,
SBA has decided to designate a size
standard at one level higher than the
current size standard for industries
where the small business share of total
Federal contracting dollars is 10 to 30
percentage points lower than the small
business share of total industry receipts
and at two levels higher than the current
size standard where the difference is
more than 30 percentage points.
Because of the complex relationships
among several variables affecting small
business participation in the Federal
marketplace, SBA has chosen not to
designate a size standard for the Federal
contracting factor alone that is higher
than two levels above the current size
standard. SBA believes that a larger
adjustment to size standards based on
Federal contracting activity should be
based on a more detailed analysis of the
impact of any subsequent revision to the
current size standard. In limited
situations, however, SBA may conduct
a more extensive examination of Federal
contracting experience. This may enable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
SBA to support a different size standard
than indicated by this general rule and
take into consideration significant and
unique aspects of small business
competitiveness in the Federal contract
market. SBA welcomes comments on its
methodology of incorporating the
Federal contracting factor in the size
standard analysis and suggestions for
alternative methods and other relevant
information on small business
experience in the Federal contract
market.
None of the 25 industries in NAICS
Sector 71 averaged $100 million or more
annually in Federal contracting during
fiscal years 2008–2010, suggesting that
Federal contracting activity is
insignificant in that Sector. In fact,
based on data for fiscal years 2008–
2010, Federal contracting for the entire
Sector was less than $90 million.
Accordingly, the Federal contracting
factor is not factored in to calculate the
new size standards for all industries in
NAICS Sector 71.
New Size Standards Based on Industry
Factors
Table 3, Size Standards Supported by
Each Factor for Each Industry (millions
of dollars), below, shows the results of
analyses of industry factors for each
industry in NAICS Sector 71. Many of
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Then
size standard
is
($ million)
5.0
7.0
10.0
14.0
19.0
25.5
30.0
35.5
the NAICS industries in columns 2, 3,
4, 6, and 7 show two numbers. The
upper number is the value for the
industry factor shown on the top of the
column and the lower number is the
size standard supported by that factor.
For the four-firm concentration ratio,
SBA estimates a size standard if its
value is 40 percent or more. If the fourfirm concentration ratio for an industry
is less than 40 percent, there is no
estimated size standard for that factor. If
the four-firm concentration ratio is more
than 40 percent, SBA indicates in
column 6 the average size of the
industry’s top four firms together with
a size standard based on that average.
As mentioned earlier, since the Federal
contracting factor was significant in
none of the industries in NAICS Sector
71, no size standard was estimated for
that factor. Column 8 shows a calculated
new size standard for each industry.
This is the average of the size standards
supported by each industry factor and
rounded to the nearest fixed size level.
Analytical details involved in the
averaging procedure are described in the
SBA’s ‘‘Size Standard Methodology.’’
For comparison with the new standards,
the current size standards are in column
9 of Table 3, Size Standards Supported
by Each Factor for Each Industry
(millions of dollars), below.
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Dance Companies ...................................
Musical Groups and Artists ......................
Other Performing Arts Companies ..........
Sports Teams and Clubs .........................
Race Tracks .............................................
Other Spectator Sports ............................
711120
711130
711190
711211
711212
711219
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
Historical Sites .........................................
Zoos and Botanical Gardens ...................
712120
712130
18JYP1
Amusement and Theme Parks ................
Amusement Arcades ................................
Casinos (except Casino Hotels) ..............
Other Gambling Industries .......................
Golf Courses and Country Clubs .............
Skiing Facilities ........................................
713110
713120
713210
713290
713910
713920
712190 Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions ......................................................................
Museums ..................................................
712110
711510 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers .................................................................
711410 Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers and Other Public Figures ......
711320 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports
and Similar Events without Facilities ...................
711310 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports
and Similar Events with Facilities ........................
Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters
1.1
5.0
30.5
35.5
0.7
5.0
67.0
35.5
5.6
30.0
1.9
10.0
6.6
35.5
0.6
5.0
2.0
10.0
0.7
5.0
5.1
30.0
1.4
7.0
1.6
10.0
4.2
25.5
$2.1
10.0
1.1
7.0
1.1
5.0
2.5
14.0
25.1
35.5
13.4
35.5
1.3
7.0
(2)
(1)
711110
Simple average firm size
($ million)
(3)
7.9
5.0
633.7
35.5
9.1
5.0
189.2
35.5
74.6
19.0
8.3
5.0
64.0
19.0
7.5
5.0
39.8
10.0
6.8
5.0
42.8
14.0
25.2
7.0
32.5
10.0
69.7
19.0
$28.0
10.0
15.1
5.0
16.0
7.0
227.4
35.5
152.4
35.5
162.3
35.5
20.1
7.0
Weighted average firm size
($ million)
(4)
3.1
30.0
8.2
35.5
36.6
35.5
0.6
5.0
54.4
35.5
12.7
35.5
6.8
35.5
5.7
35.5
26.8
35.5
11.8
35.5
1.3
10.0
$1.6
14.0
Average assets size
($ million)
[Millions of dollars]
(5)
41.9
6.6
18.4
15.9
16.5
70.7
29.5
19.1
18.7
11.8
3.1
16.8
24.8
37.6
14.5
30.5
7.5
64.6
6.8
23.1
14.7
Four-firm ratio
(%)
236.5
7.0
347.7
395.0
660.0
2,101.3
35.5
68.3
43.9
133.0
34.1
270.7
100.4
207.1
393.5
920.7
124.1
624.5
156.4
7.0
353.2
87.6
34.5
$252.7
(6)
Four-firm average size
($ million)
(7)
0.654
$5.0
0.926
$35.5
0.598
$5.0
0.638
$5.0
0.850
$30.0
0.640
$5.0
0.817
$25.5
0.581
$5.0
0.823
$30.0
0.634
$5.0
0.804
$25.5
0.736
$14.0
0.756
$19.0
0.852
$30.0
0.793
$25.5
0.738
$14.0
0.728
$14.0
0.867
$35.5
0.833
$30.0
0.886
$35.5
0.727
$14.0
Gini
coefficient
TABLE 3—SIZE STANDARDS SUPPORTED BY EACH FACTOR FOR EACH INDUSTRY
NAICS Code/industry title
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(8)
25.5
14.0
30.0
25.5
5.0
35.5
5.0
25.5
5.0
25.5
5.0
10.0
14.0
30.0
10.0
35.5
35.5
25.5
10.0
10.0
$19.0
Calculated
new size
standard
($ million)
(9)
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
$7.0
Current size
standard
($ million)
42218
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Marinas ....................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Bowling Centers .......................................
713940
713950
713990 All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries .................................................................
Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
713930
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
0.5
5.0
1.0
5.0
0.8
5.0
0.9
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.3
5.0
18.2
7.0
22.8
7.0
0.4
5.0
1.4
14.0
0.8
7.0
0.8
7.0
5.7
22.1
15.5
3.0
105.0
188.0
831.8
30.7
0.499
$5.0
0.538
$5.0
0.711
$10.0
0.543
$5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
42219
42220
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Evaluation of SBA Loan Data
Before deciding on an industry’s size
standard, SBA also considers the impact
of new or revised standards on SBA’s
loan programs. Accordingly, SBA
examined its 7(a) and 504 Loan Program
data for fiscal years 2008–2010 to assess
whether the existing or proposed size
standards need further adjustments to
ensure credit opportunities for small
businesses through those programs. For
the industries reviewed in this rule, the
data show that it is mostly small
businesses much smaller than the
current size standards that use the
SBA’s 7(a) and 504 loans. Therefore, no
size standard in NAICS Sector 71, Arts,
Entertainment, and Recreation, needs an
adjustment based on this factor.
Proposed Changes to Size Standards
Table 4, Summary of Size Standards
Analysis, below, summarizes the results
of SBA analyses of size standards from
Table 3, Size Standards Supported by
Each Factor for Each Industry (millions
of dollars), above. The results support
increases in size standards in 17
industries, decreases in five industries,
and no change in three industries.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF SIZE STANDARDS ANALYSIS
NAICS Industry
code
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
711110
711120
711130
711190
711211
711212
711219
711310
711320
711410
711510
712110
712120
712130
712190
713110
713120
713210
713290
713910
713920
713930
713940
713950
713990
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters ................................................................................
Dance Companies ....................................................................................................................
Musical Groups and Artists ......................................................................................................
Other Performing Arts Companies ...........................................................................................
Sports Teams and Clubs ..........................................................................................................
Race Tracks ..............................................................................................................................
Other Spectator Sports .............................................................................................................
Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports and Similar Events with Facilities ................................
Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports and Similar Events without Facilities ...........................
Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers and Other Public Figures ...............
Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers ..........................................................................
Museums ..................................................................................................................................
Historical Sites ..........................................................................................................................
Zoos and Botanical Gardens ....................................................................................................
Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions .............................................................................
Amusement and Theme Parks .................................................................................................
Amusement Arcades ................................................................................................................
Casinos (except Casino Hotels) ...............................................................................................
Other Gambling Industries ........................................................................................................
Golf Courses and Country Clubs .............................................................................................
Skiing Facilities .........................................................................................................................
Marinas .....................................................................................................................................
Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers ................................................................................
Bowling Centers ........................................................................................................................
All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries .....................................................................
However, lowering small business
size standards is not in the best interest
of small businesses in the current
economic environment. The U.S.
economy was in recession from
December 2007 to June 2009, the longest
and deepest of any recessions since
World War II. The economy lost more
than eight million non-farm jobs during
2008–2009. In response, Congress
passed and the President signed into
law the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery
Act) to promote economic recovery and
to preserve and create jobs. Although
the recession officially ended in June
2009, the unemployment rate is still
high at 8.2 percent in June 2012 and is
forecast to remain around this level at
least through the end of 2012. More
recently, Congress passed and the
President signed the Small Business
Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs Act) to promote
small business job creation. The Jobs
Act puts more capital into the hands of
entrepreneurs and small business
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Current size
standard
($ million)
NAICS Industry title
18:29 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
owners; strengthens small businesses’
ability to compete for contracts;
includes recommendations from the
President’s Task Force on Federal
Contracting Opportunities for Small
Business; creates a better playing field
for small businesses; promotes small
business exporting, building on the
President’s National Export Initiative;
expands training and counseling; and
provides $12 billion in tax relief to help
small businesses invest in their firms
and create jobs.
Reducing size standards based solely
on analytical results would decrease the
number of firms that could participate
in Federal financial and procurement
assistance for small businesses. That
would run counter to what SBA and the
Federal government are doing to help
small businesses. Reducing size
eligibility for Federal procurement
opportunities, especially under current
economic conditions, would not
preserve or create more jobs; rather, it
would have the opposite effect.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Calculated
new size
standard
($ million)
$19.0
10.0
10.0
25.5
35.5
35.5
10.0
30.0
14.0
10.0
5.0
25.5
5.0
25.5
5.0
35.5
5.0
25.5
30.0
14.0
25.5
7.0
7.0
7.0
5.0
Therefore, in this proposed rule, SBA
has decided not to propose reducing the
size standards for any industries. For
industries where analyses might seem to
support lowering size standards, SBA
proposes to retain the current size
standards. As stated previously, the
Small Business Act requires the
Administrator to ‘‘* * * consider other
factors deemed to be relevant * * *’’ to
establishing small business size
standards. The current economic
conditions and the impact on job
creation are quite relevant to
establishing small business size
standards. SBA, nevertheless, invites
comments and suggestions on whether
it should lower size standards as
suggested by analyses of industry and
program data or retain the current
standards for those industries in view of
current economic conditions.
As discussed above, SBA has decided
that lowering small business size
standards would be inconsistent with
what the Federal government is doing to
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
stimulate the economy and encourage
job growth through the Recovery Act
and the Jobs Act. Therefore, for those
five industries for which analyses
suggested decreasing their size
standards, SBA proposes to retain the
current size standards. Thus, of the 25
industries in NAICS Sector 71 that were
reviewed in this proposed rule, SBA
proposes to increase size standards for
17 industries and retain the current size
standards for eight industries. Industries
for which SBA has proposed to increase
their size standards and proposed size
standards are in Table 5, Summary of
Proposed Size Standard Revisions,
below.
In addition, not lowering size
standards in NAICS Sector 71 is
consistent with SBA’s prior actions for
NAICS Sector 44–45 (Retail Trade),
NAICS Sector 72 (Accommodation and
Food Services), and NAICS Sector 81
(Other Services) that the Agency
proposed (74 FR 53924, 74 FR 53913,
and 74 FR 53941, (October 21, 2009))
and adopted in its final rules (75 FR
61597, 75 FR 61604, and 75 FR 61591,
(October 6, 2010)). It is also consistent
with the Agency’s recently issued
proposed rule (76 FR 14323 (March 16,
2011)) and final rule (77 FR 7490
(February 10, 2012)) for NAICS Sector
54, Professional, Scientific and
Technical Services, and proposed rules
for NAICS Sector 54, Professional,
Technical, and Scientific Services (76
FR 14323 (March 16, 2011)), NAICS
Sector 48–49, Transportation and
Warehousing (76 FR 27935 (May 13,
2011)), NAICS Sector 51, Information
(76 FR 63216 (October 12, 2011)),
42221
NAICS Sector 56, Administrative and
Support, Waste Management and
Remediation Services (76 FR 63510
(October 12, 2011)), NAICS Sector 61,
Educational Services (76 FR 70667
(November 15, 2011)), and NAICS
Sector 53, Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing (76 FR 70680 (November 15,
2011)). In each of those final and
proposed rules, SBA opted not to reduce
small business size standards, for the
same reasons it has provided above in
this proposed rule. On those proposed
rules, SBA received very few comments
stating that the lower size standard
should be adopted rather than retaining
the current size standard. In those cases,
SBA carefully evaluated those
comments along with others received on
that industry’s size standard before
making a final decision.
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SIZE STANDARD REVISIONS
NAICS Code
711110
711120
711130
711190
711211
711212
711219
711310
711320
711410
712110
712130
713110
713210
713290
713910
713920
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters ................................................................................
Dance Companies ....................................................................................................................
Musical Groups and Artists ......................................................................................................
Other Performing Arts Companies ...........................................................................................
Sports Teams and Clubs ..........................................................................................................
Race Tracks ..............................................................................................................................
Other Spectator Sports .............................................................................................................
Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports and Similar Events with Facilities ................................
Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports and Similar Events without Facilities ...........................
Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers and Other Public Figures ...............
Museums ..................................................................................................................................
Zoos and Botanical Gardens ....................................................................................................
Amusement and Theme Parks .................................................................................................
Casinos (except Casino Hotels) ...............................................................................................
Other Gambling Industries ........................................................................................................
Golf Courses and Country Clubs .............................................................................................
Skiing Facilities .........................................................................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Evaluation of Dominance in Field of
Operation
SBA has determined that for the
industries in NAICS Sector 71, Arts,
Entertainment, and Recreation, for
which it has proposed to increase size
standards, no firm at or below the
proposed size standard is large enough
to dominate its field of operation. At the
proposed size standards, if adopted, the
small business shares of total industry
receipts among those industries vary
from less than 0.1 percent to 2.4
percent, with an average of 0.5 percent.
These levels of market share effectively
preclude a firm at or below the
proposed size standards from exerting
control on its industry.
Request for Comments
SBA invites public comments on the
proposed rule, especially on the
following issues.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Current size
standard
($ million)
NAICS Industry title
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
1. To simplify size standards, SBA
proposes eight fixed size levels for
receipts based size standards: $5
million, $7 million, $10 million, $14
million, $19 million, $25.5 million, $30
million, and $35.5 million. SBA invites
comments on whether simplification of
size standards in this way is necessary
and if these proposed fixed size levels
are appropriate. SBA welcomes
suggestions on alternative approaches to
simplifying small business size
standards.
2. SBA seeks feedback on whether the
proposed levels of size standards are
appropriate given the economic
characteristics of each industry. SBA
also seeks feedback and suggestions on
alternative size standards, if they would
be more appropriate, including whether
an employee based size standard for
certain industries or exceptions is a
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Proposed size
standard
($ million)
$19.0
10.0
10.0
25.5
35.5
35.5
10.0
30.0
14.0
10.0
25.5
25.5
35.5
25.5
30.0
14.0
25.5
more suitable measure of size, and if so,
what that employee level should be.
3. The SBA’s proposed size standards
are based on its evaluation of five
primary factors: Average firm size,
average assets size (a proxy for startup
costs and entry barriers), four-firm
concentration ratio, distribution of firms
by size, and the level and small business
share of Federal contracting dollars.
SBA welcomes comments on these
factors and/or suggestions on other
factors that it should consider in
assessing industry characteristics when
evaluating or revising size standards.
SBA also seeks information on relevant
data sources, if available, that it should
consider.
4. SBA gives equal weight to each of
the five primary factors for all
industries. SBA seeks feedback on
whether it should continue to give equal
weight to each factor or whether it
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42222
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
should give more weight to one or more
factors for certain industries.
Recommendations to weigh some
factors more than others should include
suggestions on specific weights for each
factor for those industries along with
supporting information.
5. For some industries, based on
evaluation of industry data, SBA
proposes to increase the existing size
standards by a large amount (such as
NAICS 711211, 711212, 711310,
713110, and 713290), while for others
the proposed increases are modest. SBA
seeks feedback on whether it should, as
a policy, limit the increase to a size
standard and/or whether it should, as a
policy, establish minimum or maximum
values for its size standards. SBA seeks
suggestions on appropriate levels of
changes to size standards and on their
minimum or maximum levels.
6. For industries for which the
analytical results would support
lowering their current size standards,
SBA has proposed to retain the current
size standards. SBA invites comments
and suggestions on whether it should
lower size standards as suggested by
analyses of industry and program data
or retain the current size standards for
those industries in view of current
economic conditions and other relevant
factors.
7. To simplify size standards, SBA has
established or proposed common size
standards for closely related industries
in other NAICS Sectors. Based on SBA’s
analysis of the industry data, too much
variation exists among the industries in
NAICS Sector 71 to propose a common
size standard for most industries.
Therefore, for industries reviewed in
this proposed rule, SBA has proposed
size standards based on an analysis of
each specific industry. SBA welcomes
comments on whether it should adopt
common size standards for certain
industries in NAICS Sector 71, and if so,
how those industries are related in a
way to require a common size standard.
8. For analytical simplicity and
efficiency, in this proposed rule, SBA
has refined its size standard
methodology to obtain a single value as
a proposed size standard instead of a
range of values, as seen in its past size
regulations. SBA welcomes any
comments on this procedure and
suggestions on alternative methods.
Public comments on the above issues
are very valuable to SBA for validating
its size standards methodology and its
proposed revisions to size standards in
this proposed rule. This will help SBA
to move forward with its review of size
standards for other NAICS Sectors.
Commenters addressing size standards
for a specific industry or a group of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
industries should include relevant data
and/or other information supporting
their comments. If comments relate to
using size standards for Federal
procurement programs, SBA suggests
that commenters provide information on
the size of contracts awarded, the size
of businesses that can undertake the
contracts, start-up costs, equipment and
other asset requirements, the amount of
subcontracting, other direct and indirect
costs associated with the contracts, the
use of mandatory sources of supply for
products and services, and the degree to
which contractors can mark up those
costs.
Compliance With Executive Orders
12866, 13563, 12988 and 13132, the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612)
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this
proposed rule is a ‘‘significant’’
regulatory action for purposes of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
the next section contains SBA’s
Regulatory Impact Analysis. This is not
a ‘‘major rule,’’ however, under the
Congressional Review Act, (5 U.S.C.
800).
Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Is there a need for the regulatory
action?
SBA believes that the proposed size
standards revisions for a number of
industries in NAICS Sector 71, Arts,
Entertainment, and Recreation, will
better reflect the economic
characteristics of small businesses and
the Federal government marketplace.
The SBA’s mission is to aid and assist
small businesses through a variety of
financial, procurement, business
development, and advocacy programs.
To assist the intended beneficiaries of
these programs, SBA must establish
distinct definitions of which businesses
are deemed small businesses. The Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a))
delegates to SBA’s Administrator the
responsibility for establishing small
business definitions. The Act also
requires that small business definitions
vary to reflect industry differences. The
recently enacted Small Business Jobs
Act also requires SBA to review all size
standards and make necessary
adjustments to reflect market
conditions. The supplementary
information section of this proposed
rule explains SBA’s methodology for
analyzing a size standard for a particular
industry.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. What are the potential benefits and
costs of this regulatory action?
The most significant benefit to
businesses obtaining small business
status because of this rule is gaining
eligibility for Federal small business
assistance programs. These include
SBA’s financial assistance programs,
economic injury disaster loans, and
Federal procurement programs intended
for small businesses. Federal
procurement programs provide targeted
opportunities for small businesses
under SBA’s business development
programs, such as 8(a), Small
Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB), small
businesses located in Historically
Underutilized Business Zones
(HUBZone), women-owned small
businesses (WOSB), and servicedisabled veteran-owned small business
concerns (SDVO SBC). Federal agencies
may also use SBA’s size standards for a
variety of other regulatory and program
purposes. These programs assist small
businesses to become more
knowledgeable, stable, and competitive.
In the 17 industries for which SBA has
proposed increasing size standards, SBA
estimates that about 1,450 additional
firms will obtain small business status
and become eligible for these programs.
That number is 1.3 percent of the total
number of firms that are classified as
small under the current standards in all
25 industries in NAICS Sector 71
covered by this proposed rule. If
adopted as proposed, this would
increase the small business share of
total industry receipts in those
industries from about 35 percent under
the current size standards to 43 percent.
Three groups will benefit from these
proposed size standards, if they are
adopted as proposed: (1) Some
businesses that are above the current
size standards will gain small business
status under the higher size standards,
thereby enabling them to participate in
Federal small business assistance
programs; (2) growing small businesses
that are close to exceeding the current
size standards will be able to retain their
small business status under the higher
size standards, thereby enabling them to
continue their participation in the
programs; and (3) Federal agencies will
have a larger pool of small businesses
from which to draw for their small
business procurement programs.
During fiscal years 2008–2010, 45
percent of Federal contracting dollars
spent in all industries in NAICS Sector
71 were accounted for by the 17
industries for which SBA has proposed
to increase size standards. Given the
limited Federal contracting activity in
that Sector, proposed revisions would
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
have minimal impacts on small business
contracting opportunities. SBA
estimates that additional firms gaining
small business status under the
proposed size standards could
potentially obtain Federal contracts
totaling up to $5 million annually under
SBA’s small business, 8(a), SDB,
HUBZone, WOSB and SDVO SBC
Programs, and other unrestricted
procurements. The added competition
for many of these procurements could
also result in lower prices to the
Government for procurements reserved
for small businesses, although SBA
cannot quantify this benefit.
Under SBA’s 7(a) Business and 504
Loan Programs, based on the 2008–2010
data, SBA estimates that about 15 to 20
additional loans totaling about $4
million to $6 million in Federal loan
guarantees could be made to these
newly defined small businesses under
the proposed size standards. Increasing
the size standards will likely result in
more small business guaranteed loans to
businesses in these industries, but it
would be impractical to try to estimate
their exact number and total amount
loaned. Under the Jobs Act, SBA can
now guarantee substantially larger loans
than in the past. In addition, the Jobs
Act established an alternative size
standard ($15 million in tangible net
worth and $5 million in net income
after income taxes) for business
concerns that do not meet the size
standards for their industry. Therefore,
SBA finds it similarly difficult to
quantify the exact impact of these
proposed size standards on its 7(a) and
504 Loan Programs.
Newly defined small businesses will
also benefit from SBA’s Economic Injury
Disaster Loan (EIDL) Program. Since this
program is contingent on the occurrence
and severity of a disaster, SBA cannot
make a meaningful estimate of benefits
for future disasters.
To the extent that those 1,450 newly
defined additional small firms could
become active in Federal procurement
programs, the proposed changes, if
adopted, may entail some additional
administrative costs to the Federal
Government associated with additional
bidders for Federal small business
procurement opportunities; additional
firms seeking SBA guaranteed lending
programs; additional firms eligible for
enrollment in the Central Contractor
Registration’s (CCR) Dynamic Small
Business Search database; and
additional firms seeking certification as
8(a) or HUBZone firms or qualifying for
small business, WOSB, SDVO SBC, or
SDB status. Among those newly defined
small businesses seeking SBA
assistance, there could be some
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
additional costs associated with
compliance and verification of small
business status and protests of small
business status. These added costs will
be minimal because mechanisms are
already in place to handle these
administrative requirements.
Additionally, the costs to the Federal
Government may be higher on some
Federal contracts. With a greater
number of businesses defined as small,
Federal agencies may choose to set aside
more contracts for competition among
small businesses rather than using full
and open competition. The movement
from unrestricted to small business setaside contracting might result in
competition among fewer total bidders,
although there will be more small
businesses eligible to submit offers.
However, the additional costs associated
with fewer bidders are expected to be
minor since, as a matter of law,
procurements may be set aside for small
businesses or reserved for the 8(a),
HUBZone, WOSB, or SDVO SBC
Programs only if awards are expected to
be made at fair and reasonable prices. In
addition, higher costs may result when
more full and open contracts are
awarded to HUBZone businesses that
receive price evaluation preferences.
The proposed size standards may
have distributional effects among large
and small businesses. Although SBA
cannot estimate with certainty the
actual outcome of the gains and losses
among small and large businesses, it can
identify several probable impacts. There
may be a transfer of some Federal
contracts to small businesses from large
businesses. Large businesses may have
fewer Federal contract opportunities as
Federal agencies decide to set aside
more Federal contracts for small
businesses. In addition, some Federal
contracts may be awarded to HUBZone
concerns instead of large businesses
since those firms may be eligible for a
price evaluation preference for contracts
when they compete on a full and open
basis. Similarly, currently defined small
businesses may obtain fewer Federal
contracts due to the increased
competition from more businesses
defined as small. This transfer may be
offset by a greater number of Federal
procurements set aside for all small
businesses. The number of newly
defined and expanding small businesses
that are willing and able to sell to the
Federal Government will limit the
number of contracts transferred from
large and from currently defined small
businesses. SBA cannot estimate the
potential distributional impacts of these
transfers with any degree of precision.
The proposed revisions to the existing
size standards for Industries in NAICS
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42223
Sector 71, Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation, are consistent with SBA’s
statutory mandate to assist small
business. This regulatory action
promotes the Administration’s
objectives. One of SBA’s goals in
support of the Administration’s
objectives is to help individual small
businesses succeed through fair and
equitable access to capital and credit,
Government contracts, and management
and technical assistance. Reviewing and
modifying size standards, when
appropriate, ensures that intended
beneficiaries have access to the small
business programs designed to assist
them.
Executive Order 13563
A description of the need for this
regulatory action and benefits and costs
associated with this action, including
possible distributions impacts that
relate to Executive Order 13563 is
included above in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis under Executive Order 12866.
In an effort to engage interested
parties in this action, SBA presented its
size standards methodology (discussed
above under Supplementary
Information) to various industry
associations and trade groups. SBA also
met with representatives from various
industry groups and individual
businesses to obtain their feedback on
its methodology and other size
standards issues. SBA also presented its
size standards methodology to
businesses in 13 cities in the U.S. and
sought their input as part of the Jobs Act
tours. The presentation also included
information on latest status of the
comprehensive size standards review
and on how interested parties can
provide SBA with input and feedback
on size standards review.
Additionally, SBA sent letters to the
Directors of the Offices of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization
(OSDBU) at several Federal agencies
with considerable procurement
responsibilities requesting their
feedback on how the agencies use SBA
size standards and whether current
standards meet their programmatic
needs (both procurement and nonprocurement). SBA gave appropriate
consideration to all input, suggestions,
recommendations, and relevant
information obtained from industry
groups, individual businesses, and
Federal agencies in preparing this
proposed rule.
The review of size standards in
NAICS Sector 71, Arts, Entertainment,
and Recreation, is consistent with EO
13563, Section 6 calling for
retrospective analyses of existing rules.
As discussed previously, the last overall
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
42224
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
review of size standards occurred
during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Since then, except for periodic
adjustments for monetary based size
standards, most reviews of size
standards were limited to a few specific
industries in response to requests from
the public and Federal agencies. SBA
recognizes that changes in industry
structure and the Federal marketplace
over time have rendered existing size
standards for some industries no longer
supportable by current data.
Accordingly, in 2007, SBA began a
comprehensive review of its size
standards to ensure that existing size
standards have supportable bases and to
revise them when necessary. In
addition, on September 27, 2010, the
President of the United States signed the
Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs
Act). The Jobs Act directs SBA to
conduct a detailed review of all size
standards and to make appropriate
adjustments to reflect market
conditions. Specifically, the Jobs Act
requires SBA to conduct a detailed
review of at least one-third of all size
standards during every 18-month period
from the date of its enactment and do a
complete review of all size standards
not less frequently than once every
5 years thereafter.
Executive Order 12988
This action meets applicable
standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden. The action does not have
retroactive or preemptive effect.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13132
For purposes of Executive Order
13132, SBA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have substantial,
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, SBA
has determined that this proposed rule
has no federalism implications
warranting preparation of a federalism
assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
For the purpose of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35,
SBA has determined that this rule will
not impose any new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), this proposed rule, if adopted,
may have a significant impact on a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
substantial number of small businesses
in NAICS Sector 71, Arts,
Entertainment, and Recreation. As
described above, this rule may affect
small businesses seeking Federal
contracts, loans under SBA’s 7(a), 504
and Economic Injury Disaster Loan
Programs, as well as assistance under
other Federal small business programs.
Immediately below, SBA sets forth an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) of this proposed rule addressing
the following questions: (1) What are the
need for and objective of the rule?;
(2) What are SBA’s description and
estimate of the number of small entities
to which the rule will apply?; (3) What
are the projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the rule?; (4) What are
the relevant Federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
rule?; and (5) What alternatives will
allow the Agency to accomplish its
regulatory objectives while minimizing
the impact on small entities?
1. What are the need for and objective
of the rule?
Most of the size standards in NAICS
Sector 71, Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation, have not been reviewed
since the early 1980s. Technology,
productivity growth, international
competition, mergers and acquisitions,
and updated industry definitions may
have changed the structure of many
industries in that Sector. Such changes
can be sufficient to support revisions to
current size standards for some
industries. Based on its analysis of the
latest data available, SBA believes that
the revised size standards in this
proposed rule more appropriately reflect
the size of businesses in those industries
that need Federal assistance. The
recently enacted Small Business Jobs
Act also requires SBA to review all size
standards and make necessary
adjustments to reflect market
conditions.
2. What are SBA’s description and
estimate of the number of small entities
to which the rule will apply?
If the proposed rule is adopted in its
present form, SBA estimates that about
1,450 additional firms will become
small because of increases in size
standards in 17 industries. That
represents 1.3 percent of the total
number of firms that are classified as
small under the current size standards
in all 25 industries in NAICS Sector 71
covered by this proposed rule. This will
result in an increase in the small
business share of total industry receipts
for this Sector from about 35 percent
under the current size standards to
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
about 43 percent under the proposed
size standards. The proposed size
standards, if adopted, will enable more
small businesses to retain their small
business status for a longer period.
Many firms have lost their small
business eligibility and find it difficult
to compete with companies that are
significantly larger than they are. SBA
believes the competitive impact will be
positive for existing small businesses
and for those that exceed the current
size standards but are on the very low
end of those that are not small. They
might otherwise be called or referred to
as mid sized businesses, although SBA
only defines what is small; other entities
are other than small.
3. What are the projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance
requirements of the rule?
Proposed size standards changes do
not impose any additional reporting or
record keeping requirements on small
entities. However, qualifying for Federal
procurement and a number of other
Federal programs requires that entities
register in the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) database and certify
at least annually that they are small in
the Online Representations and
Certifications Application (ORCA).
Therefore, businesses opting to
participate in those programs must
comply with CCR and ORCA
requirements. There are no costs
associated with either CCR registration
or ORCA certification. Changing size
standards alters the access to SBA
programs that assist small businesses
but does not impose a regulatory burden
as they neither regulate nor control
business behavior.
4. What are the relevant Federal rules
which may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the rule?
Under § 3(a)(2)(C) of the Small
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(c),
Federal agencies must use SBA’s size
standards to define a small business,
unless specifically authorized by statute
to do otherwise. In 1995, SBA published
in the Federal Register a list of statutory
and regulatory size standards that
identified the application of SBA’s size
standards as well as other size standards
used by Federal agencies (60 FR 57988,
(November 24, 1995)). SBA is not aware
of any Federal rule that would duplicate
or conflict with establishing size
standards.
However, the Small Business Act and
SBA’s regulations allow Federal
agencies to develop different size
standards if they believe that SBA’s size
standards are not appropriate for their
programs, with the approval of SBA’s
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
42225
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Administrator (13 CFR 121.903). The
Regulatory Flexibility Act authorizes an
agency to establish an alternative small
business definition after consultation
with the Office of Advocacy of the U.S.
Small Business Administration (5 U.S.C.
601(3)).
5. What alternatives will allow the
Agency to accomplish its regulatory
objectives while minimizing the impact
on small entities?
By law, SBA is required to develop
numerical size standards for
establishing eligibility for Federal small
business assistance programs. Other
than varying size standards by industry
and changing the size measures, no
NAICS Codes
practical alternative exists to the
systems of numerical size standards.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 636(b),
662, and 694a(9).
List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 121
Administrative practice and
procedure, Government procurement,
Government property, Grant programs—
business, Individuals with disabilities,
Loan programs—business, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, SBA proposes to amend part
13 CFR part 121 as follows:
2. In § 121.201, in the table, revise the
entries for ‘‘711110’’, ‘‘711120’’,
‘‘711130’’, ‘‘711190’’, ‘‘711211’’,
‘‘711212’’, ‘‘711219’’, ‘‘711310’’,
‘‘711320’’, ‘‘711410’’, ‘‘712110’’,
‘‘712130’’, ‘‘713110’’, ‘‘713210’’,
‘‘713290’’, ‘‘713910’’, and ‘‘713920’’ to
read as follows:
PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE
REGULATIONS
*
1. The authority citation for part 121
continues to read as follows:
§ 121.201 What size standards has SBA
identified by North American Industry
Classification System codes?
*
*
*
Small Business Size Standards by
NAICS Industry
Size standards in
millions of dollars
NAICS U.S. Industry title
*
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
*
*
*
*
Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters .......................................................................
Dance Companies ............................................................................................................
Musical Groups and Artists ..............................................................................................
Other Performing Arts Companies ...................................................................................
Sports Teams and Clubs .................................................................................................
Race Tracks .....................................................................................................................
Other Spectator Sports ....................................................................................................
Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports and Similar Events with Facilities .......................
Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports and Similar Events without Facilities ..................
Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers and Other Public Figures .......
*
*
712110 .............
*
*
*
*
Museums ..........................................................................................................................
*
*
712130 .............
*
*
*
*
Zoos and Botanical Gardens ...........................................................................................
*
*
713110 .............
*
*
*
*
Amusement and Theme Parks ........................................................................................
*
*
.............
.............
.............
.............
*
*
*
*
Casinos (except Casino Hotels) ......................................................................................
Other Gambling Industries ...............................................................................................
Golf Courses and Country Clubs .....................................................................................
Skiing Facilities ................................................................................................................
*
711110
711120
711130
711190
711211
711212
711219
711310
711320
711410
713210
713290
713910
713920
*
*
*
Dated: February 28, 2012.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
*
*
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. FAA–2012–0732; Directorate
Identifier 2012–CE–022–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS
AIRCRAFT LTD. Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
AGENCY:
17:18 Jul 17, 2012
*
$19.0
10.0
10.0
25.5
35.5
35.5
10.0
30.0
14.0
10.0
*
25.5
*
25.5
*
35.5
*
25.5
30.0
14.0
25.5
*
*
Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
ACTION:
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC
12, PC 12/45, PC 12/47, and PC 12/47E
airplanes that would supersede an
existing AD. This proposed AD results
from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct
an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as a need to incorporate new
SUMMARY:
14 CFR Part 39
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Size standards
in number of
employees
Federal Aviation Administration
[FR Doc. 2012–17442 Filed 7–17–12; 8:45 am]
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18JYP1.SGM
18JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42211-42225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17442]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 121
RIN 3245-AG36
Small Business Size Standards: Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation
AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) proposes to
increase the small business size standards for 17 industries in North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Sector 71, Arts,
Entertainment, and Recreation. As part of its ongoing comprehensive
review of all size standards, SBA has evaluated all size standards in
NAICS Sector 71 to determine whether the existing size standards should
be retained or revised. This proposed rule is one of a series of
proposed rules that examines size standards of industries grouped by
NAICS Sector. SBA issued a White Paper entitled ``Size Standards
Methodology'' and published a notice in the October 21, 2009 issue of
the Federal Register that the document is available on its Web site at
www.sba.gov/size for public review and comments. The ``Size Standards
Methodology'' White Paper explains how SBA establishes, reviews and
modifies its receipts based and employee based small business size
standards. In this proposed rule, SBA has applied its methodology that
pertains to establishing, reviewing and modifying a receipts based size
standard.
DATES: SBA must receive comments to this proposed rule on or before
September 17, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AF36, by one
of the following methods: (1) Federal
[[Page 42212]]
eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov; follow the instructions for
submitting comments; or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Khem R. Sharma,
Ph.D., Chief, Size Standards Division, 409 Third Street, SW., Mail Code
6530, Washington, DC 20416. SBA will not accept comments submitted by
email.
SBA will post all comments to this proposed rule on
www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business
information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at www.regulations.gov,
you must submit such information to U.S. Small Business Administration,
Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Size Standards Division, 409 Third
Street, SW., Mail Code 6530, Washington, DC 20416, or send an email to
sizestandards@sba.gov. Highlight the information that you consider to
be CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this information as
confidential. The SBA will review your information and determine
whether it will make the information public.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jorge Laboy-Bruno, Economist, Size
Standards Division, (202) 205-6618 or sizestandards@sba.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To determine eligibility for Federal small
business assistance, SBA establishes small business definitions
(referred to as size standards) for private sector industries in the
United States. SBA uses two primary measures of business size--average
annual receipts and average number of employees. SBA uses financial
assets, electric output, and refining capacity to measure the size of a
few specialized industries. In addition, SBA's Small Business
Investment Company (SBIC), Certified Development Company (504) and 7(a)
Loan Programs use either the industry based size standards or net worth
and net income based alternative size standards to determine
eligibility for those programs. At the start of the current
comprehensive size standards review, there were 41 different size
standards covering 1,141 NAICS industries and 18 sub-industry
activities (``exceptions'' in SBA's Table of size standards). Thirty-
one of these size standards were based on average annual receipts,
seven were based on average number of employees, and three were based
on other measures.
Over the years, SBA has received comments that its size standards
have not kept up with changes in the economy, in particular the changes
in the Federal contracting marketplace and industry structure. The last
time SBA conducted a comprehensive review of all size standards was
during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Since then, most reviews of size
standards were limited to a few specific industries in response to
requests from the public and Federal agencies. SBA also makes periodic
inflation adjustments to its monetary based size standards. The SBA's
latest inflation adjustment to size standards was published in the
Federal Register on July 18, 2008 (73 FR 41237).
Because of changes in the Federal marketplace and industry
structure since the last overall review, SBA recognizes that current
data may no longer support some of its existing size standards.
Accordingly, in 2007, SBA began a comprehensive review of all size
standards to determine if they are consistent with current data, and to
adjust them when necessary. In addition, on September 27, 2010, the
President of the United States signed the Small Business Jobs Act of
2010 (Jobs Act). The Jobs Act directs SBA to conduct a detailed review
of all size standards and to make appropriate adjustments to reflect
market conditions. Specifically, the Jobs Act requires SBA to review at
least one-third of all size standards during every 18-month period from
the date of its enactment and do a complete review of all size
standards not less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter.
Reviewing existing small business size standards and making appropriate
adjustments based on current data are also consistent with Executive
Order 13563 on improving regulation and regulatory review.
Rather than review all size standards at one time, SBA is reviewing
a group of industries within an NAICS Sector. An NAICS Sector generally
consists of 25 to 75 industries, except for the manufacturing sector,
which has considerably more industries. Once SBA completes its review
of size standards for industries in an NAICS Sector, it will issue a
proposed rule to revise size standards for those industries for which
currently available data and other relevant factors support doing so.
Below is a discussion of SBA's size standards methodology for
establishing receipts based size standards, which SBA applied to this
proposed rule, including analyses of industry structure, Federal
procurement trends and other factors for industries reviewed in this
proposed rule, the impact of the proposed revisions to size standards
on Federal small business assistance, and the evaluation of whether a
revised size standard would exclude dominant firms from being
considered small.
Size Standards Methodology
SBA has recently developed a ``Size Standards Methodology'' for
establishing, reviewing and modifying size standards when necessary.
SBA has published this document on its Web site at www.sba.gov/size for
public review and comments and also included it, as a supporting
document, in the electronic docket of this proposed rule at
www.regulations.gov. SBA does not apply every feature of its
methodology to every size standard evaluation because not all features
are appropriate for every industry. For example, since all industries
in NAICS Sector 71 have receipts based size standards, the methodology
described in this proposed rule applies to establishing receipts based
standards. However, the methodology is made available in its entirety
for parties who are interested in SBA's overall approach to
establishing, evaluating, and modifying small business size standards.
SBA always explains its analysis in individual proposed and final rules
relating to size standards for specific industries.
SBA welcomes comments from the public on a number of issues
concerning its ``Size Standards Methodology,'' such as suggestions on
alternative approaches to establishing and modifying size standards;
whether there are alternative or additional factors that SBA should
consider; whether SBA's approach to small business size standards makes
sense in the current economic environment; whether SBA's use of anchor
size standards is appropriate in the current economy; whether there are
gaps in SBA's methodology because of the lack of comprehensive data;
and whether there are other facts or issues that SBA should consider.
Comments on the SBA's methodology should be submitted via: (1) the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov; the docket number is
SBA-2009-0008; follow the instructions for submitting comments; or (2)
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Size
Standards Division, 409 Third Street SW., Mail Code 6530, Washington,
DC 20416. As with comments received to this and other proposed rules,
SBA will post all comments on its methodology on www.regulations.gov.
As of July 18, 2012, SBA has received 13 comments to its ``Size
Standards Methodology.'' The comments are available to the public at
www.regulations.gov. SBA continues to welcome comments on its
methodology from interested parties.
Congress granted discretion to SBA's Administrator to establish
detailed small business size standards. 15 U.S.C.
[[Page 42213]]
632(a)(2). Section 3(a)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(a)(3)) requires that ``* * * the [SBA] Administrator shall ensure
that the size standard varies from industry to industry to the extent
necessary to reflect the differing characteristics of the various
industries and consider other factors deemed to be relevant by the
Administrator.'' Accordingly, the economic structure of an industry
serves as the underlying basis for developing and modifying small
business size standards. SBA identifies the small business segment of
an industry by examining data on the economic characteristics defining
the industry structure itself (as described below). In addition to the
analysis of an industry's structure, SBA also considers current
economic conditions, together with its own mission, program objectives,
and the Administration's current policies, suggestions from industry
groups and Federal agencies, and public comments on the proposed rule,
when it establishes small business size standards. SBA also examines
whether a size standard based on industry and other relevant data
successfully exclude businesses that are dominant in the industry.
This proposed rule includes information regarding the factors SBA
evaluated and the criteria the Agency used to propose any adjustments
to size standards in NAICS Sector 71. It also explains why SBA has
proposed to adjust some size standards in NAICS Sector 71 but not
others. This proposed rule affords the public an opportunity to review
and comment on SBA's proposals to revise size standards in NAICS Sector
71 as well as on the data and methodology it uses to evaluate and
revise a size standard.
Industry Analysis
For the current comprehensive size standards review, SBA has
established three ``base'' or ``anchor'' size standards--$7.0 million
in average annual receipts for industries that have receipts based size
standards, 500 employees for manufacturing and other industries that
have employee based size standards (except for Wholesale Trade), and
100 employees for industries in the Wholesale Trade Sector. SBA
established 500 employees as the anchor size standard for manufacturing
industries at its inception in 1953. Shortly thereafter, SBA
established $1 million in average annual receipts as the anchor size
standard for nonmanufacturing industries. SBA has periodically
increased the receipts based anchor size standard for inflation, and it
stands today at $7 million. Since 1986, SBA has set 100 employees as
the size standard for all industries in the Wholesale Trade Sector for
SBA's financial assistance programs. However, NAICS codes for Wholesale
Trade Industries (NAICS Sector 42) and their 100 employee size
standards for the Wholesale Trade Sector do not apply to Federal
procurement programs. Rather, for Federal procurement purposes the size
standard is 500 employees for all industries in Wholesale Trade (NAICS
Sector 42), and for all industries in Retail Trade (NAICS Sector 44-45)
under the SBA's nonmanufacturer rule (13 CFR 121.406(b)).
These long-standing anchor size standards have stood the test of
time and gained legitimacy through practice and general public
acceptance. An anchor size standard is neither a minimum nor a maximum.
It is a common size standard for a large number of industries that have
similar economic characteristics and serves as a reference point in
evaluating size standards for individual industries. SBA uses the
anchor in lieu of trying to establish precise small business size
standards for each industry. Otherwise, theoretically, the number of
size standards might be as high as the number of industries for which
SBA establishes size standards (1,141). Furthermore, the data SBA
analyzes are static, but the U.S. economy is not. Hence, absolute
precision is impossible. Therefore, SBA presumes an anchor size
standard is appropriate for a particular industry unless that industry
displays economic characteristics that are considerably different from
others with the same anchor size standard.
When evaluating a size standard, SBA compares the economic
characteristics of the specific industry under review to the average
characteristics of industries with one of the three anchor size
standards (referred to as the ``anchor comparison group''). This allows
SBA to assess the industry structure and to determine whether the
industry is appreciably different from the other industries in the
anchor comparison group. If the characteristics of a specific industry
under review are similar to the average characteristics of the anchor
comparison group, the anchor size standard is considered appropriate
for that industry. SBA may consider adopting a size standard below the
anchor when: (1) All or most of the industry characteristics are
significantly smaller than the average characteristics of the anchor
comparison group; or (2) other industry considerations strongly suggest
that the anchor size standard would be an unreasonably high size
standard for the industry.
If the specific industry's characteristics are significantly higher
than those of the anchor comparison group, a size standard higher than
the anchor size standard may be appropriate. The larger the differences
are between the characteristics of the industry under review and those
of the anchor comparison group, the larger will be the difference
between the appropriate industry size standard and the anchor size
standard. To determine a size standard above the anchor size standard,
SBA analyzes the characteristics of a second comparison group. For
industries with receipts based size standards, including those in NAICS
Sector 71 that are reviewed in this proposed rule, SBA has developed a
second comparison group consisting of industries with the highest
levels of receipts based size standards. To determine the level of a
size standard above the anchor size standard, SBA analyzes the
characteristics of this second comparison group. The size standards for
this group of industries range from $23 million to $35.5 million in
average annual receipts, with the weighted average size standard for
the group being $29 million. SBA refers to this comparison group as the
``higher level receipts based size standard group.''
The primary factors that SBA evaluates when analyzing the
structural characteristics of an industry include average firm size,
startup costs and entry barriers, industry competition, and
distribution of firms by size. SBA also evaluates, as an additional
primary factor, the possible impact that revising size standards might
have on Federal contracting assistance to small businesses. These are,
generally, the five most important factors SBA examines when
establishing or revising a size standard for an industry. However, SBA
will also consider and evaluate other information that it believes is
relevant to a particular industry (such as technological changes,
growth trends, SBA's financial assistance, other program factors,
etc.). SBA also considers possible impacts of size standard revisions
on eligibility for Federal small business assistance, current economic
conditions, the Administration's policies, and suggestions from
industry groups and Federal agencies. Public comments on a proposed
rule also provide important additional information. SBA thoroughly
reviews all public comments before making a final decision on its
proposed size standard. Below are brief descriptions of each of the
five primary
[[Page 42214]]
factors that SBA has evaluated in each industry in NAICS Sector 71
being reviewed in this proposed rule. A more detailed description of
this analysis is provided in the SBA's ``Size Standards Methodology,''
available at https://www.sba.gov/size.
1. Average firm size. SBA computes two measures of average firm
size: Simple average and weighted average. For industries with receipts
based size standards, the simple average is the total receipts of the
industry divided by the total number of firms in the industry. The
weighted average firm size is the sum of weighted simple averages in
different receipts size classes, where weights are the shares of total
industry receipts for respective size classes. The simple average
weighs all firms within an industry equally, regardless of their size.
The weighted average overcomes that limitation by giving more weight to
larger firms.
If the average firm size of an industry under review is
significantly higher than the average firm size of industries in the
anchor comparison industry group, this will generally support a size
standard higher than the anchor size standard. Conversely, if the
industry's average firm size is similar to or significantly lower than
that of the anchor comparison industry group, it will be a basis to
adopt the anchor size standard, or, in rare cases, a standard lower
than the anchor.
2. Startup costs and entry barriers. Startup costs reflect a firm's
initial size in an industry. New entrants to an industry must have
sufficient capital and other assets to start and maintain a viable
business. If new firms entering a particular industry have greater
capital requirements than firms in industries in the anchor comparison
group, this can be a basis for establishing a size standard higher than
the anchor standard. In lieu of data on actual startup costs, SBA uses
average assets as a proxy measure to assess the levels of capital
requirements for new entrants to an industry.
To calculate average assets, SBA begins with the sales to total
assets ratio for an industry from the Risk Management Association's
Annual Statement Studies. The SBA then applies these ratios to the
average receipts of firms in that industry. An industry with a
significantly higher level of average assets than that of the anchor
comparison group is likely to have higher startup costs; this in turn
will support a size standard higher than the anchor. Conversely, if the
industry has a significantly smaller average assets compared to the
anchor comparison group, the anchor size standard, or, in rare cases,
one lower than the anchor, may be appropriate.
3. Industry competition. Industry competition is generally measured
by the share of total industry receipts generated by the largest firms
in an industry. SBA generally evaluates the share of industry receipts
generated by the four largest firms in each industry. This is referred
to as the ``four-firm concentration ratio,'' a commonly used economic
measure of market competition. SBA compares the four-firm concentration
ratio for an industry under review to the average four-firm
concentration ratio for industries in the anchor comparison group. If a
significant share of economic activity within the industry is
concentrated among a few relatively large companies, all else being
equal, SBA will establish a size standard higher than the anchor size
standard. SBA does not consider the four-firm concentration ratio as an
important factor in assessing a size standard if its value for an
industry under review is less than 40 percent. For industries in which
the four-firm concentration ratio is 40 percent or more, SBA examines
the average size of the four largest firms in determining a size
standard.
4. Distribution of firms by size. SBA examines the shares of
industry total receipts accounted for by firms of different receipts
and employment size classes in an industry. This is an additional
factor that SBA evaluates in assessing competition within an industry.
If most of an industry's economic activity is attributable to smaller
firms, this would indicate that small businesses are competitive in
that industry. This supports adopting the anchor size standard. If most
of an industry's economic activity is attributable to larger firms,
this would indicate that small businesses are not competitive in that
industry. This would support adopting a size standard above the anchor.
Concentration among firms is a measure of inequality of
distribution. To evaluate the degree of inequality of distribution
within an industry, SBA computes the Gini coefficient by constructing
the Lorenz curve. The Lorenz curve presents the cumulative percentages
of units (firms) along the horizontal axis and the cumulative
percentages of receipts (or other measures of size) along the vertical
axis. (For further detail, please refer to SBA's ``Size Standards
Methodology'' on its Web site at www.sba.gov/size.) Gini coefficient
values vary from zero to one. If an industry's total receipts reflect
equal distribution among the industries, the Gini coefficient will
equal zero. If a single firm accounts for an industry's total receipts,
the Gini coefficient will equal one.
SBA compares the Gini coefficient value for an industry under
review with that for industries in the anchor comparison group. If an
industry shows a higher Gini coefficient value than industries in the
anchor comparison industry group this may, all else being equal,
warrant a higher size standard than the anchor. Conversely, if an
industry shows a similar or lower Gini coefficient than industries in
the anchor group, the anchor standard, or, in some cases, a standard
lower than the anchor, may be adopted.
5. Impact on Federal contracting and SBA's loan programs. SBA
examines the possible impact a size standard change may have on Federal
small business assistance. This most often focuses on the share of
Federal contracting dollars awarded to small businesses in the industry
in question. In general, if the small business share of Federal
contracting in an industry with significant Federal contracting is
appreciably less than the small business share of the industry's total
receipts, there is justification for considering a size standard higher
than the existing size standard. The disparity between the small
business Federal market share and industry-wide small business share
may be due to various factors, such as extensive administrative and
compliance requirements associated with Federal contracts, different
skill sets required for Federal contracts as compared to typical
commercial contracting work, and the size of Federal contracts. These,
and other factors, will likely influence the type of firms that compete
for Federal contracts. By comparing the Federal contracting small
business share with the industry-wide small business share, SBA
includes in its size standards analysis the latest Federal contracting
trends. This analysis may support a size standard larger than the
current size standard.
SBA considers Federal contracting trends in the size standards
analysis only if: (1) The small business share of Federal contracting
dollars is at least 10 percent lower than the small business share of
total industry receipts; and (2) the amount of total Federal
contracting averages $100 million or more during the latest three
fiscal years. These thresholds reflect a significant level of
contracting where a revision to a size standard may have an impact on
contracting opportunities to small businesses.
Besides the impact on small business Federal contracting, SBA also
evaluates
[[Page 42215]]
the influence of a proposed size standard on SBA's loan programs. For
this, SBA examines the volume and number of SBA's guaranteed loans
within an industry and the size of firms obtaining those loans. This
allows SBA to assess whether the existing or proposed size standard for
a particular industry may restrict the level of financial assistance to
small firms. If the analysis shows that current size standards have
impeded financial assistance to small businesses, this can support
higher size standards. However, if small businesses under current size
standards have been receiving significant amounts of financial
assistance through SBA's loan programs, or if the businesses receiving
SBA's financial assistance are much smaller than the existing size
standards, this factor may not be considered in determining the size
standards.
Sources of Industry and Program Data
The SBA's primary source of industry data used in this proposed
rule is a special tabulation of the data from 2007 Economic Census (see
www.census.gov/econ/census07/) prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the
Census (Census Bureau) for the Agency. The special tabulation provides
SBA with data on the number of firms, number of establishments, number
of employees, annual payroll, and annual receipts of companies by NAICS
Sector (2-digit level), Subsector (3-digit level), Industry Group (4-
digit level), Industry (6-digit level). These data are arrayed by
various classes of firms' size based on the overall number of employees
and receipts of the entire enterprise (all establishments and
affiliated firms) from all industries. The special tabulation enables
SBA to evaluate average firm size, the four-firm concentration ratio,
and distribution of firms by various receipts and employment size
classes.
In some cases, where data were not available due to disclosure
prohibitions in the Census Bureau's tabulation, SBA either estimated
missing values using available relevant data or examined data at a
higher level of industry aggregation, such as at the NAICS 2-digit
(Sector), 3-digit (Subsector) or 4-digit (Industry Group) level. In
some instances, SBA had to base its analysis only on those factors for
which data were available or estimates of missing values were possible.
To calculate average assets, SBA used sales to total assets ratios
from the Risk Management Association's Annual Statement Studies, 2008-
2010.
To evaluate Federal contracting trends, SBA examined data on
Federal contract awards for fiscal years 2008-2010. The data are
available from the U.S. General Service Administration's Federal
Procurement Data System--Next Generation (FPDS-NG).
To assess the impact on financial assistance to small businesses,
SBA examined data on its own guaranteed loan programs for fiscal years
2008-2010.
Data sources and estimation procedures SBA uses in its size
standards analysis are documented in detail in the SBA's ``Size
Standards Methodology'' White Paper, which is available at www.sba.gov/size.
Dominance in Field of Operation
Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 632(a))
defines a small business concern as one that is: (1) Independently
owned and operated; (2) not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
within a specific small business definition or size standard
established by the SBA's Administrator. SBA considers as part of its
evaluation whether a business concern at a proposed size standard would
be dominant in its field of operation. For this, SBA generally examines
the industry's market share of firms at the proposed size standard.
Market share and other factors may indicate whether a firm can exercise
a major controlling influence on a national basis in an industry where
a significant number of business concerns are engaged. If a
contemplated size standard would include a dominant firm, SBA would
consider a lower size standard to exclude the dominant firm from being
defined as small.
Selection of Size Standards
To simplify size standards for the ongoing comprehensive review of
receipts based size standards, SBA has proposed to select size
standards from a limited number of levels. For many years, SBA has been
concerned about the complexity of determining small business status
caused by a large number of varying receipts based size standards (see
69 FR 13130 (March 4, 2004) and 57 FR 62515 (December 31, 1992)). At
the start of current comprehensive size standards review, there were 31
different levels of receipts based size standards. They ranged from
$0.75 million to $35.5 million, and many of them applied to one or only
a few industries. SBA believes that to have so many different size
standards with small variations among them is unnecessary and difficult
to justify analytically. To simplify managing and using size standards,
SBA proposes that there be fewer size standard levels. This will
produce more common size standards for businesses operating in related
industries. This will also result in greater consistency among the size
standards for industries that have similar economic characteristics.
SBA proposes, therefore, to apply one of eight receipts based size
standards to each industry in NAICS Sector 71. The eight ``fixed''
receipts based size standard levels are $5 million, $7 million, $10
million, $14 million, $19 million, $25.5 million, $30 million, and
$35.5 million. To establish these eight receipts based size standard
levels, SBA considered the current minimum, the current maximum, and
the most commonly used current receipts based size standards. At the
start of the current comprehensive size standards review, the most
commonly used receipts based size standards clustered around the
following: $2.5 million to $4.5 million, $7 million, $9 million to $10
million, $12.5 million to $14.0 million, $25.0 million to $25.5
million, and $33.5 million to $35.5 million. SBA selected $7 million as
one of eight fixed levels of receipts based size standards because it
is also an anchor standard for receipts based standards. The lowest or
minimum receipts based size level will be $5 million. Other than the
size standards for agriculture and those based on commissions (such as
real estate brokers and travel agents), $5 million include those
industries with the lowest receipts based standards, which ranged from
$2 million to $4.5 million. Among the higher level size clusters, SBA
has set four fixed levels: $10 million, $14 million, $25.5 million, and
$35.5 million. Because there are large intervals between some of the
fixed levels, SBA also established two intermediate levels: Namely, $19
million between $14 million and $25.5 million, and $30 million between
$25.5 million and $35.5 million. These two intermediate levels reflect
roughly the same proportional differences as between the other two
successive levels.
To simplify size standards further, SBA may propose a common size
standard for closely related industries. Although the size standard
analysis may support a separate size standard for each industry, SBA
believes that establishing different size standards for closely related
industries may not always be appropriate. For example, in cases where
many of the same businesses operate in the same multiple industries, a
common size standard for those industries might better reflect the
Federal marketplace. This might also make size standards among related
industries more consistent than separate size standards for each of
those industries. All industries in NAICS
[[Page 42216]]
Sector 71 currently have the common $7 million size standard. However,
the latest industry data neither supported the current common $7
million nor a different common size standard for all industries within
the Sector. Furthermore, the industry specific results showed too much
variation to support common size standards for industries even at the
4-Digit NAICS Industry Group level.
Evaluation of Industry Structure
SBA evaluated the structure of all 25 industries in NAICS Sector
71, Arts, Entertainment and Recreation, to assess the appropriateness
of the current size standards. As described above, SBA compared data on
the economic characteristics of each industry in NAICS Sector 71 to the
average characteristics of industries in two comparison groups. The
first comparison group consists of all industries with $7.0 million
size standards and is referred to as the ``receipts based anchor
comparison group.'' Because the goal of SBA's size standards review is
to assess whether a specific industry's size standard should be the
same as or different from the anchor size standard, this is the most
logical group of industries to analyze. In addition, this group
includes a sufficient number of firms to provide a meaningful
assessment and comparison of industry characteristics.
If the characteristics of an industry under review are similar to
the average characteristics of industries in the anchor comparison
group, the anchor size standard is generally considered appropriate for
that industry. If an industry's structure is significantly different
from industries in the anchor group, a size standard lower or higher
than the anchor size standard might be appropriate. The level of the
new size standard is based on the difference between the
characteristics of the anchor comparison group and a second industry
comparison group. As described above, the second comparison group for
receipts based size standards consists of industries with the highest
receipts based size standards, ranging from $23 million to $35.5
million. The average size standard for this group is $29 million. SBA
refers to this group of industries as the ``higher level receipts based
size standard comparison group.'' SBA determines differences in
industry structure between an industry under review and the industries
in the two comparison groups by comparing data on each of the industry
factors, including average firm size, average assets size, the four-
firm concentration ratio, and the Gini coefficient of distribution of
firms by size. Table 1, Average Characteristics of Receipts Based
Comparison Groups, below, shows two measures of the average firm size
(simple and weighted), the average assets size, the four-firm
concentration ratio, the average receipts of the four largest firms,
and the Gini coefficient for both anchor level and higher level
comparison groups for receipts based size standards.
Table 1--Average Characteristics of Receipts Based Comparison Groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. firm size ($ million) Avg. receipts
-------------------------------- Avg. assets Four-firm of four Gini
Receipts based comparison group Simple Weighted size ($ concentration largest firms coefficient
average average million) ratio (%) ($ million) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchor Level............................................ 1.32 19.63 0.84 16.6 196.4 0.693
Higher Level............................................ 5.07 116.84 3.20 32.1 1,376.0 0.830
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To be used for industries with a four-firm concentration ratio of 40% or greater.
Derivation of Size Standards Based on Industry Factors
For each industry factor in Table 1, Average Characteristics of
Receipts Based Comparison Groups, above, SBA derives a separate size
standard based on the differences between the values for the industry
under review and the values for the two comparison groups. If the
industry value for a particular factor is near the corresponding factor
for the anchor comparison group, SBA will consider the $7.0 million
anchor size standard appropriate for that factor.
An industry factor with a value significantly above or below the
anchor comparison group will generally warrant a size standard above or
below the $7.0 million anchor. The new size standard in these cases is
based on the proportional difference between the industry value and the
values for the two comparison groups.
For example, if an industry's simple average receipts are $3.3
million, that would support a $19 million size standard. The $3.3
million level is 52.8 percent between the average firm size of $1.32
million for the anchor comparison group and $5.07 million for the
higher level comparison group (($3.30 million-$1.32 million) / ($5.07
million-$1.32 million) = 0.528 or 52.8%). This proportional difference
is applied to the difference between the $7.0 million anchor size
standard and average size standard of $29 million for the higher level
size standard group and then added to $7.0 million to estimate a size
standard of $18.616 million ([{$29.0 million-$7.0 million{time} *
0.528] + $7.0 million = $18.616 million). The final step is to round
the estimated $18.616 million size standard to the nearest fixed size
standard level, which in this example is $19 million.
SBA applies the above calculation to derive a size standard for
each industry factor. Detailed formulas involved in these calculations
are presented in the SBA's ``Size Standards Methodology,'' available on
SBA's Web site at www.sba.gov/size. (However, note that figures in the
``Size Standards Methodology'' White Paper are based on 2002 Economic
Census data and are different from those presented in this proposed
rule. That is because when SBA prepared its ``Size Standards
Methodology,'' the 2007 Economic Census data were not yet available.)
Table 2, Values of Industry Factors and Support Size Standards, below,
shows ranges of values for each industry factor and the levels of size
standards supported by those values.
[[Page 42217]]
Table 2--Values of Industry Factors and Supported Size Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or if avg.
Or if weighted Or if avg. receipts of Then size
If simple avg. receipts avg. receipts assets size ($ largest four Or if Gini standard is
size ($ million) size ($ million) firms ($ coefficient ($ million)
million) million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1.15....................... <15.22......... <0.73.......... <142.8......... <0.686......... 5.0
1.15 to 1.57................ 15.22 to 26.26. 0.73 to 1.00... 142.8 to 276.9. 0.686 to 0.702. 7.0
1.58 to 2.17................ 26.27 to 41.73. 1.01 to 1.37... 277.0 to 464.5. 0.703 to 0.724. 10.0
2.18 to 2.94................ 41.74 to 61.61. 1.38 to 1.86... 464.6 to 705.8. 0.725 to 0.752. 14.0
2.95 to 3.92................ 61.62 to 87.02. 1.87 to 2.48... 705.9 to 0.753 to 0.788. 19.0
1,014.1.
3.93 to 4.86................ 87.03 to 111.32 2.49 to 3.07... 1,014.2 to 0.789 to 0.822. 25.5
1,309.0.
4.87 to 5.71................ 111.33 to 3.08 to 3.61... 1,309.1 to 0.823 to 0.853. 30.0
133.41. 1,577.1.
>5.71....................... >133.41........ >3.61.......... >1,577.1....... >0.853......... 35.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derivation of Size Standards Based on Federal Contracting Factor
Besides industry structure, SBA also evaluates Federal contracting
data to assess how successful small businesses are at obtaining Federal
contracts under current size standards. For the current comprehensive
size standards review, SBA has decided to designate a size standard at
one level higher than the current size standard for industries where
the small business share of total Federal contracting dollars is 10 to
30 percentage points lower than the small business share of total
industry receipts and at two levels higher than the current size
standard where the difference is more than 30 percentage points.
Because of the complex relationships among several variables
affecting small business participation in the Federal marketplace, SBA
has chosen not to designate a size standard for the Federal contracting
factor alone that is higher than two levels above the current size
standard. SBA believes that a larger adjustment to size standards based
on Federal contracting activity should be based on a more detailed
analysis of the impact of any subsequent revision to the current size
standard. In limited situations, however, SBA may conduct a more
extensive examination of Federal contracting experience. This may
enable SBA to support a different size standard than indicated by this
general rule and take into consideration significant and unique aspects
of small business competitiveness in the Federal contract market. SBA
welcomes comments on its methodology of incorporating the Federal
contracting factor in the size standard analysis and suggestions for
alternative methods and other relevant information on small business
experience in the Federal contract market.
None of the 25 industries in NAICS Sector 71 averaged $100 million
or more annually in Federal contracting during fiscal years 2008-2010,
suggesting that Federal contracting activity is insignificant in that
Sector. In fact, based on data for fiscal years 2008-2010, Federal
contracting for the entire Sector was less than $90 million.
Accordingly, the Federal contracting factor is not factored in to
calculate the new size standards for all industries in NAICS Sector 71.
New Size Standards Based on Industry Factors
Table 3, Size Standards Supported by Each Factor for Each Industry
(millions of dollars), below, shows the results of analyses of industry
factors for each industry in NAICS Sector 71. Many of the NAICS
industries in columns 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 show two numbers. The upper
number is the value for the industry factor shown on the top of the
column and the lower number is the size standard supported by that
factor. For the four-firm concentration ratio, SBA estimates a size
standard if its value is 40 percent or more. If the four-firm
concentration ratio for an industry is less than 40 percent, there is
no estimated size standard for that factor. If the four-firm
concentration ratio is more than 40 percent, SBA indicates in column 6
the average size of the industry's top four firms together with a size
standard based on that average. As mentioned earlier, since the Federal
contracting factor was significant in none of the industries in NAICS
Sector 71, no size standard was estimated for that factor. Column 8
shows a calculated new size standard for each industry. This is the
average of the size standards supported by each industry factor and
rounded to the nearest fixed size level. Analytical details involved in
the averaging procedure are described in the SBA's ``Size Standard
Methodology.'' For comparison with the new standards, the current size
standards are in column 9 of Table 3, Size Standards Supported by Each
Factor for Each Industry (millions of dollars), below.
[[Page 42218]]
Table 3--Size Standards Supported by Each Factor for Each Industry
[Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted
Simple average average firm Average assets Four-firm Four-firm Gini Calculated new Current size
NAICS Code/industry title firm size ($ size ($ size ($ ratio (%) average size coefficient size standard standard ($
million) million) million) ($ million) ($ million) million)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
711110 Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters.................... $2.1 $28.0 $1.6 14.7 $252.7 0.793 .............. ..............
10.0 10.0 14.0 $25.5 $19.0 $7.0
711120 Dance Companies.......................................... 1.1 15.1 .............. 23.1 34.5 0.738 .............. ..............
7.0 5.0 $14.0 10.0 7.0
711130 Musical Groups and Artists............................... 1.1 16.0 1.3 6.8 87.6 0.728 .............. ..............
5.0 7.0 10.0 $14.0 10.0 7.0
711190 Other Performing Arts Companies.......................... 2.5 227.4 .............. 64.6 156.4 0.867 .............. ..............
14.0 35.5 7.0 $35.5 25.5 7.0
711211 Sports Teams and Clubs................................... 25.1 152.4 26.8 7.5 353.2 0.833 .............. ..............
35.5 35.5 35.5 $30.0 35.5 7.0
711212 Race Tracks.............................................. 13.4 162.3 11.8 30.5 624.5 0.886 .............. ..............
35.5 35.5 35.5 $35.5 35.5 7.0
711219 Other Spectator Sports................................... 1.3 20.1 .............. 14.5 124.1 0.727 .............. ..............
7.0 7.0 $14.0 10.0 7.0
711310 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports and Similar Events 4.2 69.7 5.7 37.6 920.7 0.852 .............. ..............
with Facilities................................................ 25.5 19.0 35.5 $30.0 30.0 7.0
711320 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports and Similar Events 1.6 32.5 .............. 24.8 393.5 0.756 .............. ..............
without Facilities............................................. 10.0 10.0 $19.0 14.0 7.0
711410 Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers 1.4 25.2 .............. 16.8 207.1 0.736 .............. ..............
and Other Public Figures....................................... 7.0 7.0 $14.0 10.0 7.0
711510 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers............. 0.6 7.5 .............. 3.1 100.4 0.581 .............. ..............
5.0 5.0 $5.0 5.0 7.0
712110 Museums.................................................. 2.0 39.8 6.8 11.8 270.7 0.823 .............. ..............
10.0 10.0 35.5 $30.0 25.5 7.0
712120 Historical Sites......................................... 0.7 6.8 .............. 18.7 34.1 0.634 .............. ..............
5.0 5.0 $5.0 5.0 7.0
712130 Zoos and Botanical Gardens............................... 5.1 42.8 12.7 19.1 133.0 0.804 .............. ..............
30.0 14.0 35.5 $25.5 25.5 7.0
712190 Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions.............. 1.1 7.9 .............. 29.5 43.9 0.654 .............. ..............
5.0 5.0 $5.0 5.0 7.0
713110 Amusement and Theme Parks................................ 30.5 633.7 36.6 70.7 2,101.3 0.926 .............. ..............
35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 $35.5 35.5 7.0
713120 Amusement Arcades........................................ 0.7 9.1 0.6 16.5 68.3 0.598 .............. ..............
5.0 5.0 5.0 $5.0 5.0 7.0
713210 Casinos (except Casino Hotels)........................... 67.0 189.2 54.4 15.9 660.0 0.638 .............. ..............
35.5 35.5 35.5 $5.0 25.5 7.0
713290 Other Gambling Industries................................ 5.6 74.6 .............. 18.4 395.0 0.850 .............. ..............
30.0 19.0 $30.0 30.0 7.0
713910 Golf Courses and Country Clubs........................... 1.9 8.3 3.1 6.6 347.7 0.640 .............. ..............
10.0 5.0 30.0 $5.0 14.0 7.0
713920 Skiing Facilities........................................ 6.6 64.0 8.2 41.9 236.5 0.817 .............. ..............
35.5 19.0 35.5 7.0 $25.5 25.5 7.0
[[Page 42219]]
713930 Marinas.................................................. 1.0 3.3 1.4 3.0 30.7 0.538 .............. ..............
5.0 5.0 14.0 $5.0 7.0 7.0
713940 Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers.................. 0.8 18.2 0.8 15.5 831.8 0.711 .............. ..............
5.0 7.0 7.0 $10.0 7.0 7.0
713950 Bowling Centers.......................................... 0.9 22.8 0.8 22.1 188.0 0.543 .............. ..............
5.0 7.0 7.0 $5.0 7.0 7.0
713990 All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries............ 0.5 3.0 0.4 5.7 105.0 0.499 .............. ..............
5.0 5.0 5.0 $5.0 5.0 7.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42220]]
Evaluation of SBA Loan Data
Before deciding on an industry's size standard, SBA also considers
the impact of new or revised standards on SBA's loan programs.
Accordingly, SBA examined its 7(a) and 504 Loan Program data for fiscal
years 2008-2010 to assess whether the existing or proposed size
standards need further adjustments to ensure credit opportunities for
small businesses through those programs. For the industries reviewed in
this rule, the data show that it is mostly small businesses much
smaller than the current size standards that use the SBA's 7(a) and 504
loans. Therefore, no size standard in NAICS Sector 71, Arts,
Entertainment, and Recreation, needs an adjustment based on this
factor.
Proposed Changes to Size Standards
Table 4, Summary of Size Standards Analysis, below, summarizes the
results of SBA analyses of size standards from Table 3, Size Standards
Supported by Each Factor for Each Industry (millions of dollars),
above. The results support increases in size standards in 17
industries, decreases in five industries, and no change in three
industries.
Table 4--Summary of Size Standards Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current size Calculated new
NAICS Industry code NAICS Industry standard ($ size standard
title million) ($ million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
711110................ Theater $7.0 $19.0
Companies and
Dinner Theaters.
711120................ Dance Companies. 7.0 10.0
711130................ Musical Groups 7.0 10.0
and Artists.
711190................ Other Performing 7.0 25.5
Arts Companies.
711211................ Sports Teams and 7.0 35.5
Clubs.
711212................ Race Tracks..... 7.0 35.5
711219................ Other Spectator 7.0 10.0
Sports.
711310................ Promoters of 7.0 30.0
Performing
Arts, Sports
and Similar
Events with
Facilities.
711320................ Promoters of 7.0 14.0
Performing
Arts, Sports
and Similar
Events without
Facilities.
711410................ Agents and 7.0 10.0
Managers for
Artists,
Athletes,
Entertainers
and Other
Public Figures.
711510................ Independent 7.0 5.0
Artists,
Writers, and
Performers.
712110................ Museums......... 7.0 25.5
712120................ Historical Sites 7.0 5.0
712130................ Zoos and 7.0 25.5
Botanical
Gardens.
712190................ Nature Parks and 7.0 5.0
Other Similar
Institutions.
713110................ Amusement and 7.0 35.5
Theme Parks.
713120................ Amusement 7.0 5.0
Arcades.
713210................ Casinos (except 7.0 25.5
Casino Hotels).
713290................ Other Gambling 7.0 30.0
Industries.
713910................ Golf Courses and 7.0 14.0
Country Clubs.
713920................ Skiing 7.0 25.5
Facilities.
713930................ Marinas......... 7.0 7.0
713940................ Fitness and 7.0 7.0
Recreational
Sports Centers.
713950................ Bowling Centers. 7.0 7.0
713990................ All Other 7.0 5.0
Amusement and
Recreation
Industries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, lowering small business size standards is not in the best
interest of small businesses in the current economic environment. The
U.S. economy was in recession from December 2007 to June 2009, the
longest and deepest of any recessions since World War II. The economy
lost more than eight million non-farm jobs during 2008-2009. In
response, Congress passed and the President signed into law the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to
promote economic recovery and to preserve and create jobs. Although the
recession officially ended in June 2009, the unemployment rate is still
high at 8.2 percent in June 2012 and is forecast to remain around this
level at least through the end of 2012. More recently, Congress passed
and the President signed the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs Act)
to promote small business job creation. The Jobs Act puts more capital
into the hands of entrepreneurs and small business owners; strengthens
small businesses' ability to compete for contracts; includes
recommendations from the President's Task Force on Federal Contracting
Opportunities for Small Business; creates a better playing field for
small businesses; promotes small business exporting, building on the
President's National Export Initiative; expands training and
counseling; and provides $12 billion in tax relief to help small
businesses invest in their firms and create jobs.
Reducing size standards based solely on analytical results would
decrease the number of firms that could participate in Federal
financial and procurement assistance for small businesses. That would
run counter to what SBA and the Federal government are doing to help
small businesses. Reducing size eligibility for Federal procurement
opportunities, especially under current economic conditions, would not
preserve or create more jobs; rather, it would have the opposite
effect. Therefore, in this proposed rule, SBA has decided not to
propose reducing the size standards for any industries. For industries
where analyses might seem to support lowering size standards, SBA
proposes to retain the current size standards. As stated previously,
the Small Business Act requires the Administrator to ``* * * consider
other factors deemed to be relevant * * *'' to establishing small
business size standards. The current economic conditions and the impact
on job creation are quite relevant to establishing small business size
standards. SBA, nevertheless, invites comments and suggestions on
whether it should lower size standards as suggested by analyses of
industry and program data or retain the current standards for those
industries in view of current economic conditions.
As discussed above, SBA has decided that lowering small business
size standards would be inconsistent with what the Federal government
is doing to
[[Page 42221]]
stimulate the economy and encourage job growth through the Recovery Act
and the Jobs Act. Therefore, for those five industries for which
analyses suggested decreasing their size standards, SBA proposes to
retain the current size standards. Thus, of the 25 industries in NAICS
Sector 71 that were reviewed in this proposed rule, SBA proposes to
increase size standards for 17 industries and retain the current size
standards for eight industries. Industries for which SBA has proposed
to increase their size standards and proposed size standards are in
Table 5, Summary of Proposed Size Standard Revisions, below.
In addition, not lowering size standards in NAICS Sector 71 is
consistent with SBA's prior actions for NAICS Sector 44-45 (Retail
Trade), NAICS Sector 72 (Accommodation and Food Services), and NAICS
Sector 81 (Other Services) that the Agency proposed (74 FR 53924, 74 FR
53913, and 74 FR 53941, (October 21, 2009)) and adopted in its final
rules (75 FR 61597, 75 FR 61604, and 75 FR 61591, (October 6, 2010)).
It is also consistent with the Agency's recently issued proposed rule
(76 FR 14323 (March 16, 2011)) and final rule (77 FR 7490 (February 10,
2012)) for NAICS Sector 54, Professional, Scientific and Technical
Services, and proposed rules for NAICS Sector 54, Professional,
Technical, and Scientific Services (76 FR 14323 (March 16, 2011)),
NAICS Sector 48-49, Transportation and Warehousing (76 FR 27935 (May
13, 2011)), NAICS Sector 51, Information (76 FR 63216 (October 12,
2011)), NAICS Sector 56, Administrative and Support, Waste Management
and Remediation Services (76 FR 63510 (October 12, 2011)), NAICS Sector
61, Educational Services (76 FR 70667 (November 15, 2011)), and NAICS
Sector 53, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (76 FR 70680 (November
15, 2011)). In each of those final and proposed rules, SBA opted not to
reduce small business size standards, for the same reasons it has
provided above in this proposed rule. On those proposed rules, SBA
received very few comments stating that the lower size standard should
be adopted rather than retaining the current size standard. In those
cases, SBA carefully evaluated those comments along with others
received on that industry's size standard before making a final
decision.
Table 5--Summary of Proposed Size Standard Revisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current size Proposed size
NAICS Code NAICS Industry standard ($ standard ($
title million) million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
711110................ Theater $7.0 $19.0
Companies and
Dinner Theaters.
711120................ Dance Companies. 7.0 10.0
711130................ Musical Groups 7.0 10.0
and Artists.
711190................ Other Performing 7.0 25.5
Arts Companies.
711211................ Sports Teams and 7.0 35.5
Clubs.
711212................ Race Tracks..... 7.0 35.5
711219................ Other Spectator 7.0 10.0
Sports.
711310................ Promoters of 7.0 30.0
Performing
Arts, Sports
and Similar
Events with
Facilities.
711320................ Promoters of 7.0 14.0
Performing
Arts, Sports
and Similar
Events without
Facilities.
711410................ Agents and 7.0 10.0
Managers for
Artists,
Athletes,
Entertainers
and Other
Public Figures.
712110................ Museums......... 7.0 25.5
712130................ Zoos and 7.0 25.5
Botanical
Gardens.
713110................ Amusement and 7.0 35.5
Theme Parks.
713210................ Casinos (except 7.0 25.5
Casino Hotels).
713290................ Other Gambling 7.0 30.0
Industries.
713910................ Golf Courses and 7.0 14.0
Country Clubs.
713920................ Skiing 7.0 25.5
Facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of Dominance in Field of Operation
SBA has determined that for the industries in NAICS Sector 71,
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, for which it has proposed to
increase size standards, no firm at or below the proposed size standard
is large enough to dominate its field of operation. At the proposed
size standards, if adopted, the small business shares of total industry
receipts among those industries vary from less than 0.1 percent to 2.4
percent, with an average of 0.5 percent. These levels of market share
effectively preclude a firm at or below the proposed size standards
from exerting control on its industry.
Request for Comments
SBA invites public comments on the proposed rule, especially on the
following issues.
1. To simplify size standards, SBA proposes eight fixed size levels
for receipts based size standards: $5 million, $7 million, $10 million,
$14 million, $19 million, $25.5 million, $30 million, and $35.5
million. SBA invites comments on whether simplification of size
standards in this way is necessary and if these proposed fixed size
levels are appropriate. SBA welcomes suggestions on alternative
approaches to simplifying small business size standards.
2. SBA seeks feedback on whether the proposed levels of size
standards are appropriate given the economic characteristics of each
industry. SBA also seeks feedback and suggestions on alternative size
standards, if they would be more appropriate, including whether an
employee based size standard for certain industries or exceptions is a
more suitable measure of size, and if so, what that employee level
should be.
3. The SBA's proposed size standards are based on its evaluation of
five primary factors: Average firm size, average assets size (a proxy
for startup costs and entry barriers), four-firm concentration ratio,
distribution of firms by size, and the level and small business share
of Federal contracting dollars. SBA welcomes comments on these factors
and/or suggestions on other factors that it should consider in
assessing industry characteristics when evaluating or revising size
standards. SBA also seeks information on relevant data sources, if
available, that it should consider.
4. SBA gives equal weight to each of the five primary factors for
all industries. SBA seeks feedback on whether it should continue to
give equal weight to each factor or whether it
[[Page 42222]]
should give more weight to one or more factors for certain industries.
Recommendations to weigh some factors more than others should include
suggestions on specific weights for each factor for those industries
along with supporting information.
5. For some industries, based on evaluation of industry data, SBA
proposes to increase the existing size standards by a large amount
(such as NAICS 711211, 711212, 711310, 713110, and 713290), while for
others the proposed increases are modest. SBA seeks feedback on whether
it should, as a policy, limit the increase to a size standard and/or
whether it should, as a policy, establish minimum or maximum values for
its size standards. SBA seeks suggestions on appropriate levels of
changes to size standards and on their minimum or maximum levels.
6. For industries for which the analytical results would support
lowering their current size standards, SBA has proposed to retain the
current size standards. SBA invites comments and suggestions on whether
it should lower size standards as suggested by analyses of industry and
program data or retain the current size standards for those industries
in view of current economic conditions and other relevant factors.
7. To simplify size standards, SBA has established or proposed
common size standards for closely related industries in other NAICS
Sectors. Based on SBA's analysis of the industry data, too much
variation exists among the industries in NAICS Sector 71 to propose a
common size standard for most industries. Therefore, for industries
reviewed in this proposed rule, SBA has proposed size standards based
on an analysis of each specific industry. SBA welcomes comments on
whether it should adopt common size standards for certain industries in
NAICS Sector 71, and if so, how those industries are related in a way
to require a common size standard.
8. For analytical simplicity and efficiency, in this proposed rule,
SBA has refined its size standard methodology to obtain a single value
as a proposed size standard instead of a range of values, as seen in
its past size regulations. SBA welcomes any comments on this procedure
and suggestions on alternative methods.
Public comments on the above issues are very valuable to SBA for
validating its size standards methodology and its proposed revisions to
size standards in this proposed rule. This will help SBA to move
forward with its review of size standards for other NAICS Sectors.
Commenters addressing size standards for a specific industry or a group
of industries should include relevant data and/or other information
supporting their comments. If comments relate to using size standards
for Federal procurement programs, SBA suggests that commenters provide
information on the size of contracts awarded, the size of businesses
that can undertake the contracts, start-up costs, equipment and other
asset requirements, the amount of subcontracting, other direct and
indirect costs associated with the contracts, the use of mandatory
sources of supply for products and services, and the degree to which
contractors can mark up those costs.
Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 12988 and 13132, the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35), and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612)
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
proposed rule is a ``significant'' regulatory action for purposes of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the next section contains SBA's
Regulatory Impact Analysis. This is not a ``major rule,'' however,
under the Congressional Review Act, (5 U.S.C. 800).
Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Is there a need for the regulatory action?
SBA believes that the proposed size standards revisions for a
number of industries in NAICS Sector 71, Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation, will better reflect the economic characteristics of small
businesses and the Federal government marketplace. The SBA's mission is
to aid and assist small businesses through a variety of financial,
procurement, business development, and advocacy programs. To assist the
intended beneficiaries of these programs, SBA must establish distinct
definitions of which businesses are deemed small businesses. The Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) delegates to SBA's Administrator the
responsibility for establishing small business definitions. The Act
also requires that small business definitions vary to reflect industry
differences. The recently enacted Small Business Jobs Act also requires
SBA to review all size standards and make necessary adjustments to
reflect market conditions. The supplementary information section of
this proposed rule explains SBA's methodology for analyzing a size
standard for a particular industry.
2. What are the potential benefits and costs of this regulatory action?
The most significant benefit to businesses obtaining small business
status because of this rule is gaining eligibility for Federal small
business assistance programs. These include SBA's financial assistance
programs, economic injury disaster loans, and Federal procurement
programs intended for small businesses. Federal procurement programs
provide targeted opportunities for small businesses under SBA's
business development programs, such as 8(a), Small Disadvantaged
Businesses (SDB), small businesses located in Historically
Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone), women-owned small businesses
(WOSB), and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns
(SDVO SBC). Federal agencies may also use SBA's size standards for a
variety of other regulatory and program purposes. These programs assist
small businesses to become more knowledgeable, stable, and competitive.
In the 17 industries for which SBA has proposed increasing size
standards, SBA estimates that about 1,450 additional firms will obtain
small business status and become eligible for these programs. That
number is 1.3 percent of the total number of firms that are classified
as small under the current standards in all 25 industries in NAICS
Sector 71 covered by this proposed rule. If adopted as proposed, this
would increase the small business share of total industry receipts in
those industries from about 35 percent under the current size standards
to 43 percent.
Three groups will benefit from these proposed size standards, if
they are adopted as proposed: (1) Some businesses that are above the
current size standards will gain small business status under the higher
size standards, thereby enabling them to participate in Federal small
business assistance programs; (2) growing small businesses that are
close to exceeding the current size standards will be able to retain
their small business status under the higher size standards, thereby
enabling them to continue their participation in the programs; and (3)
Federal agencies will have a larger pool of small businesses from which
to draw for their small business procurement programs.
During fiscal years 2008-2010, 45 percent of Federal contracting
dollars spent in all industries in NAICS Sector 71 were accounted for
by the 17 industries for which SBA has proposed to increase size
standards. Given the limited Federal contracting activity in that
Sector, proposed revisions would
[[Page 42223]]
have minimal impacts on small business contracting opportunities. SBA
estimates that additional firms gaining small business status under the
proposed size standards could potentially obtain Federal contracts
totaling up to $5 million annually under SBA's small business, 8(a),
SDB, HUBZone, WOSB and SDVO SBC Programs, and other unrestricted
procurements. The added competition for many of these procurements
could also result in lower prices to the Government for procurements
reserved for small businesses, although SBA cannot quantify this
benefit.
Under SBA's 7(a) Business and 504 Loan Programs, based on the 2008-
2010 data, SBA estimates that about 15 to 20 additional loans totaling
about $4 million to $6 million in Federal loan guarantees could be made
to these newly defined small businesses under the proposed size
standards. Increasing the size standards will likely result in more
small business guaranteed loans to businesses in these industries, but
it would be impractical to try to estimate their exact number and total
amount loaned. Under the Jobs Act, SBA can now guarantee substantially
larger loans than in the past. In addition, the Jobs Act established an
alternative size standard ($15 million in tangible net worth and $5
million in net income after income taxes) for business concerns that do
not meet the size standards for their industry. Therefore, SBA finds it
similarly difficult to quantify the exact impact of these proposed size
standards on its 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs.
Newly defined small businesses will also benefit from SBA's
Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Program. Since this program is
contingent on the occurrence and severity of a disaster, SBA cannot
make a meaningful estimate of benefits for future disasters.
To the extent that those 1,450 newly defined additional small firms
could become active in Federal procurement programs, the proposed
changes, if adopted, may entail some additional administrative costs to
the Federal Government associated with additional bidders for Federal
small business procurement opportunities; additional firms seeking SBA
guaranteed lending programs; additional firms eligible for enrollment
in the Central Contractor Registration's (CCR) Dynamic Small Business
Search database; and additional firms seeking certification as 8(a) or
HUBZone firms or qualifying for small business, WOSB, SDVO SBC, or SDB
status. Among those newly defined small businesses seeking SBA
assistance, there could be some additional costs associated with
compliance and verification of small business status and protests of
small business status. These added costs will be minimal because
mechanisms are already in place to handle these administrative
requirements.
Additionally, the costs to the Federal Government may be higher on
some Federal contracts. With a greater number of businesses defined as
small, Federal agencies may choose to set aside more contracts for
competition among small businesses rather than using full and open
competition. The movement from unrestricted to small business set-aside
contracting might result in competition among fewer total bidders,
although there will be more small businesses eligible to submit offers.
However, the additional costs associated with fewer bidders are
expected to be minor since, as a matter of law, procurements may be set
aside for small businesses or reserved for the 8(a), HUBZone, WOSB, or
SDVO SBC Programs only if awards are expected to be made at fair and
reasonable prices. In addition, higher costs may result when more full
and open contracts are awarded to HUBZone businesses that receive price
evaluation preferences.
The proposed size standards may have distributional effects among
large and small businesses. Although SBA cannot estimate with certainty
the actual outcome of the gains and losses among small and large
businesses, it can identify several probable impacts. There may be a
transfer of some Federal contracts to small businesses from large
businesses. Large businesses may have fewer Federal contract
opportunities as Federal agencies decide to set aside more Federal
contracts for small businesses. In addition, some Federal contracts may
be awarded to HUBZone concerns instead of large businesses since those
firms may be eligible for a price evaluation preference for contracts
when they compete on a full and open basis. Similarly, currently
defined small businesses may obtain fewer Federal contracts due to the
increased competition from more businesses defined as small. This
transfer may be offset by a greater number of Federal procurements set
aside for all small businesses. The number of newly defined and
expanding small businesses that are willing and able to sell to the
Federal Government will limit the number of contracts transferred from
large and from currently defined small businesses. SBA cannot estimate
the potential distributional impacts of these transfers with any degree
of precision.
The proposed revisions to the existing size standards for
Industries in NAICS Sector 71, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, are
consistent with SBA's statutory mandate to assist small business. This
regulatory action promotes the Administration's objectives. One of
SBA's goals in support of the Administration's objectives is to help
individual small businesses succeed through fair and equitable access
to capital and credit, Government contracts, and management and
technical assistance. Reviewing and modifying size standards, when
appropriate, ensures that intended beneficiaries have access to the
small business programs designed to assist them.
Executive Order 13563
A description of the need for this regulatory action and benefits
and costs associated with this action, including possible distributions
impacts that relate to Executive Order 13563 is included above in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866.
In an effort to engage interested parties in this action, SBA
presented its size standards methodology (discussed above under
Supplementary Information) to various industry associations and trade
groups. SBA also met with representatives from various industry groups
and individual businesses to obtain their feedback on its methodology
and other size standards issues. SBA also presented its size standards
methodology to businesses in 13 cities in the U.S. and sought their
input as part of the Jobs Act tours. The presentation also included
information on latest status of the comprehensive size standards review
and on how interested parties can provide SBA with input and feedback
on size standards review.
Additionally, SBA sent letters to the Directors of the Offices of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) at several Federal
agencies with considerable procurement responsibilities requesting
their feedback on how the agencies use SBA size standards and whether
current standards meet their programmatic needs (both procurement and
non-procurement). SBA gave appropriate consideration to all input,
suggestions, recommendations, and relevant information obtained from
industry groups, individual businesses, and Federal agencies in
preparing this proposed rule.
The review of size standards in NAICS Sector 71, Arts,
Entertainment, and Recreation, is consistent with EO 13563, Section 6
calling for retrospective analyses of existing rules. As discussed
previously, the last overall
[[Page 42224]]
review of size standards occurred during the late 1970s and early
1980s. Since then, except for periodic adjustments for monetary based
size standards, most reviews of size standards were limited to a few
specific industries in response to requests from the public and Federal
agencies. SBA recognizes that changes in industry structure and the
Federal marketplace over time have rendered existing size standards for
some industries no longer supportable by current data. Accordingly, in
2007, SBA began a comprehensive review of its size standards to ensure
that existing size standards have supportable bases and to revise them
when necessary. In addition, on September 27, 2010, the President of
the United States signed the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs
Act). The Jobs Act directs SBA to conduct a detailed review of all size
standards and to make appropriate adjustments to reflect market
conditions. Specifically, the Jobs Act requires SBA to conduct a
detailed review of at least one-third of all size standards during
every 18-month period from the date of its enactment and do a complete
review of all size standards not less frequently than once every 5
years thereafter.
Executive Order 12988
This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not
have retroactive or preemptive effect.
Executive Order 13132
For purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have substantial, direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, SBA has determined that this proposed
rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a
federalism assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
For the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, SBA has determined that this rule will not impose any new reporting
or recordkeeping requirements.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), this proposed rule, if
adopted, may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
businesses in NAICS Sector 71, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation. As
described above, this rule may affect small businesses seeking Federal
contracts, loans under SBA's 7(a), 504 and Economic Injury Disaster
Loan Programs, as well as assistance under other Federal small business
programs.
Immediately below, SBA sets forth an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) of this proposed rule addressing the following
questions: (1) What are the need for and objective of the rule?; (2)
What are SBA's description and estimate of the number of small entities
to which the rule will apply?; (3) What are the projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule?; (4) What
are the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the rule?; and (5) What alternatives will allow the Agency to
accomplish its regulatory objectives while minimizing the impact on
small entities?
1. What are the need for and objective of the rule?
Most of the size standards in NAICS Sector 71, Arts, Entertainment,
and Recreation, have not been reviewed since the early 1980s.
Technology, productivity growth, international competition, mergers and
acquisitions, and updated industry definitions may have changed the
structure of many industries in that Sector. Such changes can be
sufficient to support revisions to current size standards for some
industries. Based on its analysis of the latest data available, SBA
believes that the revised size standards in this proposed rule more
appropriately reflect the size of businesses in those industries that
need Federal assistance. The recently enacted Small Business Jobs Act
also requires SBA to review all size standards and make necessary
adjustments to reflect market conditions.
2. What are SBA's description and estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply?
If the proposed rule is adopted in its present form, SBA estimates
that about 1,450 additional firms will become small because of
increases in size standards in 17 industries. That represents 1.3
percent of the total number of firms that are classified as small under
the current size standards in all 25 industries in NAICS Sector 71
covered by this proposed rule. This will result in an increase in the
small business share of total industry receipts for this Sector from
about 35 percent under the current size standards to about 43 percent
under the proposed size standards. The proposed size standards, if
adopted, will enable more small businesses to retain their small
business status for a longer period. Many firms have lost their small
business eligibility and find it difficult to compete with companies
that are significantly larger than they are. SBA believes the
competitive impact will be positive for existing small businesses and
for those that exceed the current size standards but are on the very
low end of those that are not small. They might otherwise be called or
referred to as mid sized businesses, although SBA only defines what is
small; other entities are other than small.
3. What are the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance
requirements of the rule?
Proposed size standards changes do not impose any additional
reporting or record keeping requirements on small entities. However,
qualifying for Federal procurement and a number of other Federal
programs requires that entities register in the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) database and certify at least annually that they are
small in the Online Representations and Certifications Application
(ORCA). Therefore, businesses opting to participate in those programs
must comply with CCR and ORCA requirements. There are no costs
associated with either CCR registration or ORCA certification. Changing
size standards alters the access to SBA programs that assist small
businesses but does not impose a regulatory burden as they neither
regulate nor control business behavior.
4. What are the relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the rule?
Under Sec. 3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632(a)(2)(c), Federal agencies must use SBA's size standards to define
a small business, unless specifically authorized by statute to do
otherwise. In 1995, SBA published in the Federal Register a list of
statutory and regulatory size standards that identified the application
of SBA's size standards as well as other size standards used by Federal
agencies (60 FR 57988, (November 24, 1995)). SBA is not aware of any
Federal rule that would duplicate or conflict with establishing size
standards.
However, the Small Business Act and SBA's regulations allow Federal
agencies to develop different size standards if they believe that SBA's
size standards are not appropriate for their programs, with the
approval of SBA's
[[Page 42225]]
Administrator (13 CFR 121.903). The Regulatory Flexibility Act
authorizes an agency to establish an alternative small business
definition after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the U.S.
Small Business Administration (5 U.S.C. 601(3)).
5. What alternatives will allow the Agency to accomplish its regulatory
objectives while minimizing the impact on small entities?
By law, SBA is required to develop numerical size standards for
establishing eligibility for Federal small business assistance
programs. Other than varying size standards by industry and changing
the size measures, no practical alternative exists to the systems of
numerical size standards.
List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 121
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement,
Government property, Grant programs--business, Individuals with
disabilities, Loan programs--business, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, SBA proposes to amend
part 13 CFR part 121 as follows:
PART 121--SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 636(b), 662, and 694a(9).
2. In Sec. 121.201, in the table, revise the entries for
``711110'', ``711120'', ``711130'', ``711190'', ``711211'', ``711212'',
``711219'', ``711310'', ``711320'', ``711410'', ``712110'', ``712130'',
``713110'', ``713210'', ``713290'', ``713910'', and ``713920'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 121.201 What size standards has SBA identified by North American
Industry Classification System codes?
* * * * *
Small Business Size Standards by NAICS Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size standards in
NAICS Codes NAICS U.S. Industry title millions of Size standards in number of
dollars employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
711110.......................... Theater Companies and $19.0 ...............................
Dinner Theaters.
711120.......................... Dance Companies........... 10.0 ...............................
711130.......................... Musical Groups and Artists 10.0 ...............................
711190.......................... Other Performing Arts 25.5 ...............................
Companies.
711211.......................... Sports Teams and Clubs.... 35.5 ...............................
711212.......................... Race Tracks............... 35.5 ...............................
711219.......................... Other Spectator Sports.... 10.0 ...............................
711310.......................... Promoters of Performing 30.0 ...............................
Arts, Sports and Similar
Events with Facilities.
711320.......................... Promoters of Performing 14.0 ...............................
Arts, Sports and Similar
Events without Facilities.
711410.......................... Agents and Managers for 10.0 ...............................
Artists, Athletes,
Entertainers and Other
Public Figures.
* * * * * * *
712110.......................... Museums................... 25.5 ...............................
* * * * * * *
712130.......................... Zoos and Botanical Gardens 25.5 ...............................
* * * * * * *
713110.......................... Amusement and Theme Parks. 35.5 ...............................
* * * * * * *
713210.......................... Casinos (except Casino 25.5 ...............................
Hotels).
713290.......................... Other Gambling Industries. 30.0 ...............................
713910.......................... Golf Courses and Country 14.0 ...............................
Clubs.
713920.......................... Skiing Facilities......... 25.5 ...............................
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: February 28, 2012.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-17442 Filed 7-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P