Small Business Size Standards: Support Activities for Mining, 72766-72776 [2012-29353]
Download as PDF
72766
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5 TO § 431.97—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR PTAC AND PTHP—Continued
Equipment
type
Cooling capacity
Sub-category
>15,000 Btu/h .........................................
Non-Standard Size
Efficiency level
EER = 9.5
COP = 2.9 ...............................................
EER = 9.3 ...............................................
COP = 2.7
EER = 10.8 ¥ (0.213 × Cap1) ...............
COP = 2.9 ¥ (0.026 × Cap1)
EER = 7.6 ...............................................
COP = 2.5
<7,000 Btu/h ...........................................
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h .............
>15,000 Btu/h .........................................
1 ‘‘Cap’’
*
October 8, 2012.
October 7, 2010.
October 7, 2010.
October 7, 2010.
means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 °F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–29486 Filed 12–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 121
RIN 3245–AG44
Small Business Size Standards:
Support Activities for Mining
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) proposes to
increase small business size standards
for three industries in North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
Subsector 213, Support Activities for
Mining, within NAICS Sector 21,
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
Extraction. NAICS Sector 21 contains
four industries with receipts based
standards and 19 industries with
employee based size standards. As part
of its ongoing comprehensive review of
all size standards, in this proposed rule,
SBA has evaluated the four industries
that have the receipts based size
standards in NAICS Sector 21 to
determine whether they should be
retained or revised. SBA will review the
19 industries that have the employee
based standards in NAICS Sector 21 at
a later date. This proposed rule is one
of a series of proposed rules that will
review size standards of industries
grouped by NAICS Sector. SBA has
issued a White Paper entitled ‘‘Size
Standards Methodology’’ and published
a notice in the October 21, 2009 issue
of the Federal Register to advise the
public that ‘‘Size Standards
Methodology’’ 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,
SUMMARY:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Compliance date:
Products
manufactured on and
after
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
and modifies its receipts based and
employee based small business size
standards. In this proposed rule, SBA
has applied its methodology in
determining changes to receipts based
size standards in NAICS Sector 21,
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
Extraction.
DATES: SBA must receive comments to
this proposed rule on or before February
4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Identify your comments by
RIN 3245–AG44 and submit them by
one of the following methods: (1)
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov, following 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 to
this proposed rule 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. You should
highlight the information that you
consider to be CBI and explain why you
believe SBA should hold this
information as confidential. SBA will
review your information and determine
whether it will make the information
public or not.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Size
Standards Division, phone: (202) 205–
6618 or sizestandards@sba.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To
determine eligibility for Federal small
business assistance, SBA establishes
small business size definitions (referred
to as size standards) for private sector
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 beginning 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
levels 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. At least once every five years,
SBA also reviews the effect of inflation
on its size standards and makes
necessary adjustments to its monetary
based size standards. 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 comprehensive size
standards review, SBA recognizes that
current data may no longer support
some of its existing size standards.
Accordingly, in 2007, SBA began a
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
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 conduct a detailed
review of at least one-third of all size
standards during every 18-month period
from the date of its enactment. In
addition, the Jobs Act requires that SBA
conduct a review of all size standards
not less frequently than once every five
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 size
standards on a Sector by Sector basis.
An NAICS Sector generally includes 25
to 75 industries, except for NAICS
Sector 31–33, Manufacturing, which has
considerably more industries. Once SBA
completes its review of size standards
for industries in an NAICS Sector, it
issues a proposed rule to revise size
standards for those industries for which
it believes 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 that SBA
applied to this proposed rule, including
analyses of industry structure, Federal
procurement trends and other relevant
factors, the impact of the proposed
revisions to size standards on Federal
small business assistance, and SBA’s
evaluation of whether a revised size
standard would exclude dominant firms
from being considered small.
Size Standards Methodology
SBA has developed a ‘‘Size Standards
Methodology’’ for developing,
reviewing, and modifying size standards
when necessary. SBA has published the
document on its Web site at
www.sba.gov/size for public review and
comments, and has included it as a
supporting document in the electronic
docket of this proposed rule at
www.regulations.gov. SBA does not
apply all features of its ‘‘Size Standards
Methodology’’ to all industries because
not all features are appropriate for every
industry. For example, since all four
industries in NAICS Sector 21 that are
covered by this proposed rule have
receipts based size standards, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
methodology described here applies
only to establishing a receipts based size
standard. However, the methodology is
available for review and comments in its
entirety for parties who have an interest
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 whether there are other 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;
whether there are gaps in SBA’s
methodology because the data it uses
are not current or sufficiently
comprehensive; and whether there are
other data, facts, and/or issues that SBA
should consider. Comments on SBA’s
methodology should be submitted via
(1) the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov, following the
instructions for submitting comments;
the docket number is SBA–2009–0008,
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 it will do with comments to
this and other proposed rules, SBA will
post all comments on its methodology
on www.regulations.gov. As of January
1, 2012, SBA has received 13 comments
to its ‘‘Size Standards Methodology.’’
The comments are available to the
public at www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: SBA–2009–0008. SBA continues to
welcome comments on its methodology
from interested parties. SBA will not
accept comments to its ‘‘Size Standards
Methodology’’ submitted by email.
Congress granted SBA’s Administrator
discretion to establish detailed small
business size standards. 15 U.S.C.
632(a)(2). Specifically, 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 is the
basis for developing and modifying
small business size standards. SBA
identifies the small business segment of
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72767
an industry by examining data on the
economic characteristics defining the
industry structure (as described below).
In addition, SBA considers current
economic conditions, its mission and
program objectives, the
Administration’s current policies,
suggestions from industry groups and
Federal agencies, and public comments
on the proposed rule. SBA also
examines whether a size standard based
on industry and other relevant data
successfully excludes businesses that
are dominant in the industry.
This proposed rule includes
information regarding the factors SBA
evaluated and the criteria it used to
propose adjustments to receipts based
size standards in NAICS Sector 21. This
proposed rule affords the public an
opportunity to review and to comment
on SBA’s proposals to revise size
standards in NAICS Sector 21, as well
as on the data and methodology it used
to evaluate and revise the size
standards.
Industry Analysis
For the current comprehensive size
standards review, SBA 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 today it is $7 million. Since 1986,
the size standard for all industries in the
Wholesale Trade Sector for SBA
financial assistance and for most
Federal programs has been 100
employees. However, the Wholesale
Trade NAICs Codes and their100
employee size standards do not apply to
Federal procurement programs. Rather,
for Federal procurement the size
standard for all industries in Wholesale
Trade (NAICS Sector 42) and for all
industries in Retail Trade (NAICS Sector
44–45), is 500 employees under 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 is neither a minimum nor a
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
72768
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
maximum size standard. 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, while the U.S.
economy is not. Hence, absolute
precision is impossible. SBA presumes
an anchor size standard is appropriate
for a particular industry unless that
industry displays economic
characteristics that are considerably
different from other industries with the
same anchor size standard.
When evaluating a size standard, SBA
compares the economic characteristics
of the 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 generally 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, then 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 in 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 21, SBA developed a
second comparison group consisting of
industries that have the highest of
receipts based size standards. To
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
determine 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; the weighted average
size standard for the group is $29
million. SBA refers to this comparison
group as the ‘‘higher level receipts based
size standard group.’’
The primary industry factors that SBA
evaluates include average firm size,
startup costs and entry barriers, industry
competition, and distribution of firms
by size. SBA evaluates, as an additional
primary factor, the impact that revised
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 financial assistance, and other
program factors). 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 standards.
Below are brief descriptions of each of
the five primary factors that SBA has
evaluated for each industry in NAICS
Sector 21. A more detailed description
of this analysis is provided in 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
is significantly higher than the average
firm size of industries in the anchor
comparison industry group, this will
generally support a size standard higher
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 size
standard. In lieu of actual startup cost
data, SBA uses average assets as a proxy
to measure the 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. SBA then applies
these ratios to the average receipts of
firms in that industry. An industry with
average assets that are significantly
higher than those 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, an industry with
average assets that are similar to or
lower than those of the anchor
comparison group is likely to have
lower startup costs; this will support the
anchor standard or one lower than the
anchor.
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
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
share of economic activity within the
industry is less than 40 percent. For an
industry with a four-firm concentration
ratio of 40 percent or more, SBA
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
examines the average size of the four
largest firms to determine 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 in assessing industry
competition. If most of an industry’s
economic activity is attributable to
smaller firms, this generally indicates
that small businesses are competitive in
that industry. This can support adopting
the anchor size standard. If most of an
industry’s economic activity is
attributable to larger firms, this
indicates that small businesses are not
competitive in that industry. This can
support adopting a size standard above
the anchor.
Concentration is a measure of
inequality of distribution. To determine
the degree of inequality of distribution
in an industry, SBA computes the Gini
coefficient, using 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 receipts are distributed equally among
all the firms in an industry, the value of
the Gini coefficient will equal zero. If an
industry’s total receipts are attributed to
a single firm, the Gini coefficient will
equal one.
SBA compares the Gini coefficient
value for an industry with that for
industries in the anchor comparison
group. If the Gini coefficient value for
an industry is higher than it is for
industries in the anchor comparison
industry group this may, all else being
equal, warrant a size standard higher
than the anchor. Conversely, if an
industry’s Gini coefficient is similar to
or lower than that for 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 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,
this could justify considering a size
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
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, the different
skill set required by Federal contracts as
compared to typical commercial
contracting work, and the size of
Federal contracts. These, as well as
other factors, are likely to influence the
type of firms within an industry that
compete for Federal contracts. By
comparing the small business Federal
contracting 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 significant levels 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
the impact of a proposed size standard
revision on SBA’s loan programs. 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 the proposed
size standard for a particular industry
may restrict the level of financial
assistance to small firms. If current size
standards have impeded financial
assistance to small businesses, higher
size standards may be supportable.
However, if small businesses under
current size standards have been
receiving significant amounts of
financial assistance through SBA’s loan
programs, or if the financial assistance
has been provided mainly to businesses
that are much smaller than the existing
size standards, SBA does not consider
this factor when determining the size
standard.
Sources of Industry and Program Data
SBA’s primary source of industry data
used in this proposed rule is a special
tabulation of the 2007 Economic Census
(see www.census.gov/econ/census07/)
prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72769
Census (Census Bureau) for SBA. The
2007 Economic Census data are the
latest available. 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,
Industry (6-digit level), Industry Group
(4-digit level), Subsector (3-digit level),
and Sector (2-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’s
analysis was based 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 2009–
2011.
Data sources and estimation
procedures SBA uses in its size
standards analysis are documented in
detail in 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 SBA 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
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
72770
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
examines the industry’s market share of
firms at the proposed 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
includes a dominant firm, SBA will
consider a lower size standard to
exclude the dominant firm from being
defined as small.
Selection of Size Standards
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
To simplify receipts based size
standards, SBA has proposed to select
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 beginning of the 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 such
a large number of different small
business size standards are 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.
Therefore, SBA proposes to apply one
of eight receipts based size standards to
each industry in NAICS Sector 21
reviewed in this rule. 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. SBA
established these eight receipts based
size standard based on the current
minimum, the current maximum, and
the most commonly used current
receipts based size standards. At the
start of the current comprehensive
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
$10 million, $12.5 million to $14
million, $25 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 an anchor standard. The
lowest or minimum receipts based size
level will be $5 million. Other than the
standards for agriculture and those
based on commissions (such as real
estate brokers and travel agents), $5
million includes 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 of the large
intervals between some of the fixed
levels, SBA 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. In NAICS Sector 21, the
characteristics of the four industries
with receipts based standards reviewed
in this rule are not sufficiently alike to
warrant a common size standard for all.
Therefore, SBA is proposing to increase
three of the size standards and retain the
$7 million anchor for NAICS 213115,
Support Activities for Nonmetallic
Minerals (except Fuels).
Evaluation of Industry Structure
SBA evaluated the four industries in
NAICS Sector 21, Mining, Quarrying,
and Oil and Gas Extraction, to assess the
appropriateness of the current receipts
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
based size standards. As described
above, SBA compared data on the
economic characteristics of each
industry to the average characteristics of
industries in two comparison groups.
The first comparison group consists of
all industries with $7 million size
standards and is referred to as the
‘‘receipts based anchor comparison
group.’’ Because the goal of SBA’s
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 are
similar to the average characteristics of
industries in the anchor comparison
group, the anchor size standard is
generally 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 proposed 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 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
$29 million. SBA refers to this group of
industries as the ‘‘higher level receipts
based size standard comparison group.’’
SBA determines differences in industry
structure between an industry under
review and the industries in the two
comparison groups by comparing data
on each of the industry factors,
including average firm size, average
assets size, the four-firm concentration
ratio, and the Gini coefficient of
distribution of firms by size. Table 1,
Average Characteristics of Receipts
Based Comparison Groups, shows the
average firm size (both simple and
weighted), average assets size, four-firm
concentration ratio, average receipts of
the four largest firms, and the Gini
coefficient for both anchor level and
higher level comparison groups for
receipts based size standards.
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
72771
TABLE 1—AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF RECEIPTS BASED COMPARISON GROUPS
Average firm size
($ million)
Receipts based
comparison group
Weighted
average
Simple average
Anchor Level ....................
Higher Level .....................
Average assets
size
($ million)
1.32
5.07
19.63
116.84
Four-firm
concentration
ratio
(%)
0.84
3.20
Average receipts
of four largest
firms
($ million) *
16.6
32.1
196.4
1,376.0
Gini coefficient
0.693
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, SBA derives
a separate size standard based on the
differences between the values for an
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, the $7
million anchor size standard is
appropriate for that factor.
An industry factor significantly above
or below the anchor comparison group
will generally imply a size standard for
that industry above or below the $7
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
can support a $19 million size standard.
The $3.3 million level is 52.8 percent
between $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 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 $18.61 million
([{$29.0 million ¥ $7.0 million} *
0.528] + $7.0 million = $18.61 million).
The final step is to round the estimated
$18.61 million size standard to the
nearest fixed size standard, which in
this example is $19 million.
SBA applies the above calculation to
derive a size standard for each industry
factor. Detailed formulas involved in
these calculations are presented in
SBA’s ‘‘Size Standards Methodology’’
which is available on its Web site at
www.sba.gov/size. (However, it should
be noted that figures in the ‘‘Size
Standards Methodology’’ White Paper
are based on 2002 Economic Census
data and are different from those
presented in this proposed rule. That is
because when SBA prepared its ‘‘Size
Standards Methodology,’’ the 2007
Economic Census data were not yet
available). Table 2, Values of Industry
Factors and Supported Size Standards,
(below) shows ranges of values for each
industry factor and the levels of size
standards supported by those values.
TABLE 2—VALUES OF INDUSTRY FACTORS AND SUPPORTED SIZE STANDARDS
If simple
average
receipts size
($ million)
Or if weighted average
receipts size
($ million)
Or if average
assets size
($ million)
Or if average 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 .........................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Derivation of Size Standard Based on
Federal Contracting Factor
Besides industry structure, SBA also
evaluates Federal contracting data to
assess the success of small businesses in
getting Federal contracts under the
existing size standards. For industries
where the small business share of total
Federal contracting dollars is 10 to 30
percent lower than the small business
share of total industry receipts, SBA has
designated a size standard one level
higher than their current size standard.
For industries where the small business
share of total Federal contracting dollars
is more than 30 percent lower than the
small business share of total industry
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
receipts, SBA has designated a size
standard two levels higher than the
current size standard.
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 more
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Then implied size
standard is
($ million)
5.0
7.0
10.0
14.0
19.0
25.5
30.0
35.5
a more extensive examination of Federal
contracting experience. This may
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 for 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 four industries in NAICS
Sector 21 with receipts based size
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
72772
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
standards averaged more than $100
million annually in Federal contracting
during fiscal years 2008–2010.
Therefore the Federal contracting factor
was not considered in calculating the
new size standard for them.
New Size Standards Based on Industry
Factors
Table 3, Size Standards Supported by
Each Factor for Each Industry (millions
of dollars), below, shows the results of
analyses of industry factors for each
industry covered by this proposed rule.
A number of NAICS industries in
columns 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 show two
numbers. The upper number is the
value for the industry factor shown on
the top of the column and the lower
number is the size standard supported
by that factor. For the four-firm
concentration ratio, SBA estimates a
size standard only if its value is 40
percent or more. If the four-firm
concentration ratio for an industry is
less than 40 percent, SBA does not
estimate a standard for that factor. If the
four-firm concentration ratio is more
than 40 percent, SBA indicates in
column 6 the average size of the
industry’s top four firms together with
a size standard based on that average.
Column 8 shows a calculated new size
standard for each industry. This is the
average of the size standards supported
by each factor, rounded to the nearest
fixed size level. Analytical details
involved in the averaging procedure are
described in SBA’s ‘‘Size Standard
Methodology.’’ For comparison with the
new standards, the current size
standards are in column 9 of Table 3,
Size Standards Supported by Each
Factor for Each Industry (millions of
dollars).
TABLE 3—SIZE STANDARDS SUPPORTED BY EACH FACTOR FOR EACH INDUSTRY
[Millions of dollars]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
NAICS code and NAICS industry title
Simple
average firm
size
($ million)
Weighted
average firm
size
($ million)
Average
assets size
($ million)
Four-firm
ratio (%)
Four-firm
average
size
($ million)
Gini
coefficient
Calculated
size
standard
($ million)
Current size
standard
($ million)
$7.9
35.5
7.7
35.5
11.7
35.5
$197.8
35.5
47.9
14.0
63.0
19.0
$5.2
35.5
....................
27.9
$3,246.0
44.4
....................
57.9
219.2
7.0
205.8
7.0
2.2
14.0
12.2
5.0
....................
24.4
30.9
213112 Support Activities for Oil and Gas
Operations .....................................................
213113
Support Activities for Coal Mining .....
213114
Support Activities for Metal Mining ....
213115 Support Activities for Nonmetallic
Minerals (except Fuels) .................................
Evaluation of SBA Loan Data
Before deciding on an industry’s size
standard, SBA also considers the impact
of new or revised size standards on
SBA’s loan programs. Accordingly, SBA
examined its 7(a) and 504 Loan Program
data for fiscal years 2009–2011 to assess
whether the 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 businesses much
smaller than the current size standards
that use SBA’s 7(a) and 504 loans.
Furthermore, the Jobs Act established
an alternative size standard for SBA’s
7(a) and 504 applicants. Specifically, an
applicant exceeding an NAICS industry
size standard may still be eligible if its
maximum tangible net worth does not
exceed $15 million and its average net
income after Federal income taxes
(excluding any carry-over losses) for the
2 full fiscal years before the date of the
application is not more than $5 million.
Therefore, no size standard in NAICS
21, Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
0.892
$35.5
0.786
19.0
0.790
25.5
$35.5
$7.0
19.0
7.0
19.0
7.0
0.622
5.0
7.0
7.0
Extraction, needs an adjustment based
on this factor.
Proposed Changes to Size Standards
Based on the analyses of industry and
program data as discussed above, of the
four industries in NAICS Sector 21
reviewed in this rule, SBA proposes to
increase the size standard for three and
retain the current size standard for one.
SBA’s proposed changes are
summarized in Table 4, Summary of
Proposed Size Standards Revisions,
below.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SIZE STANDARDS REVISIONS
NAICS code
213112
213113
213114
213115
.............
.............
.............
.............
Support
Support
Support
Support
Activities
Activities
Activities
Activities
for
for
for
for
Oil and Gas Operations ..........................................................................
Coal Mining .............................................................................................
Metal Mining ............................................................................................
Nonmetallic Minerals (except Fuels) .......................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Evaluation of Dominance in Field of
Operation
SBA has determined that for the
industries in NAICS Sector 21, Mining,
Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction,
for which it has proposed to increase
size standards, no individual firm at or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Current size
standard
($ million)
NAICS industry title
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
below the proposed size standard will
be large enough to dominate its field of
operation. At the proposed individual
size standards, if adopted, small
business shares of total industry receipts
among those industries vary from less
than 0.1 percent to 2.8 percent, with an
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Proposed size
standard
($ million)
$35.5
19.0
19.0
7.0
average of 1.1 percent. These market
shares effectively preclude a firm at or
below the proposed size standards from
exerting control on any of the
industries.
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Request for Comments
SBA invites public comments on this
proposed rule, especially on the
following issues:
1. To simplify size standards, SBA
proposes eight fixed 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 this is necessary and whether
the proposed fixed size levels are
appropriate. SBA welcomes suggestions
on alternative approaches to simplifying
small business size standards.
2. SBA seeks comment on whether the
proposed size standards for NAICS
Sector 21 are appropriate given the
economic characteristics of each
industry reviewed in this proposed rule.
SBA also seeks comment and
suggestions on alternative standards, if
they would be more appropriate,
including whether the number of
employees is a more suitable measure of
size for certain industries and what that
employee level should be.
3. SBA’s proposed size standards are
based on five primary factors—average
firm size, average assets size (as a proxy
of startup costs and entry barriers), fourfirm 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 of other
factors that it should consider when
evaluating or revising size standards.
SBA also seeks information on relevant
data sources, other than what it uses, if
available.
4. SBA gives equal weight to each of
the five primary factors in all industries.
SBA seeks feedback on whether it
should continue giving equal weight to
each factor or whether it should give
more weight to one or more factors for
certain industries. Recommendations to
weigh some factors more than others
should include suggested weights for
each factor along with supporting
information.
5. For NAICS 213112, Support
Activities for Oil and Gas Operations,
based on its analysis of industry and
program data alone, SBA proposes to
increase the existing size standards by a
large amount, while for NAICS 213113
and NAICS 213114 the proposed
increases are modest. SBA seeks
comment on whether, as a policy, it
should limit the increase to a size
standard or 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
6. 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 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 standard methodology and
proposed size standards revisions 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, 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, Regulatory
Planning and Review. 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
revisions to receipts based size
standards for three industries in NAICS
Sector 21, Mining, Quarrying, and Oil
and Gas Extraction, will better reflect
the economic characteristics of small
businesses in those industries and the
Federal government marketplace. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72773
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 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 servicedisabled veteran-owned small business
concerns (SDVO SBC). Federal agencies
may also use SBA size standards for a
variety of other regulatory and program
purposes. These programs assist small
businesses to become more
knowledgeable, stable, and competitive.
SBA estimates that about 475 firms in
the three industries for which it has
proposed to increase size standards will
become small and therefore eligible for
these programs. That is about 8.5
percent of all firms classified as small
under the current size standards in
those industries. If adopted as proposed,
this will also increase the small
business share of total industry receipts
in those industries within NAICS Sector
21 from about 13 percent to nearly 25
percent.
Three groups will benefit from the
proposed size standards revisions in
this rule, if they are adopted as
proposed: (1) Some businesses that are
above the current size standards may
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
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
72774
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 larger pools of small businesses
from which to draw for their small
business procurement programs.
Because of limited Federal contracting
activities in those industries, proposed
increases will cause very minimal
impact on Federal contracting programs
under SBA’s small business, 8(a), SDB,
HUBZone, WOSB, and SDVO SBC
Programs, and other unrestricted
procurements.
Under SBA’s 7(a) and 504 Loan
Programs, based on the 2009–2011 data,
SBA estimates about five additional
loans totaling about $2 million to $3
million in Federal loan guarantees could
be made to these newly defined small
businesses under the proposed
standards. Increasing the size standards
will likely result in more small business
guaranteed loans to businesses in these
industries, but it is be impractical to try
to estimate exactly the number and total
amount of loans. There are two reasons
for this: (1) Under the Jobs Act, SBA can
now guarantee substantially larger loans
than in the past; and, (2) as described
above, 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 difficult to quantify the
impact of these proposed 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 one or more disasters,
SBA cannot make a meaningful estimate
of this impact.
In addition, newly eligible small
businesses will also benefit through
reduced fees, less paperwork, and fewer
compliance requirements.
The proposed revisions to the existing
size standards for three industries in
NAICS Sector 21, Mining, Quarrying,
and Oil and Gas Extraction, 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 small
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 distributional impacts that
relate to Executive Order 13563,
Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review, are included above in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis under
Executive Order 12866.
In an effort to engage interested
parties in this action, SBA has presented
its methodology (discussed above under
Supplementary Information) to various
industry associations and trade groups.
SBA also met with a number of industry
groups to get their feedback on its
methodology and other size standards
issues. In addition, SBA presented its
size standards methodology to
businesses in 13 cities in the U.S. and
sought their input as part of Jobs Act
tours. The presentation also included
information on the 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 21, Mining, Quarrying,
and Oil and Gas Extraction, is consistent
with Executive Order 13563, Sec 6,
calling for retrospective analyses of
existing rules. The last comprehensive
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
standards to ensure that existing size
standards have supportable bases. It will
revise them when necessary. In
addition, the Jobs Act requires 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, Federalism, 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. Ch. 35, SBA
has determined that this proposed 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 21, Mining, Quarrying,
and Oil and Gas Extraction. As
described above, this proposed rule may
affect small businesses seeking Federal
contracts, loans under SBA’s 7(a), 504
Guaranteed Loan and Economic Injury
Disaster Loan Programs, and 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
businesses to which the rule will
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
72775
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
apply?; (3) What are the projected
reporting, record keeping, 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 businesses?
1. What are the need for and objective
of the rule?
SBA has not reviewed the size
standards for industries in NAICS
Sector 21, Mining, Quarrying, and Oil
and Gas Extraction, since the early
1980s. Changes in industry structure,
technological changes, productivity
growth, mergers and acquisitions, and
updated industry definitions have
changed the structure of many
industries in NAICS Sector 21. Such
changes can be sufficient to support
revisions to current size standards for
some industries. Based on the analysis
of the latest data available, SBA believes
that the revised standards in this
proposed rule more appropriately reflect
the size of businesses that need Federal
assistance. The recently enacted 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
businesses to which the rule will apply?
If the proposed rule is adopted in its
present form, SBA estimates that about
475 additional firms will become small
because of increased size standards in
three industries NAICS Sector 21. That
represents 8.5 percent of total firms that
are small under current size standards
in those industries. This will result in
an increase in the small business share
of total industry receipts for the Sector
from about 13 percent under the current
size standard to nearly 25 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 may have lost their
eligibility and find it difficult to
compete at current size standards 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 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,
record keeping and other compliance
requirements of the rule?
The proposed size standard changes
impose no additional reporting or
record keeping requirements on small
businesses. However, qualifying for
Federal procurement and a number of
other programs requires that businesses
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
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 ‘‘213112’’, ‘‘213113’’, and
‘‘213114’’ 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
*
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Size standards
in millions of
dollars
NAICS U.S. industry title
213112
213113
213114
*
*
*
*
Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations ......................................................................................
Support Activities for Coal Mining .........................................................................................................
Support Activities for Metal Mining ........................................................................................................
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
*
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
*
*
$35.5
19.0
19.0
*
06DEP1
Size standards
in number of
employees
*
72776
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Dated: April 25, 2012.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
www.flyembraer.com. You may review
copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the
FAA, call 425–227–1221.
[FR Doc. 2012–29353 Filed 12–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Examining the AD Docket
Federal Aviation Administration
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Operations office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2768;
fax (425) 227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2012–1223; Directorate
Identifier 2012–NM–154–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A.
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 and ERJ
190 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by reports of the cockpit door
falling off the hinges when it is being
open or closed. This proposed AD
would require replacing the striker and
quick-release pin of the passive lock of
the cockpit door, and replacing the
upper and lower hinges of the cockpit
door. We are proposing this AD to
prevent the cockpit door from falling off
the hinges, which could cause injury to
airplane occupants.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by January 22, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Embraer S.A.,
Technical Publications Section (PC
060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—
˜
Putim—12227–901 Sao Jose dos
Campos–SP–BRASIL; telephone +55 12
3927–5852 or +55 12 3309–0732; fax
+55 12 3927–7546; email
distrib@embraer.com.br; Internet https://
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2012–1223; Directorate Identifier
2012–NM–154–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD based on those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
ˆ
The Agencia Nacional de Aviacao
¸˜
Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation
authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian
Airworthiness Directives 2012–08–02
and 2012–08–03, both effective
September 5, 2012 (referred to after this
as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products.
The MCAI states:
This [ANAC] AD was prompted by reports
of cockpit door falling off the hinges when
it is being opened or closed. If not corrected,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
this condition may cause injury to the
occupants.
*
*
*
*
*
Required actions include replacement of
the passive lock striker, quick-release
pin, and upper and lower hinges of the
cockpit door. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in
the AD docket.
Relevant Service Information
Embraer has issued the following
service bulletins to correct the unsafe
condition identified in the MCAI. The
actions described in the following
service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified
in the MCAI.
• EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170–
52–0055, Revision 01, dated August 1,
2011 (for Model ERJ 170 airplanes).
• EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190–
52–0038, Revision 01, dated August 1,
2011 (for Model ERJ 190 airplanes
except for Model ERJ 190–100 ECJ
airplanes).
• EMBRAER Service Bulletin
190LIN–52–0020, dated August 1, 2011
(for Model ERJ 190–100 ECJ airplanes).
FAA’s Determination and Requirements
of This Proposed AD
This product has been approved by
the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation
in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with the State of
Design Authority, we have been notified
of the unsafe condition described in the
MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are proposing this
AD because we evaluated all pertinent
information and determined an unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same
type design.
Costs of Compliance
Based on the service information, we
estimate that this proposed AD would
affect about 253 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would
take about 6 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of
this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required
parts would cost about $0 per product.
Where the service information lists
required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that
there will be no charge for these parts.
As we do not control warranty coverage
for affected parties, some parties may
incur costs higher than estimated here.
Based on these figures, we estimate the
cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $129,030, or $510 per
product.
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 235 (Thursday, December 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72766-72776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29353]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 121
RIN 3245-AG44
Small Business Size Standards: Support Activities for Mining
AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) proposes to
increase small business size standards for three industries in North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Subsector 213, Support
Activities for Mining, within NAICS Sector 21, Mining, Quarrying, and
Oil and Gas Extraction. NAICS Sector 21 contains four industries with
receipts based standards and 19 industries with employee based size
standards. As part of its ongoing comprehensive review of all size
standards, in this proposed rule, SBA has evaluated the four industries
that have the receipts based size standards in NAICS Sector 21 to
determine whether they should be retained or revised. SBA will review
the 19 industries that have the employee based standards in NAICS
Sector 21 at a later date. This proposed rule is one of a series of
proposed rules that will review size standards of industries grouped by
NAICS Sector. SBA has issued a White Paper entitled ``Size Standards
Methodology'' and published a notice in the October 21, 2009 issue of
the Federal Register to advise the public that ``Size Standards
Methodology'' 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 in determining changes
to receipts based size standards in NAICS Sector 21, Mining, Quarrying,
and Oil and Gas Extraction.
DATES: SBA must receive comments to this proposed rule on or before
February 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Identify your comments by RIN 3245-AG44 and submit them by
one of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov, following 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 to this proposed
rule 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. You should highlight the information that you
consider to be CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this
information as confidential. SBA will review your information and
determine whether it will make the information public or not.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Size
Standards Division, phone: (202) 205-6618 or sizestandards@sba.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To determine eligibility for Federal small
business assistance, SBA establishes small business size 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 beginning 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 levels 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. At least once every five
years, SBA also reviews the effect of inflation on its size standards
and makes necessary adjustments to its monetary based size standards.
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 comprehensive size standards review, SBA
recognizes that current data may no longer support some of its existing
size standards. Accordingly, in 2007, SBA began a
[[Page 72767]]
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 conduct a detailed review of
at least one-third of all size standards during every 18-month period
from the date of its enactment. In addition, the Jobs Act requires that
SBA conduct a review of all size standards not less frequently than
once every five 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
size standards on a Sector by Sector basis. An NAICS Sector generally
includes 25 to 75 industries, except for NAICS Sector 31-33,
Manufacturing, which has considerably more industries. Once SBA
completes its review of size standards for industries in an NAICS
Sector, it issues a proposed rule to revise size standards for those
industries for which it believes 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 that SBA applied to this
proposed rule, including analyses of industry structure, Federal
procurement trends and other relevant factors, the impact of the
proposed revisions to size standards on Federal small business
assistance, and SBA's evaluation of whether a revised size standard
would exclude dominant firms from being considered small.
Size Standards Methodology
SBA has developed a ``Size Standards Methodology'' for developing,
reviewing, and modifying size standards when necessary. SBA has
published the document on its Web site at www.sba.gov/size for public
review and comments, and has included it as a supporting document in
the electronic docket of this proposed rule at www.regulations.gov. SBA
does not apply all features of its ``Size Standards Methodology'' to
all industries because not all features are appropriate for every
industry. For example, since all four industries in NAICS Sector 21
that are covered by this proposed rule have receipts based size
standards, the methodology described here applies only to establishing
a receipts based size standard. However, the methodology is available
for review and comments in its entirety for parties who have an
interest 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 whether there
are other 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; whether there are gaps in SBA's
methodology because the data it uses are not current or sufficiently
comprehensive; and whether there are other data, facts, and/or issues
that SBA should consider. Comments on SBA's methodology should be
submitted via (1) the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov,
following the instructions for submitting comments; the docket number
is SBA-2009-0008, 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 it will do with comments to this and
other proposed rules, SBA will post all comments on its methodology on
www.regulations.gov. As of January 1, 2012, SBA has received 13
comments to its ``Size Standards Methodology.'' The comments are
available to the public at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: SBA-2009-
0008. SBA continues to welcome comments on its methodology from
interested parties. SBA will not accept comments to its ``Size
Standards Methodology'' submitted by email.
Congress granted SBA's Administrator discretion to establish
detailed small business size standards. 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2).
Specifically, 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 is
the 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
(as described below). In addition, SBA considers current economic
conditions, its mission and program objectives, the Administration's
current policies, suggestions from industry groups and Federal
agencies, and public comments on the proposed rule. SBA also examines
whether a size standard based on industry and other relevant data
successfully excludes businesses that are dominant in the industry.
This proposed rule includes information regarding the factors SBA
evaluated and the criteria it used to propose adjustments to receipts
based size standards in NAICS Sector 21. This proposed rule affords the
public an opportunity to review and to comment on SBA's proposals to
revise size standards in NAICS Sector 21, as well as on the data and
methodology it used to evaluate and revise the size standards.
Industry Analysis
For the current comprehensive size standards review, SBA
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 today it is $7
million. Since 1986, the size standard for all industries in the
Wholesale Trade Sector for SBA financial assistance and for most
Federal programs has been 100 employees. However, the Wholesale Trade
NAICs Codes and their100 employee size standards do not apply to
Federal procurement programs. Rather, for Federal procurement the size
standard for all industries in Wholesale Trade (NAICS Sector 42) and
for all industries in Retail Trade (NAICS Sector 44-45), is 500
employees under 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 is neither a minimum nor a
[[Page 72768]]
maximum size standard. 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, while the U.S. economy
is not. Hence, absolute precision is impossible. SBA presumes an anchor
size standard is appropriate for a particular industry unless that
industry displays economic characteristics that are considerably
different from other industries with the same anchor size standard.
When evaluating a size standard, SBA compares the economic
characteristics of the 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 generally 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, then 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 in 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 21, SBA developed a second comparison group
consisting of industries that have the highest of receipts based size
standards. To determine 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; the weighted average size
standard for the group is $29 million. SBA refers to this comparison
group as the ``higher level receipts based size standard group.''
The primary industry factors that SBA evaluates include average
firm size, startup costs and entry barriers, industry competition, and
distribution of firms by size. SBA evaluates, as an additional primary
factor, the impact that revised 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 financial
assistance, and other program factors). 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 standards. Below are brief
descriptions of each of the five primary factors that SBA has evaluated
for each industry in NAICS Sector 21. A more detailed description of
this analysis is provided in 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 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 size standard. In lieu of actual startup cost data, SBA uses
average assets as a proxy to measure the 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. SBA then applies these ratios to the average
receipts of firms in that industry. An industry with average assets
that are significantly higher than those 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, an industry with
average assets that are similar to or lower than those of the anchor
comparison group is likely to have lower startup costs; this will
support the anchor standard or one lower than the anchor.
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 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 share of economic activity within the
industry is less than 40 percent. For an industry with a four-firm
concentration ratio of 40 percent or more, SBA
[[Page 72769]]
examines the average size of the four largest firms to determine 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 in assessing industry competition. If most of an industry's
economic activity is attributable to smaller firms, this generally
indicates that small businesses are competitive in that industry. This
can support adopting the anchor size standard. If most of an industry's
economic activity is attributable to larger firms, this indicates that
small businesses are not competitive in that industry. This can support
adopting a size standard above the anchor.
Concentration is a measure of inequality of distribution. To
determine the degree of inequality of distribution in an industry, SBA
computes the Gini coefficient, using 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
receipts are distributed equally among all the firms in an industry,
the value of the Gini coefficient will equal zero. If an industry's
total receipts are attributed to a single firm, the Gini coefficient
will equal one.
SBA compares the Gini coefficient value for an industry with that
for industries in the anchor comparison group. If the Gini coefficient
value for an industry is higher than it is for industries in the anchor
comparison industry group this may, all else being equal, warrant a
size standard higher than the anchor. Conversely, if an industry's Gini
coefficient is similar to or lower than that for 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 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, this could justify 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, the different skill set
required by Federal contracts as compared to typical commercial
contracting work, and the size of Federal contracts. These, as well as
other factors, are likely to influence the type of firms within an
industry that compete for Federal contracts. By comparing the small
business Federal contracting 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 significant levels 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 the impact of a proposed size standard revision on SBA's loan
programs. 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 the proposed size standard
for a particular industry may restrict the level of financial
assistance to small firms. If current size standards have impeded
financial assistance to small businesses, higher size standards may be
supportable. However, if small businesses under current size standards
have been receiving significant amounts of financial assistance through
SBA's loan programs, or if the financial assistance has been provided
mainly to businesses that are much smaller than the existing size
standards, SBA does not consider this factor when determining the size
standard.
Sources of Industry and Program Data
SBA's primary source of industry data used in this proposed rule is
a special tabulation of the 2007 Economic Census (see www.census.gov/econ/census07/) prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (Census
Bureau) for SBA. The 2007 Economic Census data are the latest
available. 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, Industry (6-digit level),
Industry Group (4-digit level), Subsector (3-digit level), and Sector
(2-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's analysis was based 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
2009-2011.
Data sources and estimation procedures SBA uses in its size
standards analysis are documented in detail in 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 SBA
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
[[Page 72770]]
examines the industry's market share of firms at the proposed 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 includes a dominant firm, SBA will consider
a lower size standard to exclude the dominant firm from being defined
as small.
Selection of Size Standards
To simplify receipts based size standards, SBA has proposed to
select 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 beginning of the 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 such a large number of
different small business size standards are 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.
Therefore, SBA proposes to apply one of eight receipts based size
standards to each industry in NAICS Sector 21 reviewed in this rule.
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. SBA established these eight receipts based
size standard based on the current minimum, the current maximum, and
the most commonly used current receipts based size standards. At the
start of the current comprehensive 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 million, $25 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 an anchor standard. The
lowest or minimum receipts based size level will be $5 million. Other
than the standards for agriculture and those based on commissions (such
as real estate brokers and travel agents), $5 million includes 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 of the large intervals between some of the fixed
levels, SBA 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. In NAICS Sector 21, the characteristics of the four
industries with receipts based standards reviewed in this rule are not
sufficiently alike to warrant a common size standard for all.
Therefore, SBA is proposing to increase three of the size standards and
retain the $7 million anchor for NAICS 213115, Support Activities for
Nonmetallic Minerals (except Fuels).
Evaluation of Industry Structure
SBA evaluated the four industries in NAICS Sector 21, Mining,
Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction, to assess the appropriateness of
the current receipts based size standards. As described above, SBA
compared data on the economic characteristics of each industry to the
average characteristics of industries in two comparison groups. The
first comparison group consists of all industries with $7 million size
standards and is referred to as the ``receipts based anchor comparison
group.'' Because the goal of SBA's 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 are similar to the average
characteristics of industries in the anchor comparison group, the
anchor size standard is generally 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 proposed 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 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 $29 million. SBA refers to this group of industries as the ``higher
level receipts based size standard comparison group.'' SBA determines
differences in industry structure between an industry under review and
the industries in the two comparison groups by comparing data on each
of the industry factors, including average firm size, average assets
size, the four-firm concentration ratio, and the Gini coefficient of
distribution of firms by size. Table 1, Average Characteristics of
Receipts Based Comparison Groups, shows the average firm size (both
simple and weighted), average assets size, four-firm concentration
ratio, average receipts of the four largest firms, and the Gini
coefficient for both anchor level and higher level comparison groups
for receipts based size standards.
[[Page 72771]]
Table 1--Average Characteristics of Receipts Based Comparison Groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average firm size ($ million) Average receipts
------------------------------------ Average assets Four[dash]firm of four largest
Receipts based comparison group Weighted size ($ concentration firms ($ Gini coefficient
Simple 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, SBA derives a separate size standard
based on the differences between the values for an 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, the $7 million anchor size standard is
appropriate for that factor.
An industry factor significantly above or below the anchor
comparison group will generally imply a size standard for that industry
above or below the $7 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 can support a $19 million size standard. The $3.3 million
level is 52.8 percent between $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 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 $18.61 million ([{$29.0
million - $7.0 million{time} * 0.528] + $7.0 million = $18.61
million). The final step is to round the estimated $18.61 million size
standard to the nearest fixed size standard, which in this example is
$19 million.
SBA applies the above calculation to derive a size standard for
each industry factor. Detailed formulas involved in these calculations
are presented in SBA's ``Size Standards Methodology'' which is
available on its Web site at www.sba.gov/size. (However, it should be
noted that figures in the ``Size Standards Methodology'' White Paper
are based on 2002 Economic Census data and are different from those
presented in this proposed rule. That is because when SBA prepared its
``Size Standards Methodology,'' the 2007 Economic Census data were not
yet available). Table 2, Values of Industry Factors and Supported Size
Standards, (below) shows ranges of values for each industry factor and
the levels of size standards supported by those values.
Table 2--Values of Industry Factors and Supported Size Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or if average
If simple average receipts size Or if weighted average Or if average assets receipts of largest Or if Gini Then implied size
($ million) receipts size ($ size ($ million) four firms ($ coefficient standard is ($ 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 1,014.1..... 0.753 to 0.788....... 19.0
3.93 to 4.86...................... 87.03 to 111.32....... 2.49 to 3.07......... 1,014.2 to 1,309.0... 0.789 to 0.822....... 25.5
4.87 to 5.71...................... 111.33 to 133.41...... 3.08 to 3.61......... 1,309.1 to 1,577.1... 0.823 to 0.853....... 30.0
>5.71............................. >133.41............... >3.61................ >1,577.1............. >0.853............... 35.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derivation of Size Standard Based on Federal Contracting Factor
Besides industry structure, SBA also evaluates Federal contracting
data to assess the success of small businesses in getting Federal
contracts under the existing size standards. For industries where the
small business share of total Federal contracting dollars is 10 to 30
percent lower than the small business share of total industry receipts,
SBA has designated a size standard one level higher than their current
size standard. For industries where the small business share of total
Federal contracting dollars is more than 30 percent lower than the
small business share of total industry receipts, SBA has designated a
size standard two levels higher than the current size standard.
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 more 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
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 for 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 four industries in NAICS Sector 21 with receipts based
size
[[Page 72772]]
standards averaged more than $100 million annually in Federal
contracting during fiscal years 2008-2010. Therefore the Federal
contracting factor was not considered in calculating the new size
standard for them.
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 covered by this proposed rule. A number of
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 only if its value is 40 percent or more. If the four-firm
concentration ratio for an industry is less than 40 percent, SBA does
not estimate a 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. Column 8 shows a calculated new size standard
for each industry. This is the average of the size standards supported
by each factor, rounded to the nearest fixed size level. Analytical
details involved in the averaging procedure are described in 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).
Table 3--Size Standards Supported by Each Factor for Each Industry
[Millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
NAICS code and NAICS industry title Simple Weighted Average Four-firm Four-firm Gini Calculated Current
average average assets size ratio (%) average coefficient size size
firm size firm size ($ million) size standard standard
($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213112 Support Activities for Oil and Gas $7.9 $197.8 $5.2 27.9 $3,246.0 0.892 $35.5 $7.0
Operations..................................... 35.5 35.5 35.5 $35.5
213113 Support Activities for Coal Mining....... 7.7 47.9 ........... 44.4 219.2 0.786 19.0 7.0
35.5 14.0 7.0 19.0
213114 Support Activities for Metal Mining...... 11.7 63.0 ........... 57.9 205.8 0.790 19.0 7.0
35.5 19.0 7.0 25.5
213115 Support Activities for Nonmetallic 2.2 12.2 ........... 24.4 30.9 0.622 7.0 7.0
Minerals (except Fuels)........................ 14.0 5.0 5.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of SBA Loan Data
Before deciding on an industry's size standard, SBA also considers
the impact of new or revised size standards on SBA's loan programs.
Accordingly, SBA examined its 7(a) and 504 Loan Program data for fiscal
years 2009-2011 to assess whether the 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 businesses much smaller than the current
size standards that use SBA's 7(a) and 504 loans.
Furthermore, the Jobs Act established an alternative size standard
for SBA's 7(a) and 504 applicants. Specifically, an applicant exceeding
an NAICS industry size standard may still be eligible if its maximum
tangible net worth does not exceed $15 million and its average net
income after Federal income taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) for
the 2 full fiscal years before the date of the application is not more
than $5 million.
Therefore, no size standard in NAICS 21, Mining, Quarrying, and Oil
and Gas Extraction, needs an adjustment based on this factor.
Proposed Changes to Size Standards
Based on the analyses of industry and program data as discussed
above, of the four industries in NAICS Sector 21 reviewed in this rule,
SBA proposes to increase the size standard for three and retain the
current size standard for one. SBA's proposed changes are summarized in
Table 4, Summary of Proposed Size Standards Revisions, below.
Table 4--Summary of Proposed Size Standards Revisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current size Proposed size
NAICS code NAICS industry title standard ($ standard ($
million) million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213112................................ Support Activities for Oil and Gas $7.0 $35.5
Operations.
213113................................ Support Activities for Coal Mining...... 7.0 19.0
213114................................ Support Activities for Metal Mining..... 7.0 19.0
213115................................ Support Activities for Nonmetallic 7.0 7.0
Minerals (except Fuels).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of Dominance in Field of Operation
SBA has determined that for the industries in NAICS Sector 21,
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction, for which it has
proposed to increase size standards, no individual firm at or below the
proposed size standard will be large enough to dominate its field of
operation. At the proposed individual size standards, if adopted, small
business shares of total industry receipts among those industries vary
from less than 0.1 percent to 2.8 percent, with an average of 1.1
percent. These market shares effectively preclude a firm at or below
the proposed size standards from exerting control on any of the
industries.
[[Page 72773]]
Request for Comments
SBA invites public comments on this proposed rule, especially on
the following issues:
1. To simplify size standards, SBA proposes eight fixed 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 this is necessary and whether the
proposed fixed size levels are appropriate. SBA welcomes suggestions on
alternative approaches to simplifying small business size standards.
2. SBA seeks comment on whether the proposed size standards for
NAICS Sector 21 are appropriate given the economic characteristics of
each industry reviewed in this proposed rule. SBA also seeks comment
and suggestions on alternative standards, if they would be more
appropriate, including whether the number of employees is a more
suitable measure of size for certain industries and what that employee
level should be.
3. SBA's proposed size standards are based on five primary
factors--average firm size, average assets size (as a proxy of 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 of other factors that it should consider when evaluating or
revising size standards. SBA also seeks information on relevant data
sources, other than what it uses, if available.
4. SBA gives equal weight to each of the five primary factors in
all industries. SBA seeks feedback on whether it should continue giving
equal weight to each factor or whether it should give more weight to
one or more factors for certain industries. Recommendations to weigh
some factors more than others should include suggested weights for each
factor along with supporting information.
5. For NAICS 213112, Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations,
based on its analysis of industry and program data alone, SBA proposes
to increase the existing size standards by a large amount, while for
NAICS 213113 and NAICS 213114 the proposed increases are modest. SBA
seeks comment on whether, as a policy, it should limit the increase to
a size standard or 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 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 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 standard methodology and proposed size standards
revisions 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, 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, Regulatory Planning and Review. 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 revisions to receipts based size
standards for three industries in NAICS Sector 21, Mining, Quarrying,
and Oil and Gas Extraction, will better reflect the economic
characteristics of small businesses in those industries and the Federal
government marketplace. 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 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 size standards for a
variety of other regulatory and program purposes. These programs assist
small businesses to become more knowledgeable, stable, and competitive.
SBA estimates that about 475 firms in the three industries for which it
has proposed to increase size standards will become small and therefore
eligible for these programs. That is about 8.5 percent of all firms
classified as small under the current size standards in those
industries. If adopted as proposed, this will also increase the small
business share of total industry receipts in those industries within
NAICS Sector 21 from about 13 percent to nearly 25 percent.
Three groups will benefit from the proposed size standards
revisions in this rule, if they are adopted as proposed: (1) Some
businesses that are above the current size standards may 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
[[Page 72774]]
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 larger pools of
small businesses from which to draw for their small business
procurement programs.
Because of limited Federal contracting activities in those
industries, proposed increases will cause very minimal impact on
Federal contracting programs under SBA's small business, 8(a), SDB,
HUBZone, WOSB, and SDVO SBC Programs, and other unrestricted
procurements.
Under SBA's 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs, based on the 2009-2011
data, SBA estimates about five additional loans totaling about $2
million to $3 million in Federal loan guarantees could be made to these
newly defined small businesses under the proposed standards. Increasing
the size standards will likely result in more small business guaranteed
loans to businesses in these industries, but it is be impractical to
try to estimate exactly the number and total amount of loans. There are
two reasons for this: (1) Under the Jobs Act, SBA can now guarantee
substantially larger loans than in the past; and, (2) as described
above, 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 difficult to quantify the
impact of these proposed 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 one or more disasters, SBA
cannot make a meaningful estimate of this impact.
In addition, newly eligible small businesses will also benefit
through reduced fees, less paperwork, and fewer compliance
requirements.
The proposed revisions to the existing size standards for three
industries in NAICS Sector 21, Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
Extraction, 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 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
distributional impacts that relate to Executive Order 13563, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, are included above in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866.
In an effort to engage interested parties in this action, SBA has
presented its methodology (discussed above under Supplementary
Information) to various industry associations and trade groups. SBA
also met with a number of industry groups to get their feedback on its
methodology and other size standards issues. In addition, SBA presented
its size standards methodology to businesses in 13 cities in the U.S.
and sought their input as part of Jobs Act tours. The presentation also
included information on the 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 21, Mining, Quarrying,
and Oil and Gas Extraction, is consistent with Executive Order 13563,
Sec 6, calling for retrospective analyses of existing rules. The last
comprehensive 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. It will revise them when necessary. In addition, the Jobs Act
requires 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, Federalism, 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. Ch. 35,
SBA has determined that this proposed 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 21, Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas
Extraction. As described above, this proposed rule may affect small
businesses seeking Federal contracts, loans under SBA's 7(a), 504
Guaranteed Loan and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Programs, and
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
businesses to which the rule will
[[Page 72775]]
apply?; (3) What are the projected reporting, record keeping, 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 businesses?
1. What are the need for and objective of the rule?
SBA has not reviewed the size standards for industries in NAICS
Sector 21, Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction, since the
early 1980s. Changes in industry structure, technological changes,
productivity growth, mergers and acquisitions, and updated industry
definitions have changed the structure of many industries in NAICS
Sector 21. Such changes can be sufficient to support revisions to
current size standards for some industries. Based on the analysis of
the latest data available, SBA believes that the revised standards in
this proposed rule more appropriately reflect the size of businesses
that need Federal assistance. The recently enacted 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
businesses to which the rule will apply?
If the proposed rule is adopted in its present form, SBA estimates
that about 475 additional firms will become small because of increased
size standards in three industries NAICS Sector 21. That represents 8.5
percent of total firms that are small under current size standards in
those industries. This will result in an increase in the small business
share of total industry receipts for the Sector from about 13 percent
under the current size standard to nearly 25 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 may have lost their eligibility and find it
difficult to compete at current size standards 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 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, record keeping and other
compliance requirements of the rule?
The proposed size standard changes impose no additional reporting
or record keeping requirements on small businesses. However, qualifying
for Federal procurement and a number of other programs requires that
businesses 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 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 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 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 Sec. 121.201, in the table, revise the entries for
``213112'', ``213113'', and ``213114'' 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 Size standards
NAICS Codes NAICS U.S. industry title in millions of in number of
dollars employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
213112....................... Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations.... $35.5
213113....................... Support Activities for Coal Mining............... 19.0
213114....................... Support Activities for Metal Mining.............. 19.0
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 72776]]
Dated: April 25, 2012.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-29353 Filed 12-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P