Small Business Size Standards: Calculation of Annual Average Receipts, 66561-66579 [2019-26041]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
66561
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 84, No. 234
Thursday, December 5, 2019
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 1, 2, 37, 40, 50, 51, 52,
55, 71, 72, 73, 74, 100, 140, and 150
[NRC–2019–0170]
RIN 3150–AK37
Organizational Changes and
Conforming Amendments
Correction
In rule document 2019–25847,
appearing on pages 65639 through
65646, in the issue of Friday, November
29, 2019 make the following correction:
On page 65639, in the third column,
in the DATES section, on the second line,
‘‘December 30, 2020’’ should read
‘‘December 30, 2019’’.
[FR Doc. C1–2019–25847 Filed 12–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1300–01–D
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 121
RIN 3245–AH16
Small Business Size Standards:
Calculation of Annual Average
Receipts
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA or Agency) is
modifying its method for calculating
average annual receipts used to
prescribe size standards for small
businesses. Specifically, in accordance
with the Small Business Runway
Extension Act of 2018, SBA is changing
its regulations on the calculation of
average annual receipts for all of SBA’s
receipts-based size standards, and for
other agencies’ proposed receipts-based
size standards, from a 3-year averaging
period to a 5-year averaging period,
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
outside of the SBA Business Loan and
Disaster Loan Programs. SBA intends to
seek comment on the Business Loan and
Disaster Loan Programs in a proposed
rule through a separate rulemaking. For
all other programs, SBA adopts a
transition period through January 6,
2022, during which firms may choose
between using a 3-year averaging period
and a 5-year averaging period.
DATES: This rule is effective January 6,
2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Office of
Size Standards, (202) 205–6618 or
sizestandards@sba.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background Information
Public Law 115–324 (the ‘‘Small
Business Runway Extension Act of
2018’’) amended section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II)
of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II), to modify the
requirements for proposed small
business size standards prescribed by an
agency without separate statutory
authority to issue size standards.
Under section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the
Small Business Act, as amended, an
agency without separate statutory
authority to issue size standards must
satisfy three requirements to prescribe a
size standard. First, the agency must
propose the size standard with an
opportunity for public notice and
comment. Second, the agency must
provide for determining the size of a
manufacturing concern based on a 12month average of the concern’s
employment, the size of a services
concern based on a 5-year average of
gross receipts, and the size of another
business concern on the basis of data of
not less than 3 years. Third, the agency
must obtain approval of the
contemplated size standard from the
SBA Administrator.
In contrast to agencies subject to
section 3(a)(2)(C), SBA has independent
statutory authority to issue size
standards. Under section 3(a)(2)(A) of
the Small Business Act, the SBA
Administrator may specify detailed
definitions or standards by which a
business concern may be determined to
be a small business concern for the
purposes of SBA’s programs or any
other Federal Government program.
Section 3(a)(2)(B) of the Small Business
Act further provides that such
definitions may utilize the number of
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
employees, dollar volume of business,
net worth, net income, a combination
thereof, or other appropriate factors. To
determine eligibility for Federal small
business assistance, SBA establishes
detailed size definitions for small
businesses (usually referred to as ‘‘size
standards’’) that vary from industry to
industry reflecting differences among
the various industries. SBA typically
uses two primary measures of business
size for size standards purposes: (i)
Average annual gross receipts for
businesses in services, retail trade,
agricultural, and construction
industries, and (ii) average number of
employees for businesses in all
manufacturing, most mining and
utilities industries, and some
transportation, information and research
and development (R&D) industries. SBA
uses financial assets for certain financial
industries and refining capacity, in
addition to employees, for the
petroleum refining industry to measure
business size standards purposes.
The SBA’s size standards are used to
establish eligibility for a variety of
Federal small business assistance
programs, including for Federal
Government contracting and business
development programs designed to
assist small businesses in obtaining
Federal contracts and for SBA’s loan
guarantee programs, which provide
access to capital for small businesses
that are unable to qualify for and receive
conventional loans elsewhere. The
Federal Government contracting
programs that use SBA’s size standards
include the SBA’s 8(a) Business
Development (BD) program, the
Historically Underutilized Business
Zones (HUBZone) program, the Service
Disabled Veteran-Owned Small
Business (SDVOSB) program, the
Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB)
program, and the Economically
Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small
Business (EDWOSB) program. SBA’s
Small Business Investment Company
(SBIC), Certified Development Company
(CDC/504), and 7(a) loan programs use
either the industry-based size standards
or tangible net worth and net income
based alternative size standards to
determine eligibility for those programs.
SBA has long interpreted section
3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act as
not applying to SBA’s size standards
issued under section 3(a)(2)(A). In the
preambles to the proposed and final
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
66562
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
rules implementing 3(a)(2)(C), SBA
explained that the Small Business Act
requires that other Federal agencies
either use SBA’s size standards or use
their own size standards that meet the
requirements as set forth in that section.
65 FR 4176 (Jan. 26, 2000) and 67 FR
13714 (March 26, 2002). In the final
implementation in 2002, SBA
interpreted section 3(a)(2)(C) as
applying only to non-SBA agencies,
stating, ‘‘Unless a statute specifies size
standards for an agency’s program or
gives an agency direct authority to
establish size standards, the agency
must use the applicable size standards
established by SBA.’’ However, the Act
allows an agency to ‘‘prescribe a size
standard for categorizing a business
concern as a small business concern (see
sec. 3(a)(2)(C) of the Act) provided that
the contemplated size standard meets
certain criteria, and the agency obtains
approval of the SBA Administrator.’’ 67
FR 13714. For further details on section
3(a)(2)(C) not applying to SBA’s size
standards, see the proposed rule (84 FR
29399).
Nevertheless, to promote consistency
government-wide on small business size
standards, on June 24, 2019 (84 FR
29399), SBA issued for comments a
proposed rule to change its method for
calculating average annual receipts for
all SBA’s receipts-based size standards
and other agencies’ proposed receiptsbased size standards for firms in
services industries from a 3-year
averaging period to a 5-year averaging
period.
SBA determined that it would be
confusing for a service-industry
business concern to use a 3-year average
for SBA’s receipts-based size standards
and switch to a 5-year average for
another agency’s receipts-based size
standards. Similarly, it would be
confusing to apply SBA’s size standards
for a business that is engaged in both
service- and non-service industries to
use a 5-year average for determining
small business status in a service
industry but switch to a 3-year average
for a non-service industry. Thus,
although section 3(a)(2)(C), as amended,
permits another agency to use a 3-year
average outside of the service industries,
SBA is adopting a 5-year averaging
period for calculating the annual
receipts of businesses for all industries
that are subject to its receipts-based size
standards, including the retail trade,
agricultural, and construction
industries.
In accordance with Public Law 115–
324, SBA proposed to change the
averaging period for calculating annual
receipts for other agencies’ receiptsbased size standards for firms in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
services-industries from 3 years to 5
years and to maintain the 3-year
averaging period for calculating the size
for non-services firms. To promote
consistency and avoid confusion, in this
final rule, SBA is adopting the same 5year averaging period for all receiptsbased size standards issued by other
agencies as well. More than 40
comments to the proposed rule, as
discussed below, expressed support for
adopting the same 5-year averaging
period for all SBA receipts-based size
standards. Of those, 3 also
recommended using the same averaging
period for all receipts-based size
standards prescribed by other agencies.
This final rule carries out the intent
of Public Law 115–324, as expressed in
the Report of the House Committee on
Small Business, H. Rpt. 115–939, with
respect to Federal procurement
opportunities. The Committee report
states that, to help advanced small
businesses successfully navigate the
middle market as they reach their small
business size thresholds, the bill would
lengthen the time in which the SBA
measures size through revenue, from the
average of the past 3 years to the average
of the past 5 years. The Committee
report states that the bill would reduce
the impact on small businesses from
rapid growth in some years which
would result in spikes in revenue that
may prematurely eject a small business
out of their small business status. The
Committee report adds that the bill
would allow small businesses at every
level more time to grow and develop
their competitiveness and
infrastructure, before entering the open
marketplace. The bill, as the Committee
report states, would also protect Federal
investment in SBA’s small business
procurement programs by increasing
chances of success in the middle market
for newly graduated firms, resulting in
enhanced competition against large
prime contractors.
As stated in the Committee report,
during the period when annual
revenues are rising, the 5-year average
will generally be lower than the 3-year
average, thereby allowing: (i) Mid-sized
businesses who have just exceeded size
standards to regain their small business
status, and (ii) advanced small
businesses close to exceeding the size
standard to retain their small business
status for a longer period. In the
proposed rule, SBA noted that, when
annual revenues are declining, the 5year average may be higher than the 3year average. This would cause small
businesses near the size thresholds to
lose their small business status sooner
under the 5-year average than under the
3-year average. This is more likely to
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
happen during economic downturns.
Businesses that lose their small business
status under the 5-year average may be
disadvantaged further because they may
have to wait several years more to regain
their small business status, as compared
to under a 3-year average. The proposed
rule added that newly established firms
that have been in business for less than
5 years will receive no benefit from a
change to a 5-year average. A firm that
has been in business for less than the
averaging period simply annualizes the
receipts from its full existence.
Additionally, SBA also stated in the
proposed rule that by enabling mid-size
businesses to regain small business
status and by lengthening the small
business status of advanced and
successful larger small businesses, the
longer averaging period may
disadvantage smaller small businesses
in more need of Federal assistance than
their more advanced and larger
counterparts in competing for Federal
opportunities. Similar to concerns from
mid-size businesses that they lack
necessary resources, past performance
qualifications, and expertise to be able
to compete against very large businesses
in the full and open market, SBA has
also received concerns from smaller
small businesses that they also lack
resources, past performance
qualifications, and expertise to be able
to compete against more resourceful,
qualified, and experienced larger small
businesses for Federal opportunities for
small businesses.
In its June 24, 2019 proposed rule,
SBA sought comments on its proposal to
change the averaging period for the
calculation of average annual receipts
for all receipts-based size standards
from 3 years to 5 years.
1. SBA sought feedback, along with
supporting facts and analyses, on
whether the Agency should calculate
average annual receipts over 5 years for
all industries subject to receipts-based
size standards and on whether it should
use a 5-year average annual receipts for
businesses in services industries only
and continue using a 3-year average
annual receipts for other businesses.
SBA was concerned that the latter
option may create confusion for both
businesses in reporting their size based
on average annual receipts and
contracting personnel in verifying the
size of bidders to Federal contracts.
2. SBA sought input on how the use
of average annual receipts over 5 years
instead of 3 years would impact both
smaller small businesses and more
advanced, larger small businesses in
terms of getting access to Federal
opportunities for small businesses.
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Additionally, SBA requested
comments on its clarification of how
annual receipts should be calculated in
connection with the acquisition or sale
of a division. The proposed rule
provided that the annual receipts of a
concern would not be adjusted where
the concern sells or acquires a
segregable division during the
applicable period of measurement. This
is distinct from how SBA treats the sale
or acquisition of a subsidiary that is a
separate legal entity.
In this final rule, SBA adopts the
changes as stated in the proposed rule,
with two modifications. First, in
response to comments, SBA is not
including the 7(a) Loan Program, the
Microloan Program, the Intermediary
Lending Pilot Program, and the
Development Company Loan Program
(collectively, the ‘‘Business Loan
Programs’’) in this present change. SBA
also is not including Physical Disaster
Business Loans, Economic Injury
Disaster Loans, Military Reservist
Economic Injury Disaster Loans, and
Immediate Disaster Assistance Program
loans (collectively, the ‘‘Disaster Loan
Programs’’). At a later date, SBA will
issue a proposed rule to seek additional
input to assess the impact of any
changes to the Business Loan and
Disaster Loan Programs. Second, for all
other SBA programs, including the
Federal procurement programs, SBA
adopts a two-year transition period
through January 6, 2022. During the
transition period, a firm may choose
between calculating receipts using a 3year average or a 5-year average.
Discussion of Comments
SBA received a total of 217 comments
to the proposed rule, of which 5 were
not pertinent to the scope of the
proposed rule. Of the 212 comments
that were pertinent, 140 commenters
(including more than 10 trade
associations, small and mid-size
business groups, and small business
advocacy organizations) fully supported
the proposed rule; 5 comments
supported the change to a 5-year
averaging period but opposed SBA’s
proposal not to adjust receipts for the
sale or acquisition of a segregable
division; 28 comments did not oppose
the change to a 5-year averaging period
but opposed the use of 5 years of tax
returns to analyze any loan program
requirement other than size; 37
comments opposed the change to a 5year averaging period; and 2 comments
could not be categorized as either
supporting or opposing the proposed
rule. All of these comments are
available at www.regulations.gov (RIN
3245–AH16), are summarized and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
discussed below in terms of various
categories of comments, and are
accompanied by SBA’s responses.
Comments on Using a 5-Year Averaging
Period for All Receipts-Based Size
Standards
SBA requested comments on whether
it should use a 5-year averaging period
for all of its receipts-based standards
(i.e., for both services industries and
non-services industries) or only for
services industries. Forty-one
commenters responded to this issue, all
of which supported using the 5-year
averaging period for all SBA’s receiptbased size standards. Three of those
comments also supported using the 5year averaging period for other agencies’
size standards for non-services
industries that are subject to receiptsbased size standards.
Commenters expressed support for
expanding the 5-year averaging period
to all receipt-based size standards for a
variety of reasons. For example, one
organization agreed with SBA that using
different formulas for calculating size in
different industries may create
confusion, adding that ‘‘using different
formulas could incentivize NAICS
appeals as contractors jockey for a code
that not only uses their preferred size
standard, but also their preferred
number of years in the calculation of
size.’’ Similarly, another organization
supported the expansion of the 5-year
averaging period for all receipts-based
size standards because maintaining a
separate averaging period for nonservices industries would lead to
confusion for small firms in that some
firms would be small under one NAICS
code but other-than-small under another
NAICS code with the same or higher
size standard. The organization
explained that maintaining a 3-year
averaging period for non-services
industries would ‘‘leave companies that
have multiple capabilities to potentially
be small under their services NAICS
code, but not under other NAICS of
work they perform.’’ Another
organization supported applying the 5year averaging period to all receiptsbased size standards because it would
‘‘reduce the burden on small businesses
in determining which size standard to
apply to a given procurement.’’
However, some commenters opposed
the move to a 5-year averaging period on
the grounds that this would increase
paperwork and compliance burden on
lenders and borrowers of the SBA’s
loans. These commenters suggested, as
discussed below, that SBA retain the
current 3-year averaging period for
calculating annual revenues for services
firms for the SBA’s financial assistance
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66563
programs, if SBA decides to adopt the
proposed 5-year averaging period
elsewhere.
SBA’s response:
SBA agrees with the commenters that,
in applying SBA’s size standards,
separating out services industry firms
from non-services firms would cause
confusion and create a greater
compliance burden on firms that
participate in both services industries
and non-services industries. SBA also
agrees that using a 5-year averaging
period for services industries and a 3year averaging period for non-services
industries can lead to an inconsistent
result of making a business small in one
NAICS code and other than small in
another NAICS code with a same or
higher size standard. SBA also finds that
it will be equally confusing to use, in
the same industry, a 5-year averaging
period for the SBA’s size standard and
a 3-year averaging period for other
agencies’ size standards. To avoid such
confusion and inconsistency, in this
final rule, SBA is adopting the 5-year
averaging period for calculating the
average annual receipts for all SBA’s
receipts-based size standards. For the
same reason, SBA is also adopting the
same 5-year averaging period for both
services and non-services industries
when approving receipt-based size
standards by other federal agencies.
Comments on Moving From a 3-Year
Averaging Period to a 5-Year Averaging
Period
Comments Supporting the 5-Year
Averaging Period
Of the 212 pertinent comments
received, 173 (or approximately 82%)
supported the SBA’s proposal to change
its method for calculating annual
receipts from a 3-year averaging period
to a 5-year averaging period, although
some of those comments rejected other
aspects of the proposed rule.
Commenters expressed support for the
proposed change for a variety of
reasons, as discussed below.
A vast majority of commenters
maintained that the proposed change
would benefit small businesses that are
either about to exceed or have just
exceeded the relevant size standards
(often referred to as ‘‘mid-size
businesses’’) by allowing them more
time to develop capabilities, strengthen
and diversify experience, and build
resources, thus enabling them to
compete successfully for unrestricted
opportunities in the full-and-open
market with very large businesses that
have extensive capabilities, experience,
and past-performance qualifications.
Several commenters shared that a
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
66564
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
transition from ‘‘small’’ to ‘‘other-thansmall’’ status is much more difficult
than a transition from ‘‘very small’’ to
‘‘small’’ status. Some indicated that a
longer lookback period would also
ameliorate the current dilemma growing
small businesses face in the Federal
market when they exceed their size
standards: Deciding whether to restrain
growth to remain small (and avoid the
difficulty of competing in a full-andopen environment), sell, or go out of
business.
Another common comment was that
the change from a 3-year averaging
period to a 5-year averaging period will
be very helpful to small businesses of
every size, especially those that have
successfully grown to revenues above
the 3-year average for their respective
NAICS codes. Some commenters
expressed support for the proposed
change because the 5-year averaging
method would promote fairness and
increase the accuracy of size
representation. For example, one
commenter explained that ‘‘one
abnormally successful year could cause
a small business to size out of the
standard. Amortizing a year of success
over five years instead of three will
likely lengthen a small business’
eligibility period and be a more accurate
reflection of that business’ true
operations.’’ Another commenter
explained that a firm’s temporary spike
in revenue ‘‘may not have resulted in
increased infrastructure for the firm
such that it will be ready to compete in
the open market.’’ Several other
commenters expressed support for the
proposed rule because it would give
advanced small firms more time to take
advantage of SBA small business
assistance programs. Similarly, another
commenter explained that ‘‘Nurturing
small business capabilities is important
because it results in more price
competition, it spurs innovation, and
helps create jobs.’’ Other commenters
expressed that growing small businesses
should be rewarded for their success
with a longer lookback averaging period.
Commenters also expressed support
for the proposed change because it
would increase the total number of
small businesses and strengthen the
Federal small business industrial or
supplier base. Several commenters
maintained that, with the availability of
more businesses qualifying as small, the
move to a 5-year averaging period
would increase set-aside opportunities
for all small businesses as the agencies
are likely to set aside more contracts for
small businesses. Other commenters
expressed that an expanded pool of
small businesses would benefit the
Federal government by providing a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
larger and more stable pool of qualified
small businesses in the Federal
procurement market. The Federal
government also will benefit from lower
prices for its procurements due to
increased competition, and from
reduced risks by allowing agencies to
retain their trusted and qualified
incumbent small business contractors
for a longer period. Several commenters
also maintained that, with more
businesses qualifying as small under the
5-year receipts average, the change also
would provide large prime contractors
with a robust pool of qualified small
businesses to draw from to meet their
small business subcontracting
requirements.
Several commenters also expressed
support for the proposed change
because it would reduce the impacts of
unusual spikes in revenues in some
years on growing small businesses and
enable them to adjust to revenue swings
due to fluctuations in economic
conditions, business environment, and
changes in the Federal market. For
example, one commenter explained that
it is increasingly common for the
government to utilize larger and longer
indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity
(IDIQ) contract vehicles, where one
high-valued contract or task order can
throw a small business out of its small
business status. Some commenters
supporting the proposed rule also stated
that, under the 5-year averaging period,
growing small businesses will be able to
maintain their small business status for
a longer period and, as a consequence,
achieve and sustain growth. A number
of comments also supported the SBA’s
proposal to remove ‘‘Schedule K’’ from
the definition of receipts.
SBA’s response:
SBA agrees with commenters that this
rule will benefit small businesses, the
Federal Government, and large
businesses. With an expanded pool of
small businesses, the Federal
Government will have more qualified
small businesses to choose from, and as
a result, likely will set aside more
contracts for small businesses. SBA also
agrees with commenters that the 5-year
averaging period will allow more small
firms to benefit from SBA’s small
business assistance programs by
extending their small business status for
a longer period. The change would also
enable small businesses that have just
exceeded their size standards to regain
their small business status and to
benefit from Federal small business
assistance. SBA believes that the change
to a 5-year averaging period will expand
benefits to all small businesses over the
long-run, although the proposed change
would have led to some negative
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
impacts in the short-run. Accordingly,
in this final rule, except for the Business
Loan and Disaster Loan Programs, SBA
is amending its regulations on the
calculation of average annual receipts
for all receipts-based SBA size standards
from a 3-year averaging period to a 5year averaging period, with a transition
period through January 6, 2022, during
which firms (and their affiliates) can
choose either a 3-year or a 5-year
averaging period. SBA is also removing
‘‘Schedule K’’ from the definition of
receipts, as proposed.
Opposing Comments
Of 212 pertinent comments that SBA
received, 37 opposed the change to the
averaging period for annual receipts
calculation from 3 years to 5 years.
Comments that opposed the proposed
rule mostly focused on one or more of
the following three issues: (1)
Disadvantages to firms with declining
revenues, (2) undue advantages to
‘‘larger’’ small businesses, and (3)
additional burden on borrowers and
lenders. Below, SBA summarizes each
of the three comment categories listed
above.
(1) Disadvantages to Firms with
Declining Revenues. Of the 37
comments opposing the shift to a 5-year
averaging period, 7 commenters
opposed the rule based on the reason
that a 5-year averaging period would
disadvantage firms with declining
revenues. Of these 7 commenters, 2
affirmatively stated that their firm’s size
status would change from small to
other-than-small as a result of the shift
to a 5-year averaging period. Several
commenters opposing the proposed rule
observed that it will take longer for
small businesses to qualify as small
again once they have exceeded the size
standard. Other commenters noted that
the proposed rule would harm small
firms with declining revenues, causing
them to lose their small business size
status sooner under the 5-year average
receipts as compared to the 3-year
receipts. One commenter explained that
‘‘while increasing the receipts lookback
period from 3 years to 5 years will
benefit many growing companies, it
could also be detrimental to businesses
that have experienced declining
revenues, as it would cause many such
businesses to lose their small business
status despite declining receipts.’’
Another commenter stated that it was
unfair for small businesses to be
‘‘penalized’’ for having declining
revenues. The commenter explained
that business concerns that face a
downturn ‘‘should not be penalized, by
being excluded from eligibility for
SBA’s small business programs. . . .
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Such an outcome would be an
unintended negative consequence of the
Act.’’ Some commenters contended that
the proposed change primarily benefits
growing and more successful larger
small businesses by enabling them to
maintain their small business status
longer and better prepare for a
successful transition to the full-andopen market, but it hurts emerging and
smaller small businesses that are in
need of the SBA assistance the most.
SBA’s response:
SBA acknowledges that the move
from a 3-year averaging period to a 5year averaging period could, as an
unintended negative impact, cause some
small businesses that are close to their
size standard to lose their small
business status immediately or
subsequently during the period of
declining annual revenues. SBA agrees
that a firm that exceeds the size
standard based on a 5-year average, but
then has subsequent years of declining
revenues, will face a longer period
before regaining its small business
status. In order to mitigate this impact,
in this final rule, except for the Business
Loan and Disaster Loan Programs, SBA
is providing a transition period until
January 6, 2022, during which firms will
be allowed to choose either the 3-year
receipts average or 5-year receipts
average for size eligibility purposes.
(2) Undue Advantages to ‘‘Larger’’
Small Businesses. Of the 37 comments
opposing the shift to a 5-year averaging
period, 5 comments opposed the
proposed rule on the grounds that it
may give an undue advantage to
‘‘larger’’ small businesses near the
industry size threshold to the detriment
of ‘‘smaller’’ small businesses in
competing for small business
opportunities. One commenter
expressed concerns that the move to the
5-year averaging period lacked benefits
for ‘‘smaller’’ small firms that need
SBA’s assistance the most. The
commenter explained that by extending
the measurement period, it only allows
for companies to resist growth, control
revenue and continue to be small. This
process, if extended, will only provide
a further advantage to those who are on
the upper limit but does nothing to help
those who are truly small.
A number of commenters opposed the
rule because it will allow companies to
continue to be small businesses after the
period at which those businesses should
transition to other-than-small business
status, making it difficult for smaller
small businesses to compete against
their larger counterparts under the 5year averaging period. One commenter,
expressing concerns about this issue,
explained that the proposed rule would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
‘‘keep start-up small businesses from
competing for small business set-aside
opportunities . . . and allow ‘extended’
small businesses with contracts to out
compete those businesses that are truly
‘small.’ ’’ Some of these commenters
raised industry-specific concerns.
SBA’s response:
SBA acknowledges that smaller small
firms could face some disadvantages in
competing for set-aside contracts against
a larger pool of small firms, especially
against the newly qualified larger small
businesses and advanced small
businesses who are able to remain small
for a longer period. However, as detailed
in SBA’s benefit-cost analysis of the
proposed rule, the change from a 3-year
averaging period to a 5-year averaging
period will increase the total number of
small businesses, which would, because
of greater potential small business
competition for government contracts,
likely lead to expansion of set-aside
opportunities for all small businesses. In
addition, as some commenters stated,
that ‘‘smaller’’ small firms may not be in
direct competition with ‘‘larger’’ small
firms due to differences in their
missions, capabilities, and resources,
and therefore, would not face negative
impacts from an increase in the number
of ‘‘larger’’ small firms. As one
organization commenting on the
proposed rule explained, ‘‘these
emerging small companies tend to have
their own swim lanes, and do not
typically compete against ‘larger’ small
businesses directly and in some cases
do not compete in the federal market
all.’’
The contracts awards data also shows
that in most industries the majority of
small business contract dollars go to
businesses that are substantially smaller
than their size standards. The results
from some industries with recent large
increases to size standards also reveal
that small businesses under the
previous size standards continue to
receive the same amount of contract
dollars as before the increase. SBA
agrees that the move to a 5-year
averaging method is likely to benefit
advanced small businesses that have
just exceeded or are about to exceed
their size standards more than their
smaller counterparts in the short-run,
but in the long-run it will benefit all
small businesses at every level as they
continue to grow and approach the size
standard.
(3) Additional Burden on Borrowers
and Lenders. Of the 37 comments
opposing the shift to a 5-year averaging
period, 23 (including one trade
association representing lenders serving
small businesses under the SBA CDC/
504 loan program) opposed the move to
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66565
the 5-year average because the change
would cause undue additional burden
on borrowers and lenders under the
Business Loan Programs. An additional
28 commenters (including another trade
association representing lenders serving
small businesses under the SBA’s 7(a)
loan program) also expressed similar
concern that the 5-year averaging would
result in an undue additional burden on
borrowers and lenders participating in
the Business Loan Programs, but they
did not specifically oppose the shift to
a 5-year averaging period for SBA’s
revenue-based size standards.
A majority of these commenters
included members of those two trade
associations in support of the position
of their respective associations. Some
commenters opposed the rule on the
basis that it may require SBA Lenders to
collect and review two additional years
of tax returns or financial statements to
establish eligibility for the SBA’s loan
programs. Some of these commenters
expressed concerns that this will add
costs to loan processing, increase turnaround times, and discourage small
businesses from participating in the
SBA’s loan programs. One trade
association commented that ‘‘the
process for obtaining an SBA loan
already requires extensive
documentation from a small business,
and this additional requirement
increases that burden without any
underlying benefit to the small
business.’’ The trade association
requested that SBA ‘‘give consideration
to allowing the service-industry size
standard calculation to remain at its
current 3-year averaging period for the
SBA loan guarantee programs.’’
Some commenters noted that a central
premise of the proposed change appears
to address the concern that the current
3-year averaging method ‘‘ejects’’
growing small businesses from Federal
small business contracting programs
before they are ready to compete in the
full and open market. They stated that
there is no such concern as it relates to
the SBA’s loan programs, as small
businesses seeking or obtaining SBA’s
loans are rarely ‘‘ejected’’ from
eligibility due to size.
Several commenters asked that SBA
clarify that the 5-year averaging period
is intended to apply only to SBA’s
receipts-based size standards, not for
any other loan application purpose. One
trade association commented that ‘‘Tax
return information is used for multiple
purposes related to the loan application
process,’’ including verifying an
applicant’s historical cash flow, income,
or tax payment history. The trade
association further explained, ‘‘None of
those purposes would require or
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
66566
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
substantially benefit from a look-back
period greater than 3 years.’’ A trade
association and a number of other
commenters asked that SBA exempt the
SBA’s loan programs from the change,
allowing SBA lenders to continue to
apply a 3-year receipts average. Other
commenters (including a trade
association representing 7(a) lenders)
requested that SBA’s final rule
‘‘[S]pecifically include language
clarifying that the longer 5-year period
is intended to apply only for purposes
of determining size for loan applicants
using SBA’s traditional revenue-based
sized standards, and not for any other
loan application purpose.’’
SBA’s response:
In response to comments regarding
the burden of the rule on SBA Lenders
and loan applicants, SBA has
determined that the Business Loan and
Disaster Loan Programs should not be
included in this final rule. SBA
included the Business Loan and Disaster
Loan Programs in the proposed rule’s
cost-benefit analysis, but, otherwise, the
initial proposed rule did not discuss the
effect that the rule would have on SBA
Lenders and loan program participants.
Based on the comments expressing that
SBA Lenders and loan program
applicants would experience burden,
SBA will seek additional comment and
public input through a proposed rule at
a later date to determine how best to
consider changes to size eligibility in
the Business Loan and Disaster Loan
Programs. Through this later proposed
rule, SBA intends to ask for data and
additional detail about the burden faced
by SBA Lenders and applicants, and for
comment on any benefit that applicants
might obtain through a longer averaging
period for determining eligibility for
SBA’s Business Loan and Disaster Loan
Programs.
Comments on Calculating of Average
Receipts After the Sale or Acquisition
of a Segregable Division
SBA received 20 comments
responding to its proposed clarification
on the calculation of the annual receipts
of a concern where the concern sells or
acquires a segregable division during
the applicable period of measurement.
Of those 20 comments, 3 comments
agreed with SBA’s proposed
clarification, 5 comments disagreed, 11
comments requested further
clarification, and 1 comment was not
clear as to its stance on this issue.
The 3 commenters who agreed with
SBA’s proposed treatment of the sale or
acquisition of a segregable division
emphasized that the receipts of a
division remain the receipts of the
selling concern even after it is sold and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
that the receipts of an acquired division
prior to the acquisition do not become
the receipts of the acquiring concern
after the acquisition. One association
commenting on the proposed rule stated
that it supports SBA’s position because
it ‘‘provides clarity to the community
with regard to the application of the
former affiliate rule.’’ The same
association also requested that SBA
expand the scope of its clarification to
include segregable divisions and ‘‘other
assets not held as a separate legal
entity.’’ The association stated that such
an expansion would ‘‘ensure that SBA’s
clarification applies to the sale or
purchase of non-segregable assets as
well, e.g., when an entity acquires the
assets performing a specific contract.’’
The 5 commenters who disagreed
with SBA’s proposed treatment of the
sale or acquisition of a segregable
division stated that (1) it elevates form
over substance in distinguishing
between a division and a subsidiary that
is a separate legal entity, (2) it would
create a burden for businesses seeking to
benefit from selling off a division by
moving all of its assets to a newly
created subsidiary, (3) it would harm
businesses that relied on current SBA
policy when selling segregable divisions
and were small as a result of the sale,
and (4) it would create unpredictability
and uncertainty in good-faith size status
calculations.
The 11 commenters who requested
further clarification all stated (1) that
they would have liked to see proposed
regulatory text, and (2) that the Office of
Hearings and Appeals (OHA) cases that
SBA cited in the proposed rule do not
make a distinction between divisions
and subsidiaries. One commenter cited
two additional OHA decisions which it
believes contradict SBA’s distinction
between a division and subsidiary. The
commenter stated that in the proposed
rule, ‘‘SBA cites a quotation from such
a decision which provides that ‘a firm
which acquires most of the assets of a
subsidiary or division of a larger firm is
affiliated only with that subsidiary or
division, and not with the entire parent
company’ (emphasis added). As such, it
appears that SBA’s Office of Hearings
and Appeals does not, in fact, make a
distinction between divisions and
subsidiaries.’’
SBA’s response:
SBA agrees with the commenters who
stated that the receipts of a sold division
remain the receipts of the selling
concern after the sale, just as the
receipts of an acquired division prior to
its acquisition should not be treated as
the receipts of the acquiring concern
prior to the acquisition. SBA believes
that it is not logical to allow a firm to
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
exclude the receipts of a former division
just because that division was sold,
since those receipts accrued to the
concern.
SBA believes that there really is a
difference between the sale or
acquisition of a segregable division as
opposed to the sale or acquisition of a
separate legal entity. The sale or
acquisition of a division is not a
question of affiliation. It simply
represents an addition or subtraction to
the concern itself. This is distinct from
the sale or acquisition of a separate legal
entity, which implicates questions of
affiliation.
Regarding the OHA cases cited by the
commenters, none of these decisions
speak specifically to how receipts
should be calculated after the sale or
acquisition of a segregable division.
However, as stated by several
commenters, SBA is not obligated to
follow OHA decisions when putting
forth changes to its regulations.
For all the reasons above, SBA is
adding the language to §§ 121.104(d)(4)
and 121.106(b)(4)(ii) to clarify that the
former affiliate rule does not permit a
concern to adjust its receipts when the
concern sells a segregable division that
is not a separate legal entity.
Comments on the Exemption From the
5-Year Averaging Period
Although not specifically requested in
the proposed rule, SBA received 31
comments requesting some sort of
alternative option which would allow
firms to use either a 3-year average or
5-year average of annual receipts
depending on which one would be more
advantageous to them. The comments
proposing such an option suggested that
the 3-year vs. 5-year option be for
available for a specific period or be
made permanent. Of the 31 total
comments addressing this issue, 13
commenters recommended using a
transition period of 2 years or less; 12
recommended a transition of 3 or more
years; 4 suggested making the transition
period permanent; and 2 did not specify
a duration.
In support of the transition period
were commenters both for and against
the shift to a 5-year averaging period for
calculating annual receipts. Of the 31
comments supporting a transition
period, 20 supported the proposed rule;
5 opposed the proposed rule; 5
supported some elements while
opposing others; and 1 comment did not
express support or opposition to the
move from a 3-year averaging period to
a 5-year averaging period but
recommended that SBA consider the
transition period as an alternative to
mitigate the impact on businesses that
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
are currently small under the 3-year
receipts average but would become
other-than-small under the 5-year
average receipts.
SBA found that these commenters
supported the adoption of a transition
period for two reasons: (1) To ensure an
organized and transparent
implementation of the final rule, and (2)
to minimize harm to small firms with
declining revenues or to those becoming
other than small under the 5-year
receipts upon the implementation of the
final rule.
For example, one commenter
suggested that SBA implement a 2-year
transition period to reduce confusion
and uncertainty for small firms that
have occurred since the Small Business
Runway Extension Act was signed into
law. The commenter explained that
‘‘some firms have been submitting
proposals using a 3-year average in
accordance with the SBA’s guidance,
while others have used a 5-year average
in accordance with the new law. Due to
this uncertainty, [Commenter]
recommends allowing a two-year
transition period for small companies
. . .’’ Another commenter
recommended that SBA ‘‘provide for a
reasonable transition period for
implementation . . . to allow
government systems to be updated and
to give the contractor community time
to properly implement the size
calculation change.’’
One commenter, expressing concern
regarding the proposed rule’s impact on
firms with declining revenues,
explained that ‘‘While increasing the
look-back period from 3 years to 5 years
will provide a benefit to many growing
companies, it could be detrimental to
businesses that have experienced
declining revenue.’’ The commenter
further stated that ‘‘SBA should
consider a hybrid approach whereby
contractors are permitted to calculate
revenues under both the 3-year period
and the 5-year period and use the lower
of the two results to determine its size
status. This approach would be
beneficial to both those small
contractors that are experiencing a
period of revenue growth, as well as
those facing declining revenues.’’
SBA’s response:
SBA agrees with the comments
supporting a temporary transition
period under which firms still could
choose to use a 3-year averaging period.
A plurality of commenters asked for a
2-year transition period or less, and SBA
agrees that a 2-year period is
appropriate because 2 years is an
adequate time to allow firms to prepare
for a permanent transition to a 5-year
averaging period. Therefore, for the SBA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
programs affected by this rule, SBA will
allow firms to choose either a 3-year or
5-year averaging period through January
6, 2022. After that date, firms with at
least 5 years of receipts will be required
to use a 5-year averaging period. A firm
with fewer than 5 years of receipts will
average its annual receipts over its
existence.
SBA does not believe that allowing for
alternate averaging periods on a
permanent basis would be beneficial.
Using multiple averaging periods in the
long term will result in confusion about
how to determine size for Federal
opportunities, including procurements.
Within a single contract competition,
businesses would be able to determine
size on a separate basis. After the
transition period, there is not sufficient
reason to justify maintaining two
separate averaging periods.
Other Comments
SBA received some additional
comments that addressed issues which
did not fit into any of the above
categories. One commenter requested
that SBA change its regulations at 13
CFR 124.112(e)(2) to allow an 8(a)
Business Development (BD) Program
participant to change its primary
industry classification using the last 5
completed fiscal years, instead of the
current 3 completed fiscal years. This
commenter stressed the advantage of
reconciling this primary industry
classification calculation period with
the size determination calculation
period, especially at the 5th year annual
update for an 8(a) BD Program
participant.
SBA also received a few comments
concerning the timeline for the
implementation of the final rule. Most
of these commenters suggested that SBA
implement the final rule as soon as
possible. One commenter stated that it
is unlawful to delay the implementation
of the new law, and the comment from
one trade association suggested that
SBA make the final rule retroactive to
December 17, 2018, the date of
enactment of Public Law 115–324.
Another commenter recommended
delaying the implementation of the final
rule until January 1, 2021 if SBA
decides to not grant a grace period to
use the 3-year lookback. The commenter
stated, ‘‘dropping the 3-year rule ‘grace
period’ in the middle of the year will
only confuse and complicate the
implementation of the rule.’’
One commenter suggested that SBA
establish a 5-year averaging period for
employee-based size standards as well.
SBA’s response:
The comment that SBA update its
regulations at 13 CFR 124.112(e)(2) is
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66567
outside the scope of establishing and
reviewing size standards. This rule is
only concerned with the method of
calculation of annual receipts for size
standards purposes. The comment
regarding 13 CFR 124.112(e)(2) concerns
a calculation related to the primary
industry classification under 8(a) BD
Program and that is outside the scope of
this rule. Similarly, this rule does not
affect the application of a 3-year average
in the ‘‘economic dependence’’ test
under 13 CFR 121.103(f)(2).
With respect to the comments
concerning the implementation
timeframe of the final rule, Public Law
115–324 did not include an effective
date for the averaging change. Section
3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act
requires SBA to provide an opportunity
for public notice and comment through
the rulemaking process prior to
implementing changes to size standards
prescribed through section 3(a)(2).
Accordingly, on December 21, 2018,
SBA issued an Information Notice
(6000–180023) advising that, until SBA
makes necessary changes to its
regulations, businesses must report their
receipts based on a 3-year average.
Thus, making the rule retroactive to the
December 17, 2018, enactment date
would not only run counter to SBA’s
guidance, but also would require
corrections to contracts awards data in
the Federal Procurement Data SystemNext Generation (FPDS–NG) to reflect
changes in size status of contractors due
to the change in the averaging period.
Conversely, delaying the
implementation date would be against
the interests of many small businesses
and Federal agencies that want to see
the final rule being implemented as
soon as possible. Accordingly, this final
rule will be effective after 30 days from
the date of its publication in the Federal
Register.
Lastly, this rule does not change the
calculation period for employee-based
size standards. SBA does not find
sufficient reason from the comments to
a propose a change to the period for
employee-based size standards.
Conclusions
Based on the analyses of impacts
using the latest relevant industry and
Federal contracting data available to
SBA when the proposed rule was
prepared and thorough evaluation of all
public comments on the proposed rule,
as discussed above, SBA is taking the
following actions in this final rule,
except for the Business Loan and
Disaster Loan Programs:
(i) Adopting the 5-year averaging
period for calculating annual revenues
of firms and revenues of their affiliates
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
66568
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
in all industries that are subject to
SBA’s receipts-based size standards;
(ii) Adopting the 5-year averaging
period for calculating annual revenues
of firms (including affiliates, if any) in
all industries for prescribing receiptsbased size standards by other Federal
agencies; and
(iii) Providing a transition period
until January 6, 2022, allowing firms
(and their affiliates, if any) to choose
either a 3-year averaging period or a 5year averaging period for calculating
average annual receipts for size
standards purposes.
Section-by-Section Analysis
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Section 121.104
The final rule removes ‘‘Schedule K’’
from the definition of receipts. SBA has
found that reviewing Schedule K is
generally not useful, but SBA reserves
the ability to request a Schedule K as
part of SBA’s review of the other
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) forms
listed in § 121.104(a).
For consistency with the size standard
averaging period being changed in
§ 121.903, for the purposes of applying
SBA’s receipts-based size standards, the
final rule changes the averaging period
for a business that has been in business
for 5 or more fiscal years to a 5-year
period, i.e., the business calculates its
total receipts over the 5-year period and
divides by 5. Under the final rule, if a
business has been in business for less
than 5 complete fiscal years, the
business calculates its total receipts,
divides by the number of weeks in
business, and multiplies by 52. This is
the same process SBA currently uses
when a business has less than 3
completed fiscal years. If a business has
a short year as one of its 5 years, the
business calculates its total receipts over
the 5-year period, divides by the
number of weeks in the short year and
its other 4 fiscal years, and multiplies by
52. This too is the same process SBA
currently uses.
The 5-year averaging period in
§ 121.104 would not distinguish
between firms in service industries and
other firms subject to receipts-based size
standards. SBA believes that, in
applying SBA’s own size standards,
separating out service-industry firms
would cause confusion and create a
greater compliance burden on firms that
participate in both services industries
and non-services industries (such as
agriculture, construction, and retail
trade) with receipts-based size
standards.
This final rule only would affect the
application of SBA’s new size standard
rules after its effective date. Thus, until
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
the effective date of a final rule, SBA
will continue to apply the 3-year
averaging period in the present
§ 121.104 for calculating average annual
receipts for all SBA’s receipts-based size
standards. Since size is determined as of
the date when a firm certifies its size as
part of its initial offer which includes
price, the 3-year calculation period will
apply to any offer submitted prior to the
effective date of the final rule. Thus,
even if SBA receives a request for a size
determination or size appeal after the
effective date of the final rule, SBA will
still use a 3-year calculation period if
the determination or appeal relates to a
certification submitted prior to the final
rule’s effective date. Misrepresentations
made under the existing calculation
period are material for the purposes of
criminal, civil, or administrative
actions.
SBA also clarifies how it believes
annual receipts should be calculated in
connection with the acquisition or sale
of a division. Specifically, the final rule
provides that the annual receipts of a
concern would not be adjusted where
the concern sells or acquires a
segregable division during the
applicable period of measurement or
before the date on which it self-certified
as small. This would be different from
how SBA treats the sale or acquisition
of a subsidiary. In the case of a
subsidiary, SBA’s regulations provide
that ‘‘[t]he annual receipts of a former
affiliate are not included if affiliation
ceased before the date used for
determining size. This exclusion of
annual receipts of a former affiliate
applies during the entire period of
measurement, rather than only for the
period after which affiliation ceased.’’
13 CFR 121.104(d)(4).
SBA believes that the sale or
acquisition of a division is different
from buying or selling a separate legal
entity and, as such, should be treated
differently. Any receipts attributable to
a specific division of a concern are
certainly receipts earned by the concern.
Even if that division is later sold, its
receipts were always part of the receipts
directly received by the concern itself,
and SBA believes that those receipts
should remain a part of the concern’s
receipts after the sale for purposes of
determining the concern’s size.
Similarly, where a concern acquires a
segregable division from another
business entity during the applicable
period of measurement, SBA would not
increase the concern’s overall receipts
by the amount of receipts attributable to
that division.
SBA understands that some may feel
that distinguishing the sale of a division
from that of a subsidiary would elevate
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
form over substance, and would merely
require a seller to move assets into a
separate subsidiary and then sell that
subsidiary in order to bring the
transaction under the rule. However, as
noted above, SBA believes that there
really is an important distinction
between a division and a separate legal
entity.
The Final Rule adds a transition
period through January 6, 2022, during
which a firm may calculate its receipts
and the receipts of its affiliates using
either a 3-year average or a 5-year
average. The Final Rule adds a
paragraph (c)(4) to use a 3-year
averaging period for the Business Loan
Programs, which are the 7(a) Loan
Program, the Microloan Program, the
Intermediary Lending Pilot Program,
and the Development Company Loan
Program (‘‘504 Loan Program’’), and the
Disaster Loan Programs, which are
Physical Disaster Business Loans,
Economic Injury Disaster Loans,
Military Reservist Economic Injury
Disaster Loans, and Immediate Disaster
Assistance Program loans. SBA intends
to seek comment on the Business Loan
and Disaster Loan Programs in a
proposed rule through a separate
rulemaking.
Section 121.903
As required by Public Law 115–324,
SBA is amending the requirements for
agencies that seek to propose and adopt
size standards for their own programs,
instead of applying SBA’s size
standards. Under the final rule, a nonSBA agency’s receipts-based size
standard, whether applying to services
or non-services firms, must be proposed
with a 5-year averaging period.
Section 3(a)(2)(ii)(III) of the Small
Business Act still provides that other
agencies prescribe size standards for
industries other than services or
manufacturing using ‘‘data over a period
of not less than 3 years.’’ While
Congress did not change this statutory
language, SBA believes that it also can
require other agencies establishing size
standards for industries other than
services or manufacturing to use data
over a 5-year period and specifically
solicited comment on whether to make
such a change. SBA received strong
support for applying the 5-year
averaging period for all industries. To
avoid confusion from using the 5-year
average receipts for SBA’s size
standards and 3-year average receipts
for other agencies’ size standards and
promote consistency in measuring
business size across the Federal
government, in this final rule, SBA is
also adopting the same 5-year averaging
period for all receipts-based size
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
standards proposed by other Federal
agencies.
This new calculation period does not
affect existing non-SBA size standards
that specify a 3-year average unless the
responsible agency proposes and
finalizes changes to the existing
specification of a 3-year average. This is
consistent with the change in Public
Law 115–324 to the requirements for
prescribing a non-SBA size standard,
given the lack of any restrictions in the
Small Business Act or Public Law 115–
324 on applying an existing size
standard. In adopting or proposing a
change to the averaging period for its
existing size standard, the responsible
agency should coordinate with SBA
using the procedure in § 121.903.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Response to Office of Advocacy
Comments
In response to the Proposed Rule, the
Office of Advocacy of the SBA (Office
of Advocacy) requested that the SBA
update its Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) to include more
relevant alternatives to the proposed
regulatory change to mitigate negative
impacts on small businesses.
Specifically, the Office of Advocacy
suggested that SBA allow the public to
consider at least 2 specific alternatives:
(1) A 2-year transition period during
which firms could use either a 3-year or
5-year averaging period, or (2) allowing
a small business that has been awarded
a contract to recertify its small business
size status through any option periods.
As suggested by the Office of
Advocacy, SBA has adopted a 2-year
transition period that will end January
6, 2022. During that period, firms will
choose either a 3-year or 5-year
averaging period. Thus, firms that wish
to continue using a 3-year average for
certifying or assessing small business
size status may continue to do so until
January 6, 2022.
With regard to updating the IRFA,
SBA does not believe that it is practical
to issue a revised IRFA for public
comment at this time. There is an urgent
need to implement the intent of
Congress and a further delay would
result in more uncertainty and
confusion for small businesses and the
Federal contracting community. A
number of comments to the proposed
rule urged SBA to implement the final
rule as soon as possible. In addition,
SBA has adopted one of the relevant
alternatives discussed by the Office of
Advocacy, a 2-year transition period
during which firms could use either a
3-year or a 5-year averaging period.
Thus, issuing a revised IRFA for public
comment would be superfluous.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
Accordingly, SBA is declining to issue
a revised IRFA for public comment with
the alternatives proposed by the Office
of Advocacy.
With regard to recertification, SBA
believes it would be extremely
complicated to allow a firm that has
already been awarded a contract to
recertify its size status, after the
transition period, using either the 3-year
or 5-year averaging period through the
length of that contract and any options.
This would create extensive tracking
and recordkeeping requirements that
would also result in uncertainty and
unpredictability for firms trying to
determine their size status after the end
of the 2-year transition period created in
this rule. Thus, even if a firm initially
certified for a contract under a 3-year
averaging period, a firm must use a
5-year average when it submits a new
certification or recertification for that
contract after the end of the transition
period.
Compliance With Executive Orders
12866, 12988, 13132, 13563, and 13771,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601–612), and the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35)
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Nonetheless, as required by section
3(a)(6) of the Small Business Act, 15
U.S.C. 632(a)(6), in the next section,
SBA provides a benefit-cost analysis of
this final rule, including: (1) A
statement of the need for the proposed
action, and (2) an evaluation of the
benefits and costs—both quantitative
and qualitative—of this regulatory
action. This rule is also not a ‘‘major
rule’’ under the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 800, et seq.
a. Benefit-Cost Analysis
1. What is the need for this regulatory
action?
As stated elsewhere, the Small
Business Act delegates to SBA’s
Administrator the responsibility for
establishing small business size
definitions (usually referred to as ‘‘size
standards’’). Recently, Public Law 115–
324 modified the requirements for
proposed small business size standards
prescribed by an agency without
separate statutory authority to issue size
standards.
The need of this final rule is to carry
out the intent of Public Law 115–324
and to ensure consistency in the
calculation of average annual receipts
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66569
for size standards across the Federal
Government.
SBA’s mission is to aid and assist
small businesses through a variety of
financial, procurement, business
development and counseling, and
disaster assistance programs. This
regulatory action promotes the
Administration’s goals and objectives
and meets the SBA’s statutory
responsibility to implement a new law
impacting size definitions for small
businesses. One of SBA’s goals in
support of promoting the
Administration’s objectives is to help
small businesses succeed through access
to capital, Federal Government contracts
and purchases, and management,
technical and disaster assistance.
2. What are the potential benefits and
costs of this regulatory action?
Changing the period for calculating
average annual receipts from 3 years to
5 years may enable some mid-size
businesses that have just exceeded size
standards to regain small business
status. Similarly, it could also allow
some advanced and larger small
businesses about to exceed size
standards to retain their small business
status for a longer period. However, as
stated in the June 24, 2019, proposed
rule, it could also result in some
advanced small businesses having a 5year receipts average that happens to be
higher than the 3-year receipts average,
thus ejecting them out of their small
business status sooner. Detailed impacts
of the proposed change are discussed
below.
It is difficult to determine the actual
number of small and mid-size
businesses that would be impacted by
Public Law 115–324 and this regulatory
action because there is no annual data
on receipts of businesses. The annual
receipts data from the Economic Census
special tabulation are only available
once every 5 years. Similarly, the
System for Award Management (SAM)
only records the data on 3-year average
annual receipts of businesses over their
3 preceding fiscal years, but not their
annual receipts for each fiscal year. For
example, the receipts data for year 2018
is an average of annual receipts for
2017, 2016, and 2015. Similarly, the
receipts data for 2017 is an average of
annual receipts for 2016, 2015, and
2014, and so on. A 5-year receipts
average for 2018 would be an average of
annual receipts for 2017, 2016, 2015,
2014, and 2013.
Given the lack of annual receipts for
each year, SBA approximated a firm’s 5year average annual revenue for 2018 as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
66570
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
This result may slightly
underestimate the 5-year revenue
average when annual revenues are rising
(i.e., 2014 revenue > 2013 revenue >
2012 revenue) and overestimate it if
annual revenues are declining (i.e., 2014
revenue < 2013 revenue < 2012
revenue).
To estimate the 5-year receipts
average for 2018 using the above
formula, SBA analyzed the 2018 SAM
extracts (as of September 1, 2018) and
2015 SAM extracts (as of September 1,
2015). The above 5-year average annual
receipts formula would only work for
businesses that were present in both
2015 and 2018 SAM extracts. One
challenge was that some businesses
found in 2018 SAM could not be found
in 2015 SAM and vice versa. Excluding
entities registered in SAM for purposes
other than government contracting and
entities ineligible for small business
consideration (such as foreign
governments and state-controlled
institutions of higher learning), there
were a total of 346,958 unique business
concerns in SAM subject to at least one
receipts-based size standard. Of these
concerns, 293,524 (or about 84.6
percent) were ‘‘small’’ in all North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) industries, 9,990 (or 2.9
percent) were ‘‘small’’ in some
industries and ‘‘not small’’ in other
industries, and 43,444 (or 12.5 percent)
were ‘‘not small’’ in any industry.
Excluding entities with ‘‘null’’ or
‘‘zero’’ receipts values, 194,686 firms (or
about 56 percent) appeared both in 2018
SAM and in 2015 SAM and were
included in the 5-year average annual
receipts approximation and calculation
of number of businesses impacted. Of
those 194,686 matched firms subject to
a receipts-based size standard, 154,220
(or about 79 percent) were ‘‘small’’ in all
NAICS industries, 8,049 (or 4.1 percent)
were ‘‘small’’ in some industries and
other than small (‘‘not small’’) in other
industries, and 32,417 (or about 17
percent) were ‘‘not small’’ in any
industry. In other words, 303,514 (or
87.5 percent) of 346,958 total concerns
in SAM 2018 and 162,269 (or 83.3
percent) of 194,686 total matched firms
were small in at least one NAICS
industry with a receipts-based size
standard. These results are summarized
in Table 1, ‘‘Size Status of Businesses in
Industries Subject to Receipts-Based
Size Standards,’’ below.
TABLE 1—SIZE STATUS OF BUSINESSES IN INDUSTRIES SUBJECT TO RECEIPTS-BASED SIZE STANDARDS
Total firms in 2018 SAM subject
to least one receipts-based
standard
Size status
Number of
firms
Firms in both 2015 SAM and
2018 SAM (matched)
% Matched
Number of
firms
%
Total to
matched
ratio *
%
Small in at least one industry ..................
Small in all industries ...............................
Small in some and not small in others ....
Large in all industries ...............................
303,514
293,524
9,990
43,444
87.5
84.6
2.9
12.5
162,269
154,220
8,049
32,417
83.3
79.2
4.1
16.7
53.5
52.5
80.6
74.6
1.809
1.903
1.241
1.340
Total ..................................................
346,958
100.0
194,686
100
56.1
1.782
According to Table 2, ‘‘Distribution of
Business Concerns Subject to ReceiptsBased Size Standards by Number of
NAICS Codes,’’ below, the distribution
of firms by the number of NAICS codes
in the matched data is very similar to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
that for the overall 2018 SAM data.
About 42–44 percent of firms were in
only one NAICS code that has a
receipts-based size standard, about 35
percent in 2–5 NAICS codes, about 12
percent in 6–10 NAICS codes, and about
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8–10 percent in more than 10 NAICS
codes. In other words, 56–58 percent of
firms were in multiple NAICS codes
with receipts-based size standards.
Thus, it is quite possible that the
proposed change may impact a firm’s
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
ER05DE19.000</GPH>
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
* To be used to translate the results from the matched data to overall 2018 SAM data.
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
small business status in multiple
industries. For purposes of this analysis,
an impacted firm is defined as one that
would be impacted by the change in
terms of gaining, regaining, extending,
or losing small business status in at least
66571
one industry with a receipts-based size
standard.
TABLE 2—DISTRIBUTION OF BUSINESS CONCERNS SUBJECT TO RECEIPTS-BASED SIZE STANDARDS BY NUMBER OF
NAICS CODES
Total firms in 2018 SAM with at
least one receipts-based
NAICS code
Number of NAICS codes
Count
%
Matched firms between
2018 and 2015 SAM
Count
%
1 NAICS code ..................................................................................................
2 to 5 NAICS codes .........................................................................................
6 to 10 NAICS codes .......................................................................................
>10 NAICS codes ............................................................................................
153,184
123,277
41,518
28,979
44.2
35.5
12.0
8.4
82,082
68,458
24,529
19,617
42.2
35.2
12.6
10.1
Total ..........................................................................................................
346,958
100.0
194,686
100.0
Note: A business concern is defined in terms of a unique local (vendor) DUNS number.
A central premise of Public Law 115–
324 is that a 5-year annual receipts
average (as opposed to a 3-year annual
receipts average) would enable some
mid-size businesses who have recently
exceeded the size standard to regain
small business status and some
advanced small businesses close to
exceeding the size standard to retain
their small business status for a longer
period. However, this premise would
only hold true when businesses’ annual
revenues are rising. When businesses’
annual revenues are declining, due to
economic downturns or other factors,
the 5-year annual receipts average could
be higher than the 3-year annual
receipts average, thereby causing small
businesses close to their size standards
to lose their small business status
sooner. To mitigate such negative
impacts on small businesses, SBA has
decided, in consideration of public
comments and the results from its own
analysis, to provide a 2-year transition
period in which firms will be allowed
to elect either a 5-year or 3-year
averaging period in calculating their
average annual receipts.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
b. Impacts on Businesses From the
Change
By comparing the approximated 5year annual receipts average with the
current receipts-based size standard for
each of the 194,686 matched business
concerns in each NAICS code subject to
a receipts-based size standard, in the
proposed rule, SBA identified the
following 4 possible impacts from
changing the averaging period for
annual revenues from 3 years to 5 years:
i. The number of mid-size businesses
that have exceeded the size standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
and would regain small business status
in at least one NAICS industry with a
receipts-based size standard (i.e., 3-year
average > size standard ≥ 5-year
average)—positive impact;
ii. the number of advanced small
businesses within 10 percent below the
size standard that would have their
small business status extended for a
longer period in at least one NAICS
industry with a receipts-based standard
(5-year average < 3-year average ≤ size
standard and 0.9*size standard < 3-year
average ≤ size standard)—positive
impact;
iii. the number of currently small
businesses that would lose their small
business status in at least one NAICS
industry subjected to at least one
receipts-based size standard (i.e., 3-year
average ≤ size standard < 5-year
average)—negative impact; and
iv. the number of advanced small
businesses within 10 percent below the
size standard that would have their
small business status shortened in at
least one NAICS industry subject to a
receipts-based standard (3-year average
< 5-year average ≤ size standard and
0.9*size standard < 3-year average ≤ size
standard)—negative impact.
In this final rule, SBA is changing the
period for calculation of average annual
receipts for all of its as well as other
agencies’ receipts-based size standards
from 3 years to 5 years. The purpose of
Public Law 115–324 is to allow small
businesses more time to grow and
develop competitiveness and
infrastructure so that they are better
prepared to succeed under full and open
competition once they outgrow the size
threshold. However, as stated in the
proposed rule, a longer 5-year averaging
period may not always and necessarily
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
provide relief to every small business
concern. As discussed in the proposed
rule, when annual revenues are
declining or when annual revenues for
the latest 3 years are lower than those
for the earliest 2 years of the 5-year
period, the 5-year average would be
higher than the 3-year average, thereby
ejecting some advanced small
businesses out of their small business
status sooner or rendering some small
businesses under the 3-year average not
small immediately.
In the proposed rule, SBA described
4 different types of impacts on small
businesses from changes to the
averaging period for annual receipts
from 3 years to 5 years as follows: (i)
Enabling current large or mid-size
businesses to gain small business status
(impact i); (ii) enabling current
advanced small businesses to lengthen
their small business status (impact ii);
(iii) causing current small businesses to
lose their small business status (impact
iii); and (iv) causing current small
businesses to shorten their small
business status (impact iv).
However, with the SBA’s decision to
provide a 2-year transition period
thereby allowing firms to choose either
their 5-year average annual receipts or
their 3-year average annual receipts, the
two negative impacts (namely impact
(iii) and impact (iv)) do not apply to this
final rule. Accordingly, this final rule
provides the analysis of the two positive
impacts (namely impact (i) and impact
(ii)) only.
Table 3, ‘Percentage Distribution of
Impacted Firms by the Number of
NAICS Codes,’ below, provides these
results based on the 2018 SAM—2015
SAM matched firms.
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
66572
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF IMPACTED FIRMS BY THE NUMBER OF NAICS CODES
% Distribution of impacted firms by number of NAICS codes
Impact *
Number of
impacted firms
1 NAICS code
914
36.0
36.1
13.6
14.3
100.0
1,255
25.3
39.6
16.3
18.8
100.0
1,640
1,138
0.0
0.0
24.6
25.0
24.2
26.0
51.2
49.0
100.0
100.0
2,554
2,393
12.9
13.3
28.7
32.6
20.4
20.9
38.0
33.2
100.0
100.0
4,687
13.8
31.8
20.7
33.8
100.0
Currently large in all NAICS codes
Impact (i) ...........................................
Currently small in all NAICS codes
Impact (ii) ..........................................
Currently small in some NAICS and not
small in others
Impact (i) ...........................................
Impact (ii) ..........................................
Total Impact by Impact Type
Impact (i) ...........................................
Impact (ii) ..........................................
Total positive impact ..................
2–5 NAICS
codes
6–10 NAICS
codes
>10 NAICS
codes
Total
* Impact (i) = Current large businesses gaining small business status; and Impact (ii) = Current small businesses extending small business
status.
It is highly notable that the
distribution of impacted firms by the
number of NAICS codes, as shown in
Table 3, is very different as compared to
a similar distribution based on the
overall matched and total 2018 SAM
data (see Table 2), especially with
respect to firms with only one NAICS
code and those with more than 5 NAICS
codes. For example, as shown in Table
2, above, more than 40 percent of all
firms in the overall data were associated
with only one NAICS code, as compared
to less than 15 percent among impacted
firms in Table 3. Similarly, firms with
more than 5 NAICS codes accounted for
about 20 percent of all firms in the
original data, as compared to more than
50 percent among impacted firms. It is
also notable that NAICS Sectors 54, 56,
and 23 together accounted for more than
70 percent of impacted firms, with
Sector 54 (Professional, Scientific and
Technical Services) accounting for
about 35 percent, followed by Sector 23
(Construction) about 25 percent, and
Sector 56 (Administrative and Support,
Waste Management and Remediation
Services) about 12–13 percent.
Each of these impacts was then
multiplied by an applicable factor or
ratio, as shown in the last column of
Table 1, to obtain the respective impacts
corresponding to all firms in 2018 SAM
subject to at least one receipts-based
size standard. These results are
presented below in Table 4, ‘‘Impacts
from Changing the Averaging Period for
Receipts from 3 Years to 5 Years.’’ The
last column of the table shows the
percent of firms impacted relative to all
business concerns in 2018 SAM.
Because the SAM data only captures
businesses that are primarily interested
in Federal procurement opportunities,
the SAM-based results do not capture
the impacts the proposed change may
have on businesses participating in
various non-procurement programs that
apply SBA’s receipts-based size
standards, such as exemptions from
compliance with paperwork and other
regulatory requirements.
TABLE 4—IMPACTS FROM CHANGING THE AVERAGING PERIOD FOR RECEIPTS FROM 3 YEARS TO 5 YEARS
Firms
impacted
in matched
dataset
Impact 1
Entities other than small under all NAICS code(s)
Impact (i) .......................................................................
Entities small under all NAICS code(s)
Impact (ii) ......................................................................
Entities small in some NAICS code(s) and other than
small in other(s)
Impact (i) .......................................................................
Impact (ii) ......................................................................
Total positive impact by impact type
Impact (i) .......................................................................
Impact (ii) ......................................................................
Overall total positive impact 2 ................................
1 Impact
Total to
matched
ratio
(Table 1)
Total firms
impacted
in 2018 SAM
Total firms in
2018 SAM
% Impacted
914
1.340
1,225
43,444
2.8
1,255
1.903
2,389
293,524
0.8
1,640
1,138
1.241
1.241
2,035
1,412
9,990
9,990
20.4
14.1
2,554
2,393
........................
........................
3,260
3,801
53,434
303,514
6.1
1.3
4,687
........................
6,690
346,958
1.9
(i) = Current large businesses gaining small business status; and Impact (ii) = Current small businesses extending small business sta-
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
tus.
2 Number of firms under total positive impacts refer to the number of unique firms. Some firms could appear in both impact types and hence individual impacts may not add up to overall impact.
The Economic Census, combined with
the Census of Agriculture and County
Business Patterns Reports, provides for
each NAICS code information on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
number of total small and large
businesses subjected to a receipts-based
size standard. Based on the matched
SAM data, SBA computed percentages
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of businesses impacted under each
impact category for each NAICS
industry subject to a receipts-based size
standard. By applying such percentages
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
66573
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
to the 2012 Economic Census
tabulation, SBA estimated the number
of all businesses impacted under each
impact type for each NAICS code
subject to a receipts-based size standard.
These results are presented in Table 5,
‘‘Impacts from Changing the Averaging
Period for Receipts from 3 Years to 5
Years (2012 Economic Census),’’ below.
TABLE 5—IMPACTS FROM CHANGING THE AVERAGING PERIOD FOR RECEIPTS FROM 3 YEARS TO 5 YEARS
[2012 Economic Census]
Impact 1
Total firms
Estimate of
impacted firms
% Impacted
Impact (i) ......................................................................................................................................
Impact (ii) .....................................................................................................................................
271,505
6,896,633
7,822
62,822
2.9
0.9
Overall positive impact .........................................................................................................
7,168,138
70,644
1.0
1 Impact (i) = Current large businesses gaining small business status; and Impact (ii) = Current small businesses extending small business
status.
Currently large or mid-size businesses
regaining small business status would
get various benefits as small business
concerns, including access to Federal
set-aside contracts, and exemptions
from various compliance and paperwork
requirements. With their small business
status extended, advanced small
businesses would continue to receive
such benefits for a longer period.
However, the change from 3-year
average receipts to 5-year average may
also harm some small businesses by
causing them to lose or shorten their
small business status in at least one
receipts-based size standard, thereby
depriving them of access to small
business assistance, especially Federal
set-aside opportunities. To mitigate
such impacts, SBA is allowing
businesses to elect either the 3-year
average annual receipts or the 5-year
average annual receipts for 2 years
through January 6, 2022. SBA intends to
seek comment on implementation in the
Business Loan and Disaster Loan
Programs in a proposed rule through a
separate rulemaking.
c. The Baseline
For this new regulatory action
modifying an existing regulation (such
as changing the average annual receipts
calculation from 3 years to 5 years), a
baseline assuming no change to the
regulation (i.e., maintaining the status
quo) generally provides an appropriate
benchmark for evaluating benefits,
costs, or transfer impacts of proposed
regulatory changes and their
alternatives.
Based on the 2012 Economic Census
special tabulations (the latest available),
2012 County Business Patterns Reports
(for industries not covered by the
Economic Census), and 2012
Agricultural Census tabulations (for
agricultural industries), of a total of
about 7.2 million firms in all industries
with receipts-based size standards,
about 96 percent are considered small
and 4 percent other-than-small under
the 3-year annual receipts average.
Similarly, of 346,958 businesses that
were subject to at least one receiptsbased size standard and eligible for
Federal contracting, 87.5 percent were
small in at least one NAICS code and
12.5 percent other than small in all
NAICS codes.
Based on the data from the Federal
Procurement Data System—Next
Generation (FPDS–NG) for fiscal years
2015–2017 (the latest available when
the proposed rule was prepared), on
average, about 88,770 unique firms in
industries subject to receipts-based size
standards received at least one Federal
contract during that period, of which 83
percent were small. Businesses subject
to receipts-based standards received
$182 billion in average annual Federal
contract dollars during that period, of
which nearly $64 billion or about 35
percent went to small businesses. Of
total dollars awarded to small
businesses subject to receipts-based size
standards, $45 billion or 71 percent was
awarded through various small business
set-aside programs and another 29
percent was awarded through non-set
aside contracts.
Table 6, ‘‘Baseline Analysis of
Receipts-Based Size Standards,’’ below,
provides these baseline results. SBA’s
proposed rule included an estimate of
the number and total dollar amount of
loans issued through the Business Loan
Programs and the Economic Injury
Disaster Loan (EIDL) program. These
estimates are not presented in this final
rule because SBA intends to issue a
separate rulemaking to consider changes
to size eligibility for the Business Loan
and Disaster Loan Programs.
Besides set-aside contracting and
financial assistance discussed above,
small businesses also benefit through
reduced fees, less paperwork, and fewer
compliance requirements that are
available to small businesses through
Federal agencies that use SBA’s size
standards. However, SBA has no data to
estimate the number of small businesses
receiving such benefits. Similarly, due
to the lack of data, SBA is not able to
determine impacts the final rule will
have on small businesses participating
in other agencies’ programs that are
subject to their own size standards
based on average annual receipts.
TABLE 6—BASELINE ANALYSIS OF RECEIPTS-BASED SIZE STANDARDS
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Measure
Value
Total industries subject to receipts-based standards ..........................................................................................................................
Total firms subject to at least one receipts-based standard (million)—2012 Economic Census .......................................................
Total small firms subject to at least one receipts-based standard (million)—2012 Economic Census ..............................................
Total small firms subject to at least one receipts-based standard as % of total firms—2012 Economic Census .............................
Total business concerns in SAM 1 (as of September 1, 2018) ...........................................................................................................
Total business concerns subject to a receipts-based size standard in at least one NAICS code 2 (SAM) .......................................
Total businesses that are small in at least one NAICS code subject to a receipts-based size standard ..........................................
Small business concerns as % of total business concerns subject to receipts-based standards (2018 SAM) .................................
Average total number of unique Eligible vendors getting Federal contracts 1—FPDS–NG (2015–2017) ..........................................
Average total number of unique firms with receipts-based size standards getting Federal contracts 2—FPDS–NG (2015–2017) ..
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
518
7.17
6.9
96.2
420,381
346,958
303,514
87.5
126,500
88,770
66574
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6—BASELINE ANALYSIS OF RECEIPTS-BASED SIZE STANDARDS—Continued
Measure
Value
Average total contract dollars awarded to business concerns, subject to receipts-based standards ($ billion) ................................
Average total small business contract dollars awarded to businesses subject to receipts-based standards ($ billion) ....................
Small business dollars as % of total dollars awarded to firms subject to receipts-based standards .................................................
$182
$63.7
34.9
1 Entities in SAM and FPDS–NG presented above only include business concerns that can be eligible to qualify as small for Federal contracting. That is, entities that can never qualify as small (e.g., foreign, not-for-profit and government entities) are excluded as they are not impacted by this rule.
2 A business concern could appear in multiple NAICS industries involving both receipts-based and size standards and those based on other
measures (such as employees). Similarly, a business could be small in some industries and other-than-small in others.
Businesses that would regain or
expand their small business status can
be identified by comparing the estimate
of their 5-year receipts average with the
size standard. That is, if the 5-year
receipts average of a firm currently
above the size standard is lower than
the applicable size standard, that firm
will gain or regain small business status.
To estimate the number of small
businesses that would benefit by having
their small business status extended for
a longer period or would be penalized
by having their small business status
shortened, SBA considered small
businesses whose 3-year average annual
receipts was within 10 percent below
their receipts-based size thresholds.
Depending upon whether their annual
receipts are growing or declining, small
businesses that are not immediately
impacted may be impacted, either
positively (i.e., gaining small business
status) or negatively (i.e., losing small
business status) someday as they
continue to grow and approach the size
standard threshold as in the current 3year averaging method. However, SBA
is not able to quantify such impacts
now.
d. Benefits
The most significant benefits to
businesses from the change in the
period for calculation of average annual
receipts from 3 years to 5 years include:
(i) Enabling some mid-size businesses
currently categorized above their
corresponding size standards to gain or
regain small business status and thereby
qualify for participation in Federal
assistance intended for small
businesses, and (ii) allowing some
advanced and larger small businesses
close to their size thresholds to lengthen
their small business status for a longer
period and thereby continue their
participation in Federal small business
programs. These include Federal
procurement programs intended for
small businesses. Federal procurement
programs provide targeted, set-aside
opportunities for small businesses
under SBA’s various business
development and contracting programs,
including 8(a)/BD, HUBZone, WOSB,
EDWOSB, and SDVOSB programs.
Benefits accruing to businesses gaining
and extending small business status are
presented below in Table 7, ‘‘Positive
Impacts of Changing the Averaging
Period for Receipts from 3 Years to 5
Years.’’ The results in Table 7 pertain to
businesses and industries subject to
SBA’s receipts-based size standards
only.
As shown in Table 7, of 43,444 firms
not currently considered small in any
receipts-based size standards, 3,260 (or
7.5 percent) would benefit from the
proposed change by gaining or regaining
small business status under the 5-year
receipts average in at least one NAICS
industry that is subject to a receiptsbased size standard. Additionally, about
3,800 or 1.3 percent of small businesses
within 10 percent below size standards
would see their annual receipts decrease
under the 5-year averaging period,
consequently enabling them to keep
their small business status for a longer
period.
Using the 2012 Economic Census,
SBA estimated that about 7,800 or 2.9
percent of currently large businesses
would gain or regain small business
status and more than 62,800 or 0.9
percent of total small businesses would
see their small business status extended
for a longer period as the result of this
proposed rule. These results are shown
in Table 7, below.
TABLE 7—POSITIVE IMPACTS OF CHANGING THE AVERAGING PERIOD FOR RECEIPTS FROM 3 YEARS TO 5 YEARS
Firms
gaining
small
business
status
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Impact of proposed change
No. of impacted industries ...........................................................................................................
No. of large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending small business status—SAM
(as of Sept 1, 2018) .................................................................................................................
Large firms becoming small or/and small firms with extended small business status as % of
total large or/and small firms in the baseline—SAM (as of Sept 1, 2018) ..............................
No. of large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending small business status—2012
Economic Census ....................................................................................................................
Large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending small business status as % of total
large or/and small firms in the baseline—2012 Economic Census .........................................
No. of large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending small business status for
small business contracts (FPDS–NG) .....................................................................................
Additional small business dollars available to newly qualified firms or/and current small firms
with extended small business status ($ million) ......................................................................
Additional small business dollars as % total small business contract dollars in the baseline ....
Firms
extending
small
business
status
Total
positive
impact
372
361
1 420
3,260
3,801
2 6,690
7.5
1.3
1.9
7,822
62,822
70,644
2.9
0.9
1.0
910
838
2 1,700
$961
1.5
$133
0.2
$1,094
1.7
1 Total impact represents total unique industries impacted to avoid double counting as some industries have large firms gaining small business
status and small firms extending small business status.
2 Total impact represents total unique firms impacted to avoid double counting as some firms may gain small business status in at least one
NAICS code, while extending small business status in at least one other NAICS code.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
With more businesses qualifying as
small under the 5-year receipts average,
Federal agencies will have a larger pool
of small businesses from which to draw
for their small business procurement
programs. Growing small businesses
that are close to exceeding the current
size standards will be able to retain their
small business status for a longer period
under the 5-year receipts average,
thereby enabling them to continue to
benefit from the small business
programs.
Based on the FPDS–NG data for fiscal
years 2015–2017, as shown in Table 7,
SBA estimates that those newly
qualified small businesses (i.e., large
businesses gaining small business
status) under this final rule, if adopted,
could receive $961 million in small
business contract dollars annually
under SBA’s small business, 8(a)/BD,
HUBZone, WOSB, EDWOSB, and
SDVOSB programs. That represents a
1.5 percent increase to total small
business contract dollars from the
baseline. Additionally, small businesses
could receive approximately $133
million in additional small business
contract dollars because of extension of
their small business status, which is
about a 0.2 percent increase from the
total small business contract dollars in
the baseline. That is, businesses gaining
or extending small business status could
receive about $1.1 billion in additional
small business contract dollars, which is
a 1.7 percent increase to the total small
business dollars in the baseline.
The added competition from more
businesses qualifying as small may
result in lower prices to the Federal
Government for procurements set aside
or reserved for small businesses, but
SBA cannot quantify this impact. Costs
could be higher when full and open
contracts are awarded to HUBZone
businesses that receive price evaluation
preferences. However, with agencies
likely setting aside more contracts for
small businesses in response to a larger
pool of small businesses under the
proposed change, HUBZone firms might
actually end up getting more set-aside
contracts and fewer full and open
contracts, thereby resulting in some cost
savings to agencies. While SBA cannot
estimate such costs savings, as it is
impossible to determine the number and
value of unrestricted contracts to be
otherwise awarded to HUBZone firms
that will be awarded as set-asides, such
cost savings are likely to be relatively
small as only a small fraction of full and
open contracts are awarded to HUBZone
businesses.
Additionally, the newly defined small
businesses, as well as those with a
longer small business status, would also
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
benefit from reduced fees, less
paperwork, and fewer compliance
requirements but SBA has no data to
quantify this impact.
The change from a 3-year averaging
period to a 5-year averaging period will
also address some of the challenges and
uncertainties small businesses face in
the open market once they graduate
from their small business status. Small
and mid-size businesses experience a
considerable disadvantage in competing
for full and open contracts against large
businesses, including the largest in the
industry. These large businesses have
several competitive advantages over
small and mid-size firms, including vast
past performance qualifications and
experience, strong brand-name
recognition, a plethora of professional
certifications, security clearances, and
greater financial and marketing
resources. Small and mid-size
businesses cannot afford to maintain
these resources, leaving them at a
considerable disadvantage.
With contracts getting bigger, one
large set-aside contract could throw a
firm out of its small business status,
thereby subjecting it to certain
requirements that apply to other-thansmall firms, such as developing
subcontracting plans. That firm may not
have the infrastructure, existing
business processes, and/or other
resources in place in order to comply
with such requirements.
By allowing smaller mid-size
companies that have just exceeded the
size threshold to regain small business
status and advanced small businesses
close to size standards to prolong their
small business status for a longer
period, using the 5-year receipts average
can expand the pool of qualified small
firms for agencies to draw from to meet
their small business requirements.
e. The Costs
As stated in the proposed rule, the
change enacted under Public Law 115–
324 may not always and necessarily
benefit every small business concern.
When businesses’ annual revenues are
declining or when annual revenues for
the latest 3 years are lower than those
for the earliest 2 years of the 5-year
period, the 5-year average would be
higher than the 3-year average, thereby
ejecting small businesses out of their
small business status sooner or
rendering some small businesses other
than small immediately. Similarly,
small businesses that lose their small
business status would have to wait
longer to qualify as small again. Such
small businesses would no longer be
eligible for Federal small business
opportunities, such as Federal small
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66575
business contracts and other Federal
benefits (such as reduced fees and
exemptions from certain paperwork and
compliance requirements) available to
small businesses. However, the SBA’s
decision to grant a 2-year transition
period allowing businesses to elect to
use either the 5-year receipts average or
the 3-year average receipts will mitigate
such impacts. SBA believes the
transition period provides small
businesses with enough time to make a
permanent transition to the 5-year
averaging method without facing such
impacts.
By enabling mid-size businesses to
regain small business status and
lengthening the small business status of
advanced and successful larger small
businesses, the final rule may
disadvantage smaller small businesses
in more need of Federal assistance than
their larger counterparts in competing
for Federal opportunities. SBA
frequently receives concerns from
smaller small businesses that they also
lack resources, past performance
qualifications and expertise to be able to
compete against more resourceful,
qualified and experienced larger small
businesses for Federal opportunities for
small businesses. With a larger pool of
businesses qualifying as small, SBA
expects Federal agencies to set aside
more contracts to small businesses
thereby expanding opportunities for all
small businesses. SBA believes that
overall benefits to small businesses from
this rule change outweigh the costs to
small businesses.
Besides having to register in SAM to
be able to participate in Federal
contracting and update the SAM profile
annually, small businesses incur no
direct costs to gain or retain their small
business status. All businesses willing
to do business with the Federal
Government have to register in SAM
and update their SAM profiles annually,
regardless of their size status. SBA
believes that a vast majority of
businesses that are willing to participate
in Federal contracting are already
registered in SAM.
The change to the 5-year receipts
average may entail some additional
administrative costs to the Federal
Government because more businesses
may qualify as small for Federal small
business programs. For example, there
will be more firms eligible for
enrollment in the Dynamic Small
Business Search (DSBS) database or in
certify.sba.gov; more firms seeking
certification as 8(a)/BD or HUBZone
firms or qualifying for small business,
WOSB, EDWOSB, and SDVOSB status;
and more firms applying for SBA’s 8(a)/
BD and All Small Mentor-Prote´ge´
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
66576
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
programs. With an expanded pool of
small businesses, it is likely that Federal
agencies will set aside more contracts
for small businesses under the new rule.
One may surmise that this might result
in a higher number of small business
size protests and additional processing
costs to agencies. However, the SBA’s
historical data on size protests actually
shows that the number of size protests
decreased after an increase in the
number of businesses qualifying as
small as a result of size standards
revisions as part of the first 5-year
review of size standards. Specifically,
on an annual basis, the number of size
protests dropped from about 600 during
fiscal years 2011–2013 (review of most
receipts-based size standards was
completed by the end of fiscal year
2013) to about 500 during fiscal years
2014–2016. However, with more years
of data to be reviewed, 5-year averaging
may increase time needed by size
specialists to process a size protest.
Additionally, some Federal contracts
may possibly have higher costs. With a
greater number of businesses defined as
small under the 5-year averaging
method, Federal agencies may choose to
set aside more contracts for competition
among small businesses only instead of
using full and open competition. The
movement of contracts from
unrestricted competition to small
business set-aside contracts might result
in competition among fewer total
bidders, although there will be more
small businesses eligible to submit
offers under the proposed change.
However, the additional costs associated
with fewer bidders are expected to be
minor since, by law, procurements may
be set aside for small businesses under
the 8(a)/BD, HUBZone, WOSB,
EDWOSB, or SDVOSB programs only if
awards are expected to be made at fair
and reasonable prices.
Costs may also be higher when full
and open contracts are awarded to
HUBZone businesses that receive price
evaluation preferences. However, with
agencies likely setting aside more
contracts for small businesses in
response to the availability of a larger
pool of small businesses under the 5year receipts average, HUBZone firms
might actually end up getting fewer full
and open contracts, thereby resulting in
some cost savings to agencies. However,
such cost savings are likely to be
minimal as only a small fraction of
unrestricted contracts are awarded to
HUBZone businesses.
f. Transfer Impacts
The change from a 3-year averaging
period to a 5-year averaging period may
result in some redistribution of Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
contracts between businesses gaining or
extending small business status and
large businesses, and between
businesses gaining or extending small
business status and other existing small
businesses. However, it would have no
impact on the overall economic activity
since the total Federal contract dollars
available for businesses to compete for
will not change. While SBA cannot
quantify with certainty the actual
outcome of the gains and losses from the
redistribution of contracts among
different groups of businesses, it can
identify several probable impacts in
qualitative terms. With the availability
of a larger pool of small businesses
under the proposed change, some
unrestricted Federal contracts may be
set aside for small businesses. As a
result, large businesses may lose access
to some Federal contracts. Similarly,
some currently small businesses may
obtain fewer set-aside contracts due to
the increased competition from some
large businesses now qualifying as small
and advanced small businesses
remaining small for a longer period.
This impact may be offset by a greater
number of procurements being set aside
for all small businesses. With large
businesses qualifying as small and
advanced larger small businesses
remaining small for a longer period
under the proposed rule, smaller small
businesses could face some
disadvantages in competing for set-aside
contracts against their larger
counterparts. However, SBA cannot
quantify these impacts.
B. 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. This action does not have
retroactive or preemptive effect.
C. Executive Order 13132
For purposes of Executive Order
13132, SBA has determined that this
final 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 final rule has
no federalism implications warranting
preparation of a federalism assessment.
D. Executive Order 13563
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes
the importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, reducing costs,
harmonizing rules, and promoting
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
flexibility. 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, is included above in the BenefitCost Analysis under Executive Order
12866. Additionally, Executive Order
13563, Section 6, calls for retrospective
analyses of existing rules.
Following the enactment of Public
Law 115–324, SBA issued a public
notice advising business and contracting
communities that SBA must go through
a rulemaking process to implement the
new law and that businesses still must
report their receipts based on a 3-year
average until SBA changes its
regulations. SBA updated the Small
Business Procurement Advisory Council
(SBPAC) at its March 26, 2019, April 23,
2019, and August 26, 2019, meetings
about SBA’s rulemaking process to
implement Public Law 115–324. On
April 18, 2019, SBA also presented an
update on the implementation of Public
Law 115–324 at the 2019 Annual
Government Procurement Conference.
Through phone calls and emails, SBA
also advised business and contracting
communities and other interested
parties about the SBA’s process to
implement the new law.
Additionally, SBA issued a revised
white paper titled ‘‘Small Business Size
Standards: Revised Size Standards
Methodology’’ and published a notice in
the April 27, 2018, issue of the Federal
Register (83 FR 18468) to advise the
public that the document is available for
public review and comments. The
Revised Size Standards Methodology
explains how SBA establishes, reviews,
and modifies its receipts-based and
employee-based small business size
standards. On April 11, 2019, SBA
published a Federal Register Notice (84
FR 14587) advising the public that the
Agency has issued the revised final
white paper.
E. Executive Order 13771
This rule is not expected to be an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this rule is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
F. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), this final rule may have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small businesses
in industries subject to receipts-based
size standards. As described above, this
rule may affect small businesses in
those industries seeking Federal
contracts and assistance under other
Federal small business programs.
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Immediately below, SBA sets forth a
final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) of this final rule to address the
following questions: (1) What is the
need for and objective of the rule?; (2)
What is SBA’s description and estimate
of the number of small businesses to
which the rule will 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 is the need for and objective of
the rule?
Recently, Public Law 115–324
amended section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of the
Small Business Act by modifying the
period for calculating average annual
receipts for prescribing size standards
for business concerns in services
industries by an agency without
separate statutory authority to issue size
standards from 3 years to 5 years. This
final rule implements the intent of
Public Law 115–324 and makes
consistent changes to SBA’s definition
of annual receipts by amending the
SBA’s regulations on the calculation of
average annual receipts for all receiptsbased standards from over 3 years to
over 5 years, except for the Business
Loan Programs and Disaster Loan
Programs.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
2. What are SBA’s description and
estimate of the number of small
businesses to which the rule will apply?
This final rule applies to all small
businesses that are subject to a receiptsbased size standard. Based on the 2012
Economic Census special tabulations,
2012 County Business Patterns Reports,
and 2012 Agricultural Census
tabulations, of a total of about 7.2
million firms in all industries with
receipts-based size standards to which
this final rule will apply, 6.9 million or
about 96.0 percent are considered small
under the 3-year annual receipts
average. Of 346,958 total concerns in
SAM 2018 to which the rule will apply,
about 303,500 or 87.5 percent were
small in at least one NAICS industry
with a receipts-based size standard.
Similarly, based on the data from FPDS–
NG for fiscal years 2015–2017, on
average, about 88,770 unique firms in
industries subject to receipts-based size
standards received at least one Federal
contract during that period, of which 83
percent, or 73,825 were small.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
3. What are the projected reporting,
record-keeping and other compliance
requirements of the rule?
The final rule changes existing
reporting or record-keeping
requirements for small businesses. In
reporting receipts to SBA for an SBA
size determination after the final rule’s
effective date, businesses will report a 5year average rather than a 3-year average
which requires minimal effort. To
qualify for Federal procurement and a
few other programs, businesses are
required to register in SAM and to selfcertify that they are small at least once
annually. Therefore, businesses opting
to participate in those programs must
comply with SAM requirements. There
are no costs associated with SAM
registration or certification. The change
from a 3-year averaging period to a 5year averaging period may result in
some redistribution of Federal contracts
between businesses gaining or
extending small status and large
businesses, and between businesses
gaining or extending small status and
other existing small businesses.
However, it would have no impact on
the overall economic activity since the
total Federal contract dollars available
for businesses to compete for will not
change.
4. What are the relevant Federal rules
which may duplicate, overlap or
conflict with the rule?
Under section 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, 5 U.S.C.
601(3), authorizes an Agency to
establish an alternative small business
definition, after consultation with the
Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small
Business Administration.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66577
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 or
changing a measurement period, no
practical alternative exists to the
systems of numerical size standards. As
stated elsewhere, the objective of this
final rule is to change SBA’s regulations
on the calculation of business size in
terms of average annual receipts to
implement Public Law 115–324.
This rule is expected to affect a
substantial number of small entities, but
the effects are not expected to be
significant. However, to mitigate
unintended negative impacts of a 5-year
averaging period on small businesses
and to allow small businesses more time
to prepare for a switch to the 5-year
receipts average, in this final rule, SBA
is allowing, through January 6, 2022,
businesses to elect to calculate average
annual receipts using either a 3-year
averaging period or a 5-year averaging
period. SBA also decided that the
Business Loan Programs and Disaster
Loan Programs are not included in this
final rule and will instead be considered
in a future proposed rule.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
SBA has determined that as a result
of this final rule, an information
collection will need to be revised.
1 . SBA Form 355, Information for
Small Business Size Determination.
SBA submitted this information
collection to OMB for approval of the
changes described below and received
conditional approval pending any
change as a result of public comments.
The final information collection package
will be resubmitted to OMB concurrent
with publication of this final rule.
Changes have been made to Parts III and
IV of the form to address the change
from 3 years to 5 years for calculating
average annual receipts. Other revisions
to the form have been made to delete
unnecessary questions, clarify certain
previously approved requests for
information, and in some instances, to
request additional information where
SBA has determined there is a
programmatic need. As noted in the
proposed rule and the OMB submission,
these deletions and clarifications,
though not required by the statute, will
alleviate the additional burden posed by
changing from 3 years to 5 years for
calculating average annual receipts.
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
66578
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
(a) SBA amended the General
Instructions section to define ‘‘concern’’
and ‘‘principal stockholders’’; state that
separate affiliation rules apply in some
of SBA’s loan and research programs;
remove obsolete information about
industries with special size standards;
state that dormant or inactive firms
must be disclosed; and to include in the
certification a statement that
accompanying documentation is true
and correct.
(b) In Part 1, SBA clarified that the
information relates to the applicant
business; added a checkbox for the firm
to identify its corporate organization
structure; required a firm to disclose
whether it is organized for profit; and
removed various obsolete or
unnecessary information regarding
county/city, purpose of the size
determination, the contracting agency,
the business’s major products or
services and shares of sales, addresses of
owners or officers, and recently
completed mergers. Part 1 was also
amended to request ownership
information for owners that are entities
until the respondent identifies the
ultimate owners that are natural
persons.
(c) In Part II, SBA limited the
information requested about employees
to businesses that are being evaluated
under an employee-based size standard.
(d) In Part III, SBA limited the
information request about receipts to
businesses that are being evaluated
under a receipts-based size standard.
SBA also added two additional lines to
the entries for annual receipts so that a
business that has been in business for 5
years can provide information about its
most recently completed 5 fiscal years.
SBA added a question to allow the
concern to elect a 3-year average or a 5year average during the transition
period that ends January 6, 2022.
(e) In Part IV, SBA added that the
business must provide information for
any business that the applicant’s owner
reports on a Schedule C or Schedule E
of the owner’s personal tax returns if the
owner or an immediate family member
has a controlling interest in the
business; removed the request for
addresses of individual owners and
managers; requested ownership
information for owners that are entities
until the respondent identifies the
ultimate owners that are natural
persons; limited the request for
employee information to applicants
being evaluated under an employeebased size standard; limited the
information request for receipts
information to applicants being
evaluated under a receipts-based size
standard; and added two rows to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
receipts table so that the receipts of
acknowledged affiliates are reported
based on a 5-year average.
(f) In Part V, SBA removed requests
about acknowledged affiliates that are
covered in Part IV; deleted questions
about performance of work on the
contract, financial impact of termination
for default, and specific terms and
conditions of the contract; and added a
question about actual or proposed
subcontracts between the applicant and
any of its alleged affiliates.
SBA determined that these changes to
the Form 355 will not impact the
paperwork burden following the
transition period, and it will remain at
4 hours. The changes require a business
in an industry with a receipts-based size
standard, if selecting to use the 5-year
average during the transition period or
if certifying after the transition period,
to gather information about the
business’s 5 prior fiscal years and
complete information about its 5 prior
fiscal years and the 5 prior fiscal years
for acknowledged affiliates. However, a
business with a receipts-based size
standard will not complete information
about its number of employees.
Similarly, a business with an employeebased size standard will not complete
information about its receipts.
Additionally, SBA has removed all
requests for the addresses of individual
owners and managers, and deleted 3
questions from Part V.
The title, summary of the amended
information collection, description of
respondents, and an estimate of the
reporting burden are discussed below.
Included in the estimate is the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data, and completing and
reviewing each collection of
information.
Title and Description: SBA Form 355,
Information for Small Business Size
Determination. The information
provided in this form will be used by
SBA for a size determination of a
business applying for assistance
available to small businesses under any
program administered by this Agency,
except for its SBIC Program which uses
SBA Form 480, or at the request of
another Federal agency for purposes of
its small business program.
Need and Purpose: This information
collection is necessary for SBA to,
among other things, evaluate the
eligibility of an applicant for SBA’s
small business programs.
OMB Control Number: 3245–0101.
Description of and Estimated Number
of Respondents: This information will
be collected from small businesses
seeking an SBA determination of size.
Based on historical information, SBA
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
estimates this number to be between 500
and 600 each year.
Estimated Response Time: 4 hours.
Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden:
2,000–2,400.
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 amends 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. Amend § 121.104 by revising the
second sentence of paragraph (a)
introductory text and by revising
paragraphs (c) and (d)(2) through (4) to
read as follows:
■
§ 121.104 How does SBA calculate annual
receipts?
(a) * * * Generally, receipts are
considered ‘‘total income’’ (or in the
case of a sole proprietorship ‘‘gross
income’’) plus ‘‘cost of goods sold’’ as
these terms are defined and reported on
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax
return forms (such as Form 1120 for
corporations; Form 1120S for S
corporations; Form 1120, Form 1065 or
Form 1040 for LLCs; Form 1065 for
partnerships; Form 1040, Schedule F for
farms; Form 1040, Schedule C for other
sole proprietorships) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Period of measurement. (1) Except
for the Business Loan and Disaster Loan
Programs, annual receipts of a concern
that has been in business for 5 or more
completed fiscal years means the total
receipts of the concern over its most
recently completed 5 fiscal years
divided by 5. For certifications
submitted on or before January 6, 2022,
rather than using the definitions in this
paragraph (c), a concern submitting a
certification may elect to calculate
annual receipts and the receipts of
affiliates using either the total receipts
of the concern or affiliate over its most
recently completed 5 fiscal years
divided by 5, or the total receipts of the
concern or affiliate over its most
recently completed 3 fiscal years
divided by 3.
(2) Except for the Business Loan and
Disaster Loan Programs, annual receipts
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
of a concern which has been in business
for less than 5 complete fiscal years
means the total receipts for the period
the concern has been in business
divided by the number of weeks in
business, multiplied by 52.
(3) Except for the Business Loan and
Disaster Loan Programs, where a
concern has been in business 5 or more
complete fiscal years but has a short
year as one of the years within its period
of measurement, annual receipts means
the total receipts for the short year and
the 4 full fiscal years divided by the
total number of weeks in the short year
and the 4 full fiscal years, multiplied by
52.
(4) For the Business Loan and Disaster
Loan Programs, annual receipts of a
concern that has been in business for
three or more completed fiscal years
means the total receipts of the concern
over its most recently completed three
fiscal years divided by three. Annual
receipts of a concern which has been in
business for less than three complete
fiscal years means the total receipts for
the period the concern has been in
business divided by the number of
weeks in business, multiplied by 52.
Where a concern has been in business
three or more complete fiscal years but
has a short year as one of the years
within its period of measurement,
annual receipts means the total receipts
for the short year and the two full fiscal
years divided by the total number of
weeks in the short year and the two full
fiscal years, multiplied by 52. For the
purposes of this section, the Business
Loan Programs consist of the 7(a) Loan
Program, the Microloan Program, the
Intermediary Lending Pilot Program,
and the Development Company Loan
Program (‘‘504 Loan Program’’). The
Disaster Loan Programs consist of
Physical Disaster Business Loans,
Economic Injury Disaster Loans,
Military Reservist Economic Injury
Disaster Loans, and Immediate Disaster
Assistance Program loans.
(d) * * *
(2) If a concern has acquired an
affiliate or been acquired as an affiliate
during the applicable period of
measurement or before the date on
which it self-certified as small, the
annual receipts used in determining size
status includes the receipts of the
acquired or acquiring concern. This
aggregation applies for the entire period
of measurement, not just the period after
the affiliation arose. However, if a
concern has acquired a segregable
division of another business concern
during the applicable period of
measurement or before the date on
which it self-certified as small, the
annual receipts used in determining size
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Dec 04, 2019
Jkt 250001
status do not include the receipts of the
acquired division prior to the
acquisition.
(3) Except for the Business Loan and
Disaster Loan Programs, if the business
concern or an affiliate has been in
business for a period of less than 5
years, the receipts for the fiscal year
with less than a 12-month period are
annualized in accordance with
paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Receipts
are determined for the concern and its
affiliates in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section even though this may
result in using a different period of
measurement to calculate an affiliate’s
annual receipts.
(4) The annual receipts of a former
affiliate are not included if affiliation
ceased before the date used for
determining size. This exclusion of
annual receipts of such former affiliate
applies during the entire period of
measurement, rather than only for the
period after which affiliation ceased.
However, if a concern has sold a
segregable division to another business
concern during the applicable period of
measurement or before the date on
which it self-certified as small, the
annual receipts used in determining size
status will continue to include the
receipts of the division that was sold.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 121.106 by revising
paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 121.106 How does SBA calculate number
of employees?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) The employees of a former affiliate
are not counted if affiliation ceased
before the date used for determining
size. This exclusion of employees of a
former affiliate applies during the entire
period of measurement, rather than only
for the period after which affiliation
ceased. However, if a concern has sold
a segregable division to another
business concern during the applicable
period of measurement or before the
date on which it self-certified as small,
the employees used in determining size
status will continue to include the
employees of the division that was sold.
■ 4. Amend § 121.903 by revising
paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) to read as
follows:
§ 121.903 How may an agency use size
standards for its programs that are different
than those established by SBA?
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The size of a services concern by
its average annual receipts over a period
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66579
of at least 5 years, determined according
to § 121.104;
(iii) The size of other concerns on data
over a period of at least 5 years,
determined according to § 121.104; or,
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: November 25, 2019.
Christopher M. Pilkerton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–26041 Filed 12–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2019–0321; Product
Identifier 2019–NM–013–AD; Amendment
39–19794; AD 2019–23–01]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The FAA is adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A318 series
airplanes; A319–111, –112, –113, –114,
–115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes;
A320–211, –212, –214, –216, –231,
–232, –233, –251N, –252N and –271N
airplanes; and A321 series airplanes.
This AD was prompted by a
determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are
necessary. This AD requires revising the
existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate
new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these
products.
DATES: This AD is effective January 9,
2020.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in this AD
as of January 9, 2020.
ADDRESSES: For service information
identified in this final rule, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—
EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No:
2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France;
telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email account.airwortheas@airbus.com; internet https://
www.airbus.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 234 (Thursday, December 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66561-66579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26041]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 121
RIN 3245-AH16
Small Business Size Standards: Calculation of Annual Average
Receipts
AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA or Agency) is
modifying its method for calculating average annual receipts used to
prescribe size standards for small businesses. Specifically, in
accordance with the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018, SBA is
changing its regulations on the calculation of average annual receipts
for all of SBA's receipts-based size standards, and for other agencies'
proposed receipts-based size standards, from a 3-year averaging period
to a 5-year averaging period, outside of the SBA Business Loan and
Disaster Loan Programs. SBA intends to seek comment on the Business
Loan and Disaster Loan Programs in a proposed rule through a separate
rulemaking. For all other programs, SBA adopts a transition period
through January 6, 2022, during which firms may choose between using a
3-year averaging period and a 5-year averaging period.
DATES: This rule is effective January 6, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Office
of Size Standards, (202) 205-6618 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background Information
Public Law 115-324 (the ``Small Business Runway Extension Act of
2018'') amended section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of the Small Business Act,
15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II), to modify the requirements for proposed
small business size standards prescribed by an agency without separate
statutory authority to issue size standards.
Under section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Small Business Act, as amended,
an agency without separate statutory authority to issue size standards
must satisfy three requirements to prescribe a size standard. First,
the agency must propose the size standard with an opportunity for
public notice and comment. Second, the agency must provide for
determining the size of a manufacturing concern based on a 12-month
average of the concern's employment, the size of a services concern
based on a 5-year average of gross receipts, and the size of another
business concern on the basis of data of not less than 3 years. Third,
the agency must obtain approval of the contemplated size standard from
the SBA Administrator.
In contrast to agencies subject to section 3(a)(2)(C), SBA has
independent statutory authority to issue size standards. Under section
3(a)(2)(A) of the Small Business Act, the SBA Administrator may specify
detailed definitions or standards by which a business concern may be
determined to be a small business concern for the purposes of SBA's
programs or any other Federal Government program. Section 3(a)(2)(B) of
the Small Business Act further provides that such definitions may
utilize the number of employees, dollar volume of business, net worth,
net income, a combination thereof, or other appropriate factors. To
determine eligibility for Federal small business assistance, SBA
establishes detailed size definitions for small businesses (usually
referred to as ``size standards'') that vary from industry to industry
reflecting differences among the various industries. SBA typically uses
two primary measures of business size for size standards purposes: (i)
Average annual gross receipts for businesses in services, retail trade,
agricultural, and construction industries, and (ii) average number of
employees for businesses in all manufacturing, most mining and
utilities industries, and some transportation, information and research
and development (R&D) industries. SBA uses financial assets for certain
financial industries and refining capacity, in addition to employees,
for the petroleum refining industry to measure business size standards
purposes.
The SBA's size standards are used to establish eligibility for a
variety of Federal small business assistance programs, including for
Federal Government contracting and business development programs
designed to assist small businesses in obtaining Federal contracts and
for SBA's loan guarantee programs, which provide access to capital for
small businesses that are unable to qualify for and receive
conventional loans elsewhere. The Federal Government contracting
programs that use SBA's size standards include the SBA's 8(a) Business
Development (BD) program, the Historically Underutilized Business Zones
(HUBZone) program, the Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business
(SDVOSB) program, the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) program, and
the Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB)
program. SBA's Small Business Investment Company (SBIC), Certified
Development Company (CDC/504), and 7(a) loan programs use either the
industry-based size standards or tangible net worth and net income
based alternative size standards to determine eligibility for those
programs.
SBA has long interpreted section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business
Act as not applying to SBA's size standards issued under section
3(a)(2)(A). In the preambles to the proposed and final
[[Page 66562]]
rules implementing 3(a)(2)(C), SBA explained that the Small Business
Act requires that other Federal agencies either use SBA's size
standards or use their own size standards that meet the requirements as
set forth in that section. 65 FR 4176 (Jan. 26, 2000) and 67 FR 13714
(March 26, 2002). In the final implementation in 2002, SBA interpreted
section 3(a)(2)(C) as applying only to non-SBA agencies, stating,
``Unless a statute specifies size standards for an agency's program or
gives an agency direct authority to establish size standards, the
agency must use the applicable size standards established by SBA.''
However, the Act allows an agency to ``prescribe a size standard for
categorizing a business concern as a small business concern (see sec.
3(a)(2)(C) of the Act) provided that the contemplated size standard
meets certain criteria, and the agency obtains approval of the SBA
Administrator.'' 67 FR 13714. For further details on section 3(a)(2)(C)
not applying to SBA's size standards, see the proposed rule (84 FR
29399).
Nevertheless, to promote consistency government-wide on small
business size standards, on June 24, 2019 (84 FR 29399), SBA issued for
comments a proposed rule to change its method for calculating average
annual receipts for all SBA's receipts-based size standards and other
agencies' proposed receipts-based size standards for firms in services
industries from a 3-year averaging period to a 5-year averaging period.
SBA determined that it would be confusing for a service-industry
business concern to use a 3-year average for SBA's receipts-based size
standards and switch to a 5-year average for another agency's receipts-
based size standards. Similarly, it would be confusing to apply SBA's
size standards for a business that is engaged in both service- and non-
service industries to use a 5-year average for determining small
business status in a service industry but switch to a 3-year average
for a non-service industry. Thus, although section 3(a)(2)(C), as
amended, permits another agency to use a 3-year average outside of the
service industries, SBA is adopting a 5-year averaging period for
calculating the annual receipts of businesses for all industries that
are subject to its receipts-based size standards, including the retail
trade, agricultural, and construction industries.
In accordance with Public Law 115-324, SBA proposed to change the
averaging period for calculating annual receipts for other agencies'
receipts-based size standards for firms in services-industries from 3
years to 5 years and to maintain the 3-year averaging period for
calculating the size for non-services firms. To promote consistency and
avoid confusion, in this final rule, SBA is adopting the same 5-year
averaging period for all receipts-based size standards issued by other
agencies as well. More than 40 comments to the proposed rule, as
discussed below, expressed support for adopting the same 5-year
averaging period for all SBA receipts-based size standards. Of those, 3
also recommended using the same averaging period for all receipts-based
size standards prescribed by other agencies.
This final rule carries out the intent of Public Law 115-324, as
expressed in the Report of the House Committee on Small Business, H.
Rpt. 115-939, with respect to Federal procurement opportunities. The
Committee report states that, to help advanced small businesses
successfully navigate the middle market as they reach their small
business size thresholds, the bill would lengthen the time in which the
SBA measures size through revenue, from the average of the past 3 years
to the average of the past 5 years. The Committee report states that
the bill would reduce the impact on small businesses from rapid growth
in some years which would result in spikes in revenue that may
prematurely eject a small business out of their small business status.
The Committee report adds that the bill would allow small businesses at
every level more time to grow and develop their competitiveness and
infrastructure, before entering the open marketplace. The bill, as the
Committee report states, would also protect Federal investment in SBA's
small business procurement programs by increasing chances of success in
the middle market for newly graduated firms, resulting in enhanced
competition against large prime contractors.
As stated in the Committee report, during the period when annual
revenues are rising, the 5-year average will generally be lower than
the 3-year average, thereby allowing: (i) Mid-sized businesses who have
just exceeded size standards to regain their small business status, and
(ii) advanced small businesses close to exceeding the size standard to
retain their small business status for a longer period. In the proposed
rule, SBA noted that, when annual revenues are declining, the 5-year
average may be higher than the 3-year average. This would cause small
businesses near the size thresholds to lose their small business status
sooner under the 5-year average than under the 3-year average. This is
more likely to happen during economic downturns. Businesses that lose
their small business status under the 5-year average may be
disadvantaged further because they may have to wait several years more
to regain their small business status, as compared to under a 3-year
average. The proposed rule added that newly established firms that have
been in business for less than 5 years will receive no benefit from a
change to a 5-year average. A firm that has been in business for less
than the averaging period simply annualizes the receipts from its full
existence.
Additionally, SBA also stated in the proposed rule that by enabling
mid-size businesses to regain small business status and by lengthening
the small business status of advanced and successful larger small
businesses, the longer averaging period may disadvantage smaller small
businesses in more need of Federal assistance than their more advanced
and larger counterparts in competing for Federal opportunities. Similar
to concerns from mid-size businesses that they lack necessary
resources, past performance qualifications, and expertise to be able to
compete against very large businesses in the full and open market, SBA
has also received concerns from smaller small businesses that they also
lack resources, past performance qualifications, and expertise to be
able to compete against more resourceful, qualified, and experienced
larger small businesses for Federal opportunities for small businesses.
In its June 24, 2019 proposed rule, SBA sought comments on its
proposal to change the averaging period for the calculation of average
annual receipts for all receipts-based size standards from 3 years to 5
years.
1. SBA sought feedback, along with supporting facts and analyses,
on whether the Agency should calculate average annual receipts over 5
years for all industries subject to receipts-based size standards and
on whether it should use a 5-year average annual receipts for
businesses in services industries only and continue using a 3-year
average annual receipts for other businesses. SBA was concerned that
the latter option may create confusion for both businesses in reporting
their size based on average annual receipts and contracting personnel
in verifying the size of bidders to Federal contracts.
2. SBA sought input on how the use of average annual receipts over
5 years instead of 3 years would impact both smaller small businesses
and more advanced, larger small businesses in terms of getting access
to Federal opportunities for small businesses.
[[Page 66563]]
Additionally, SBA requested comments on its clarification of how
annual receipts should be calculated in connection with the acquisition
or sale of a division. The proposed rule provided that the annual
receipts of a concern would not be adjusted where the concern sells or
acquires a segregable division during the applicable period of
measurement. This is distinct from how SBA treats the sale or
acquisition of a subsidiary that is a separate legal entity.
In this final rule, SBA adopts the changes as stated in the
proposed rule, with two modifications. First, in response to comments,
SBA is not including the 7(a) Loan Program, the Microloan Program, the
Intermediary Lending Pilot Program, and the Development Company Loan
Program (collectively, the ``Business Loan Programs'') in this present
change. SBA also is not including Physical Disaster Business Loans,
Economic Injury Disaster Loans, Military Reservist Economic Injury
Disaster Loans, and Immediate Disaster Assistance Program loans
(collectively, the ``Disaster Loan Programs''). At a later date, SBA
will issue a proposed rule to seek additional input to assess the
impact of any changes to the Business Loan and Disaster Loan Programs.
Second, for all other SBA programs, including the Federal procurement
programs, SBA adopts a two-year transition period through January 6,
2022. During the transition period, a firm may choose between
calculating receipts using a 3-year average or a 5-year average.
Discussion of Comments
SBA received a total of 217 comments to the proposed rule, of which
5 were not pertinent to the scope of the proposed rule. Of the 212
comments that were pertinent, 140 commenters (including more than 10
trade associations, small and mid-size business groups, and small
business advocacy organizations) fully supported the proposed rule; 5
comments supported the change to a 5-year averaging period but opposed
SBA's proposal not to adjust receipts for the sale or acquisition of a
segregable division; 28 comments did not oppose the change to a 5-year
averaging period but opposed the use of 5 years of tax returns to
analyze any loan program requirement other than size; 37 comments
opposed the change to a 5-year averaging period; and 2 comments could
not be categorized as either supporting or opposing the proposed rule.
All of these comments are available at www.regulations.gov (RIN 3245-
AH16), are summarized and discussed below in terms of various
categories of comments, and are accompanied by SBA's responses.
Comments on Using a 5-Year Averaging Period for All Receipts-Based Size
Standards
SBA requested comments on whether it should use a 5-year averaging
period for all of its receipts-based standards (i.e., for both services
industries and non-services industries) or only for services
industries. Forty-one commenters responded to this issue, all of which
supported using the 5-year averaging period for all SBA's receipt-based
size standards. Three of those comments also supported using the 5-year
averaging period for other agencies' size standards for non-services
industries that are subject to receipts-based size standards.
Commenters expressed support for expanding the 5-year averaging
period to all receipt-based size standards for a variety of reasons.
For example, one organization agreed with SBA that using different
formulas for calculating size in different industries may create
confusion, adding that ``using different formulas could incentivize
NAICS appeals as contractors jockey for a code that not only uses their
preferred size standard, but also their preferred number of years in
the calculation of size.'' Similarly, another organization supported
the expansion of the 5-year averaging period for all receipts-based
size standards because maintaining a separate averaging period for non-
services industries would lead to confusion for small firms in that
some firms would be small under one NAICS code but other-than-small
under another NAICS code with the same or higher size standard. The
organization explained that maintaining a 3-year averaging period for
non-services industries would ``leave companies that have multiple
capabilities to potentially be small under their services NAICS code,
but not under other NAICS of work they perform.'' Another organization
supported applying the 5-year averaging period to all receipts-based
size standards because it would ``reduce the burden on small businesses
in determining which size standard to apply to a given procurement.''
However, some commenters opposed the move to a 5-year averaging
period on the grounds that this would increase paperwork and compliance
burden on lenders and borrowers of the SBA's loans. These commenters
suggested, as discussed below, that SBA retain the current 3-year
averaging period for calculating annual revenues for services firms for
the SBA's financial assistance programs, if SBA decides to adopt the
proposed 5-year averaging period elsewhere.
SBA's response:
SBA agrees with the commenters that, in applying SBA's size
standards, separating out services industry firms from non-services
firms would cause confusion and create a greater compliance burden on
firms that participate in both services industries and non-services
industries. SBA also agrees that using a 5-year averaging period for
services industries and a 3-year averaging period for non-services
industries can lead to an inconsistent result of making a business
small in one NAICS code and other than small in another NAICS code with
a same or higher size standard. SBA also finds that it will be equally
confusing to use, in the same industry, a 5-year averaging period for
the SBA's size standard and a 3-year averaging period for other
agencies' size standards. To avoid such confusion and inconsistency, in
this final rule, SBA is adopting the 5-year averaging period for
calculating the average annual receipts for all SBA's receipts-based
size standards. For the same reason, SBA is also adopting the same 5-
year averaging period for both services and non-services industries
when approving receipt-based size standards by other federal agencies.
Comments on Moving From a 3-Year Averaging Period to a 5-Year Averaging
Period
Comments Supporting the 5-Year Averaging Period
Of the 212 pertinent comments received, 173 (or approximately 82%)
supported the SBA's proposal to change its method for calculating
annual receipts from a 3-year averaging period to a 5-year averaging
period, although some of those comments rejected other aspects of the
proposed rule. Commenters expressed support for the proposed change for
a variety of reasons, as discussed below.
A vast majority of commenters maintained that the proposed change
would benefit small businesses that are either about to exceed or have
just exceeded the relevant size standards (often referred to as ``mid-
size businesses'') by allowing them more time to develop capabilities,
strengthen and diversify experience, and build resources, thus enabling
them to compete successfully for unrestricted opportunities in the
full-and-open market with very large businesses that have extensive
capabilities, experience, and past-performance qualifications. Several
commenters shared that a
[[Page 66564]]
transition from ``small'' to ``other-than-small'' status is much more
difficult than a transition from ``very small'' to ``small'' status.
Some indicated that a longer lookback period would also ameliorate the
current dilemma growing small businesses face in the Federal market
when they exceed their size standards: Deciding whether to restrain
growth to remain small (and avoid the difficulty of competing in a
full-and-open environment), sell, or go out of business.
Another common comment was that the change from a 3-year averaging
period to a 5-year averaging period will be very helpful to small
businesses of every size, especially those that have successfully grown
to revenues above the 3-year average for their respective NAICS codes.
Some commenters expressed support for the proposed change because the
5-year averaging method would promote fairness and increase the
accuracy of size representation. For example, one commenter explained
that ``one abnormally successful year could cause a small business to
size out of the standard. Amortizing a year of success over five years
instead of three will likely lengthen a small business' eligibility
period and be a more accurate reflection of that business' true
operations.'' Another commenter explained that a firm's temporary spike
in revenue ``may not have resulted in increased infrastructure for the
firm such that it will be ready to compete in the open market.''
Several other commenters expressed support for the proposed rule
because it would give advanced small firms more time to take advantage
of SBA small business assistance programs. Similarly, another commenter
explained that ``Nurturing small business capabilities is important
because it results in more price competition, it spurs innovation, and
helps create jobs.'' Other commenters expressed that growing small
businesses should be rewarded for their success with a longer lookback
averaging period.
Commenters also expressed support for the proposed change because
it would increase the total number of small businesses and strengthen
the Federal small business industrial or supplier base. Several
commenters maintained that, with the availability of more businesses
qualifying as small, the move to a 5-year averaging period would
increase set-aside opportunities for all small businesses as the
agencies are likely to set aside more contracts for small businesses.
Other commenters expressed that an expanded pool of small businesses
would benefit the Federal government by providing a larger and more
stable pool of qualified small businesses in the Federal procurement
market. The Federal government also will benefit from lower prices for
its procurements due to increased competition, and from reduced risks
by allowing agencies to retain their trusted and qualified incumbent
small business contractors for a longer period. Several commenters also
maintained that, with more businesses qualifying as small under the 5-
year receipts average, the change also would provide large prime
contractors with a robust pool of qualified small businesses to draw
from to meet their small business subcontracting requirements.
Several commenters also expressed support for the proposed change
because it would reduce the impacts of unusual spikes in revenues in
some years on growing small businesses and enable them to adjust to
revenue swings due to fluctuations in economic conditions, business
environment, and changes in the Federal market. For example, one
commenter explained that it is increasingly common for the government
to utilize larger and longer indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity
(IDIQ) contract vehicles, where one high-valued contract or task order
can throw a small business out of its small business status. Some
commenters supporting the proposed rule also stated that, under the 5-
year averaging period, growing small businesses will be able to
maintain their small business status for a longer period and, as a
consequence, achieve and sustain growth. A number of comments also
supported the SBA's proposal to remove ``Schedule K'' from the
definition of receipts.
SBA's response:
SBA agrees with commenters that this rule will benefit small
businesses, the Federal Government, and large businesses. With an
expanded pool of small businesses, the Federal Government will have
more qualified small businesses to choose from, and as a result, likely
will set aside more contracts for small businesses. SBA also agrees
with commenters that the 5-year averaging period will allow more small
firms to benefit from SBA's small business assistance programs by
extending their small business status for a longer period. The change
would also enable small businesses that have just exceeded their size
standards to regain their small business status and to benefit from
Federal small business assistance. SBA believes that the change to a 5-
year averaging period will expand benefits to all small businesses over
the long-run, although the proposed change would have led to some
negative impacts in the short-run. Accordingly, in this final rule,
except for the Business Loan and Disaster Loan Programs, SBA is
amending its regulations on the calculation of average annual receipts
for all receipts-based SBA size standards from a 3-year averaging
period to a 5-year averaging period, with a transition period through
January 6, 2022, during which firms (and their affiliates) can choose
either a 3-year or a 5-year averaging period. SBA is also removing
``Schedule K'' from the definition of receipts, as proposed.
Opposing Comments
Of 212 pertinent comments that SBA received, 37 opposed the change
to the averaging period for annual receipts calculation from 3 years to
5 years. Comments that opposed the proposed rule mostly focused on one
or more of the following three issues: (1) Disadvantages to firms with
declining revenues, (2) undue advantages to ``larger'' small
businesses, and (3) additional burden on borrowers and lenders. Below,
SBA summarizes each of the three comment categories listed above.
(1) Disadvantages to Firms with Declining Revenues. Of the 37
comments opposing the shift to a 5-year averaging period, 7 commenters
opposed the rule based on the reason that a 5-year averaging period
would disadvantage firms with declining revenues. Of these 7
commenters, 2 affirmatively stated that their firm's size status would
change from small to other-than-small as a result of the shift to a 5-
year averaging period. Several commenters opposing the proposed rule
observed that it will take longer for small businesses to qualify as
small again once they have exceeded the size standard. Other commenters
noted that the proposed rule would harm small firms with declining
revenues, causing them to lose their small business size status sooner
under the 5-year average receipts as compared to the 3-year receipts.
One commenter explained that ``while increasing the receipts lookback
period from 3 years to 5 years will benefit many growing companies, it
could also be detrimental to businesses that have experienced declining
revenues, as it would cause many such businesses to lose their small
business status despite declining receipts.'' Another commenter stated
that it was unfair for small businesses to be ``penalized'' for having
declining revenues. The commenter explained that business concerns that
face a downturn ``should not be penalized, by being excluded from
eligibility for SBA's small business programs. . . .
[[Page 66565]]
Such an outcome would be an unintended negative consequence of the
Act.'' Some commenters contended that the proposed change primarily
benefits growing and more successful larger small businesses by
enabling them to maintain their small business status longer and better
prepare for a successful transition to the full-and-open market, but it
hurts emerging and smaller small businesses that are in need of the SBA
assistance the most.
SBA's response:
SBA acknowledges that the move from a 3-year averaging period to a
5-year averaging period could, as an unintended negative impact, cause
some small businesses that are close to their size standard to lose
their small business status immediately or subsequently during the
period of declining annual revenues. SBA agrees that a firm that
exceeds the size standard based on a 5-year average, but then has
subsequent years of declining revenues, will face a longer period
before regaining its small business status. In order to mitigate this
impact, in this final rule, except for the Business Loan and Disaster
Loan Programs, SBA is providing a transition period until January 6,
2022, during which firms will be allowed to choose either the 3-year
receipts average or 5-year receipts average for size eligibility
purposes.
(2) Undue Advantages to ``Larger'' Small Businesses. Of the 37
comments opposing the shift to a 5-year averaging period, 5 comments
opposed the proposed rule on the grounds that it may give an undue
advantage to ``larger'' small businesses near the industry size
threshold to the detriment of ``smaller'' small businesses in competing
for small business opportunities. One commenter expressed concerns that
the move to the 5-year averaging period lacked benefits for ``smaller''
small firms that need SBA's assistance the most. The commenter
explained that by extending the measurement period, it only allows for
companies to resist growth, control revenue and continue to be small.
This process, if extended, will only provide a further advantage to
those who are on the upper limit but does nothing to help those who are
truly small.
A number of commenters opposed the rule because it will allow
companies to continue to be small businesses after the period at which
those businesses should transition to other-than-small business status,
making it difficult for smaller small businesses to compete against
their larger counterparts under the 5-year averaging period. One
commenter, expressing concerns about this issue, explained that the
proposed rule would ``keep start-up small businesses from competing for
small business set-aside opportunities . . . and allow `extended' small
businesses with contracts to out compete those businesses that are
truly `small.' '' Some of these commenters raised industry-specific
concerns.
SBA's response:
SBA acknowledges that smaller small firms could face some
disadvantages in competing for set-aside contracts against a larger
pool of small firms, especially against the newly qualified larger
small businesses and advanced small businesses who are able to remain
small for a longer period. However, as detailed in SBA's benefit-cost
analysis of the proposed rule, the change from a 3-year averaging
period to a 5-year averaging period will increase the total number of
small businesses, which would, because of greater potential small
business competition for government contracts, likely lead to expansion
of set-aside opportunities for all small businesses. In addition, as
some commenters stated, that ``smaller'' small firms may not be in
direct competition with ``larger'' small firms due to differences in
their missions, capabilities, and resources, and therefore, would not
face negative impacts from an increase in the number of ``larger''
small firms. As one organization commenting on the proposed rule
explained, ``these emerging small companies tend to have their own swim
lanes, and do not typically compete against `larger' small businesses
directly and in some cases do not compete in the federal market all.''
The contracts awards data also shows that in most industries the
majority of small business contract dollars go to businesses that are
substantially smaller than their size standards. The results from some
industries with recent large increases to size standards also reveal
that small businesses under the previous size standards continue to
receive the same amount of contract dollars as before the increase. SBA
agrees that the move to a 5-year averaging method is likely to benefit
advanced small businesses that have just exceeded or are about to
exceed their size standards more than their smaller counterparts in the
short-run, but in the long-run it will benefit all small businesses at
every level as they continue to grow and approach the size standard.
(3) Additional Burden on Borrowers and Lenders. Of the 37 comments
opposing the shift to a 5-year averaging period, 23 (including one
trade association representing lenders serving small businesses under
the SBA CDC/504 loan program) opposed the move to the 5-year average
because the change would cause undue additional burden on borrowers and
lenders under the Business Loan Programs. An additional 28 commenters
(including another trade association representing lenders serving small
businesses under the SBA's 7(a) loan program) also expressed similar
concern that the 5-year averaging would result in an undue additional
burden on borrowers and lenders participating in the Business Loan
Programs, but they did not specifically oppose the shift to a 5-year
averaging period for SBA's revenue-based size standards.
A majority of these commenters included members of those two trade
associations in support of the position of their respective
associations. Some commenters opposed the rule on the basis that it may
require SBA Lenders to collect and review two additional years of tax
returns or financial statements to establish eligibility for the SBA's
loan programs. Some of these commenters expressed concerns that this
will add costs to loan processing, increase turn-around times, and
discourage small businesses from participating in the SBA's loan
programs. One trade association commented that ``the process for
obtaining an SBA loan already requires extensive documentation from a
small business, and this additional requirement increases that burden
without any underlying benefit to the small business.'' The trade
association requested that SBA ``give consideration to allowing the
service-industry size standard calculation to remain at its current 3-
year averaging period for the SBA loan guarantee programs.''
Some commenters noted that a central premise of the proposed change
appears to address the concern that the current 3-year averaging method
``ejects'' growing small businesses from Federal small business
contracting programs before they are ready to compete in the full and
open market. They stated that there is no such concern as it relates to
the SBA's loan programs, as small businesses seeking or obtaining SBA's
loans are rarely ``ejected'' from eligibility due to size.
Several commenters asked that SBA clarify that the 5-year averaging
period is intended to apply only to SBA's receipts-based size
standards, not for any other loan application purpose. One trade
association commented that ``Tax return information is used for
multiple purposes related to the loan application process,'' including
verifying an applicant's historical cash flow, income, or tax payment
history. The trade association further explained, ``None of those
purposes would require or
[[Page 66566]]
substantially benefit from a look-back period greater than 3 years.'' A
trade association and a number of other commenters asked that SBA
exempt the SBA's loan programs from the change, allowing SBA lenders to
continue to apply a 3-year receipts average. Other commenters
(including a trade association representing 7(a) lenders) requested
that SBA's final rule ``[S]pecifically include language clarifying that
the longer 5-year period is intended to apply only for purposes of
determining size for loan applicants using SBA's traditional revenue-
based sized standards, and not for any other loan application
purpose.''
SBA's response:
In response to comments regarding the burden of the rule on SBA
Lenders and loan applicants, SBA has determined that the Business Loan
and Disaster Loan Programs should not be included in this final rule.
SBA included the Business Loan and Disaster Loan Programs in the
proposed rule's cost-benefit analysis, but, otherwise, the initial
proposed rule did not discuss the effect that the rule would have on
SBA Lenders and loan program participants. Based on the comments
expressing that SBA Lenders and loan program applicants would
experience burden, SBA will seek additional comment and public input
through a proposed rule at a later date to determine how best to
consider changes to size eligibility in the Business Loan and Disaster
Loan Programs. Through this later proposed rule, SBA intends to ask for
data and additional detail about the burden faced by SBA Lenders and
applicants, and for comment on any benefit that applicants might obtain
through a longer averaging period for determining eligibility for SBA's
Business Loan and Disaster Loan Programs.
Comments on Calculating of Average Receipts After the Sale or
Acquisition of a Segregable Division
SBA received 20 comments responding to its proposed clarification
on the calculation of the annual receipts of a concern where the
concern sells or acquires a segregable division during the applicable
period of measurement. Of those 20 comments, 3 comments agreed with
SBA's proposed clarification, 5 comments disagreed, 11 comments
requested further clarification, and 1 comment was not clear as to its
stance on this issue.
The 3 commenters who agreed with SBA's proposed treatment of the
sale or acquisition of a segregable division emphasized that the
receipts of a division remain the receipts of the selling concern even
after it is sold and that the receipts of an acquired division prior to
the acquisition do not become the receipts of the acquiring concern
after the acquisition. One association commenting on the proposed rule
stated that it supports SBA's position because it ``provides clarity to
the community with regard to the application of the former affiliate
rule.'' The same association also requested that SBA expand the scope
of its clarification to include segregable divisions and ``other assets
not held as a separate legal entity.'' The association stated that such
an expansion would ``ensure that SBA's clarification applies to the
sale or purchase of non-segregable assets as well, e.g., when an entity
acquires the assets performing a specific contract.''
The 5 commenters who disagreed with SBA's proposed treatment of the
sale or acquisition of a segregable division stated that (1) it
elevates form over substance in distinguishing between a division and a
subsidiary that is a separate legal entity, (2) it would create a
burden for businesses seeking to benefit from selling off a division by
moving all of its assets to a newly created subsidiary, (3) it would
harm businesses that relied on current SBA policy when selling
segregable divisions and were small as a result of the sale, and (4) it
would create unpredictability and uncertainty in good-faith size status
calculations.
The 11 commenters who requested further clarification all stated
(1) that they would have liked to see proposed regulatory text, and (2)
that the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) cases that SBA cited in
the proposed rule do not make a distinction between divisions and
subsidiaries. One commenter cited two additional OHA decisions which it
believes contradict SBA's distinction between a division and
subsidiary. The commenter stated that in the proposed rule, ``SBA cites
a quotation from such a decision which provides that `a firm which
acquires most of the assets of a subsidiary or division of a larger
firm is affiliated only with that subsidiary or division, and not with
the entire parent company' (emphasis added). As such, it appears that
SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals does not, in fact, make a
distinction between divisions and subsidiaries.''
SBA's response:
SBA agrees with the commenters who stated that the receipts of a
sold division remain the receipts of the selling concern after the
sale, just as the receipts of an acquired division prior to its
acquisition should not be treated as the receipts of the acquiring
concern prior to the acquisition. SBA believes that it is not logical
to allow a firm to exclude the receipts of a former division just
because that division was sold, since those receipts accrued to the
concern.
SBA believes that there really is a difference between the sale or
acquisition of a segregable division as opposed to the sale or
acquisition of a separate legal entity. The sale or acquisition of a
division is not a question of affiliation. It simply represents an
addition or subtraction to the concern itself. This is distinct from
the sale or acquisition of a separate legal entity, which implicates
questions of affiliation.
Regarding the OHA cases cited by the commenters, none of these
decisions speak specifically to how receipts should be calculated after
the sale or acquisition of a segregable division. However, as stated by
several commenters, SBA is not obligated to follow OHA decisions when
putting forth changes to its regulations.
For all the reasons above, SBA is adding the language to Sec. Sec.
121.104(d)(4) and 121.106(b)(4)(ii) to clarify that the former
affiliate rule does not permit a concern to adjust its receipts when
the concern sells a segregable division that is not a separate legal
entity.
Comments on the Exemption From the 5-Year Averaging Period
Although not specifically requested in the proposed rule, SBA
received 31 comments requesting some sort of alternative option which
would allow firms to use either a 3-year average or 5-year average of
annual receipts depending on which one would be more advantageous to
them. The comments proposing such an option suggested that the 3-year
vs. 5-year option be for available for a specific period or be made
permanent. Of the 31 total comments addressing this issue, 13
commenters recommended using a transition period of 2 years or less; 12
recommended a transition of 3 or more years; 4 suggested making the
transition period permanent; and 2 did not specify a duration.
In support of the transition period were commenters both for and
against the shift to a 5-year averaging period for calculating annual
receipts. Of the 31 comments supporting a transition period, 20
supported the proposed rule; 5 opposed the proposed rule; 5 supported
some elements while opposing others; and 1 comment did not express
support or opposition to the move from a 3-year averaging period to a
5-year averaging period but recommended that SBA consider the
transition period as an alternative to mitigate the impact on
businesses that
[[Page 66567]]
are currently small under the 3-year receipts average but would become
other-than-small under the 5-year average receipts.
SBA found that these commenters supported the adoption of a
transition period for two reasons: (1) To ensure an organized and
transparent implementation of the final rule, and (2) to minimize harm
to small firms with declining revenues or to those becoming other than
small under the 5-year receipts upon the implementation of the final
rule.
For example, one commenter suggested that SBA implement a 2-year
transition period to reduce confusion and uncertainty for small firms
that have occurred since the Small Business Runway Extension Act was
signed into law. The commenter explained that ``some firms have been
submitting proposals using a 3-year average in accordance with the
SBA's guidance, while others have used a 5-year average in accordance
with the new law. Due to this uncertainty, [Commenter] recommends
allowing a two-year transition period for small companies . . .''
Another commenter recommended that SBA ``provide for a reasonable
transition period for implementation . . . to allow government systems
to be updated and to give the contractor community time to properly
implement the size calculation change.''
One commenter, expressing concern regarding the proposed rule's
impact on firms with declining revenues, explained that ``While
increasing the look-back period from 3 years to 5 years will provide a
benefit to many growing companies, it could be detrimental to
businesses that have experienced declining revenue.'' The commenter
further stated that ``SBA should consider a hybrid approach whereby
contractors are permitted to calculate revenues under both the 3-year
period and the 5-year period and use the lower of the two results to
determine its size status. This approach would be beneficial to both
those small contractors that are experiencing a period of revenue
growth, as well as those facing declining revenues.''
SBA's response:
SBA agrees with the comments supporting a temporary transition
period under which firms still could choose to use a 3-year averaging
period. A plurality of commenters asked for a 2-year transition period
or less, and SBA agrees that a 2-year period is appropriate because 2
years is an adequate time to allow firms to prepare for a permanent
transition to a 5-year averaging period. Therefore, for the SBA
programs affected by this rule, SBA will allow firms to choose either a
3-year or 5-year averaging period through January 6, 2022. After that
date, firms with at least 5 years of receipts will be required to use a
5-year averaging period. A firm with fewer than 5 years of receipts
will average its annual receipts over its existence.
SBA does not believe that allowing for alternate averaging periods
on a permanent basis would be beneficial. Using multiple averaging
periods in the long term will result in confusion about how to
determine size for Federal opportunities, including procurements.
Within a single contract competition, businesses would be able to
determine size on a separate basis. After the transition period, there
is not sufficient reason to justify maintaining two separate averaging
periods.
Other Comments
SBA received some additional comments that addressed issues which
did not fit into any of the above categories. One commenter requested
that SBA change its regulations at 13 CFR 124.112(e)(2) to allow an
8(a) Business Development (BD) Program participant to change its
primary industry classification using the last 5 completed fiscal
years, instead of the current 3 completed fiscal years. This commenter
stressed the advantage of reconciling this primary industry
classification calculation period with the size determination
calculation period, especially at the 5th year annual update for an
8(a) BD Program participant.
SBA also received a few comments concerning the timeline for the
implementation of the final rule. Most of these commenters suggested
that SBA implement the final rule as soon as possible. One commenter
stated that it is unlawful to delay the implementation of the new law,
and the comment from one trade association suggested that SBA make the
final rule retroactive to December 17, 2018, the date of enactment of
Public Law 115-324. Another commenter recommended delaying the
implementation of the final rule until January 1, 2021 if SBA decides
to not grant a grace period to use the 3-year lookback. The commenter
stated, ``dropping the 3-year rule `grace period' in the middle of the
year will only confuse and complicate the implementation of the rule.''
One commenter suggested that SBA establish a 5-year averaging
period for employee-based size standards as well.
SBA's response:
The comment that SBA update its regulations at 13 CFR 124.112(e)(2)
is outside the scope of establishing and reviewing size standards. This
rule is only concerned with the method of calculation of annual
receipts for size standards purposes. The comment regarding 13 CFR
124.112(e)(2) concerns a calculation related to the primary industry
classification under 8(a) BD Program and that is outside the scope of
this rule. Similarly, this rule does not affect the application of a 3-
year average in the ``economic dependence'' test under 13 CFR
121.103(f)(2).
With respect to the comments concerning the implementation
timeframe of the final rule, Public Law 115-324 did not include an
effective date for the averaging change. Section 3(a)(2)(C) of the
Small Business Act requires SBA to provide an opportunity for public
notice and comment through the rulemaking process prior to implementing
changes to size standards prescribed through section 3(a)(2).
Accordingly, on December 21, 2018, SBA issued an Information Notice
(6000-180023) advising that, until SBA makes necessary changes to its
regulations, businesses must report their receipts based on a 3-year
average. Thus, making the rule retroactive to the December 17, 2018,
enactment date would not only run counter to SBA's guidance, but also
would require corrections to contracts awards data in the Federal
Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) to reflect changes in
size status of contractors due to the change in the averaging period.
Conversely, delaying the implementation date would be against the
interests of many small businesses and Federal agencies that want to
see the final rule being implemented as soon as possible. Accordingly,
this final rule will be effective after 30 days from the date of its
publication in the Federal Register.
Lastly, this rule does not change the calculation period for
employee-based size standards. SBA does not find sufficient reason from
the comments to a propose a change to the period for employee-based
size standards.
Conclusions
Based on the analyses of impacts using the latest relevant industry
and Federal contracting data available to SBA when the proposed rule
was prepared and thorough evaluation of all public comments on the
proposed rule, as discussed above, SBA is taking the following actions
in this final rule, except for the Business Loan and Disaster Loan
Programs:
(i) Adopting the 5-year averaging period for calculating annual
revenues of firms and revenues of their affiliates
[[Page 66568]]
in all industries that are subject to SBA's receipts-based size
standards;
(ii) Adopting the 5-year averaging period for calculating annual
revenues of firms (including affiliates, if any) in all industries for
prescribing receipts-based size standards by other Federal agencies;
and
(iii) Providing a transition period until January 6, 2022, allowing
firms (and their affiliates, if any) to choose either a 3-year
averaging period or a 5-year averaging period for calculating average
annual receipts for size standards purposes.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 121.104
The final rule removes ``Schedule K'' from the definition of
receipts. SBA has found that reviewing Schedule K is generally not
useful, but SBA reserves the ability to request a Schedule K as part of
SBA's review of the other Internal Revenue Service (IRS) forms listed
in Sec. 121.104(a).
For consistency with the size standard averaging period being
changed in Sec. 121.903, for the purposes of applying SBA's receipts-
based size standards, the final rule changes the averaging period for a
business that has been in business for 5 or more fiscal years to a 5-
year period, i.e., the business calculates its total receipts over the
5-year period and divides by 5. Under the final rule, if a business has
been in business for less than 5 complete fiscal years, the business
calculates its total receipts, divides by the number of weeks in
business, and multiplies by 52. This is the same process SBA currently
uses when a business has less than 3 completed fiscal years. If a
business has a short year as one of its 5 years, the business
calculates its total receipts over the 5-year period, divides by the
number of weeks in the short year and its other 4 fiscal years, and
multiplies by 52. This too is the same process SBA currently uses.
The 5-year averaging period in Sec. 121.104 would not distinguish
between firms in service industries and other firms subject to
receipts-based size standards. SBA believes that, in applying SBA's own
size standards, separating out service-industry firms would cause
confusion and create a greater compliance burden on firms that
participate in both services industries and non-services industries
(such as agriculture, construction, and retail trade) with receipts-
based size standards.
This final rule only would affect the application of SBA's new size
standard rules after its effective date. Thus, until the effective date
of a final rule, SBA will continue to apply the 3-year averaging period
in the present Sec. 121.104 for calculating average annual receipts
for all SBA's receipts-based size standards. Since size is determined
as of the date when a firm certifies its size as part of its initial
offer which includes price, the 3-year calculation period will apply to
any offer submitted prior to the effective date of the final rule.
Thus, even if SBA receives a request for a size determination or size
appeal after the effective date of the final rule, SBA will still use a
3-year calculation period if the determination or appeal relates to a
certification submitted prior to the final rule's effective date.
Misrepresentations made under the existing calculation period are
material for the purposes of criminal, civil, or administrative
actions.
SBA also clarifies how it believes annual receipts should be
calculated in connection with the acquisition or sale of a division.
Specifically, the final rule provides that the annual receipts of a
concern would not be adjusted where the concern sells or acquires a
segregable division during the applicable period of measurement or
before the date on which it self-certified as small. This would be
different from how SBA treats the sale or acquisition of a subsidiary.
In the case of a subsidiary, SBA's regulations provide that ``[t]he
annual receipts of a former affiliate are not included if affiliation
ceased before the date used for determining size. This exclusion of
annual receipts of a former affiliate applies during the entire period
of measurement, rather than only for the period after which affiliation
ceased.'' 13 CFR 121.104(d)(4).
SBA believes that the sale or acquisition of a division is
different from buying or selling a separate legal entity and, as such,
should be treated differently. Any receipts attributable to a specific
division of a concern are certainly receipts earned by the concern.
Even if that division is later sold, its receipts were always part of
the receipts directly received by the concern itself, and SBA believes
that those receipts should remain a part of the concern's receipts
after the sale for purposes of determining the concern's size.
Similarly, where a concern acquires a segregable division from another
business entity during the applicable period of measurement, SBA would
not increase the concern's overall receipts by the amount of receipts
attributable to that division.
SBA understands that some may feel that distinguishing the sale of
a division from that of a subsidiary would elevate form over substance,
and would merely require a seller to move assets into a separate
subsidiary and then sell that subsidiary in order to bring the
transaction under the rule. However, as noted above, SBA believes that
there really is an important distinction between a division and a
separate legal entity.
The Final Rule adds a transition period through January 6, 2022,
during which a firm may calculate its receipts and the receipts of its
affiliates using either a 3-year average or a 5-year average. The Final
Rule adds a paragraph (c)(4) to use a 3-year averaging period for the
Business Loan Programs, which are the 7(a) Loan Program, the Microloan
Program, the Intermediary Lending Pilot Program, and the Development
Company Loan Program (``504 Loan Program''), and the Disaster Loan
Programs, which are Physical Disaster Business Loans, Economic Injury
Disaster Loans, Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans, and
Immediate Disaster Assistance Program loans. SBA intends to seek
comment on the Business Loan and Disaster Loan Programs in a proposed
rule through a separate rulemaking.
Section 121.903
As required by Public Law 115-324, SBA is amending the requirements
for agencies that seek to propose and adopt size standards for their
own programs, instead of applying SBA's size standards. Under the final
rule, a non-SBA agency's receipts-based size standard, whether applying
to services or non-services firms, must be proposed with a 5-year
averaging period.
Section 3(a)(2)(ii)(III) of the Small Business Act still provides
that other agencies prescribe size standards for industries other than
services or manufacturing using ``data over a period of not less than 3
years.'' While Congress did not change this statutory language, SBA
believes that it also can require other agencies establishing size
standards for industries other than services or manufacturing to use
data over a 5-year period and specifically solicited comment on whether
to make such a change. SBA received strong support for applying the 5-
year averaging period for all industries. To avoid confusion from using
the 5-year average receipts for SBA's size standards and 3-year average
receipts for other agencies' size standards and promote consistency in
measuring business size across the Federal government, in this final
rule, SBA is also adopting the same 5-year averaging period for all
receipts-based size
[[Page 66569]]
standards proposed by other Federal agencies.
This new calculation period does not affect existing non-SBA size
standards that specify a 3-year average unless the responsible agency
proposes and finalizes changes to the existing specification of a 3-
year average. This is consistent with the change in Public Law 115-324
to the requirements for prescribing a non-SBA size standard, given the
lack of any restrictions in the Small Business Act or Public Law 115-
324 on applying an existing size standard. In adopting or proposing a
change to the averaging period for its existing size standard, the
responsible agency should coordinate with SBA using the procedure in
Sec. 121.903.
Response to Office of Advocacy Comments
In response to the Proposed Rule, the Office of Advocacy of the SBA
(Office of Advocacy) requested that the SBA update its Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to include more relevant
alternatives to the proposed regulatory change to mitigate negative
impacts on small businesses. Specifically, the Office of Advocacy
suggested that SBA allow the public to consider at least 2 specific
alternatives: (1) A 2-year transition period during which firms could
use either a 3-year or 5-year averaging period, or (2) allowing a small
business that has been awarded a contract to recertify its small
business size status through any option periods.
As suggested by the Office of Advocacy, SBA has adopted a 2-year
transition period that will end January 6, 2022. During that period,
firms will choose either a 3-year or 5-year averaging period. Thus,
firms that wish to continue using a 3-year average for certifying or
assessing small business size status may continue to do so until
January 6, 2022.
With regard to updating the IRFA, SBA does not believe that it is
practical to issue a revised IRFA for public comment at this time.
There is an urgent need to implement the intent of Congress and a
further delay would result in more uncertainty and confusion for small
businesses and the Federal contracting community. A number of comments
to the proposed rule urged SBA to implement the final rule as soon as
possible. In addition, SBA has adopted one of the relevant alternatives
discussed by the Office of Advocacy, a 2-year transition period during
which firms could use either a 3-year or a 5-year averaging period.
Thus, issuing a revised IRFA for public comment would be superfluous.
Accordingly, SBA is declining to issue a revised IRFA for public
comment with the alternatives proposed by the Office of Advocacy.
With regard to recertification, SBA believes it would be extremely
complicated to allow a firm that has already been awarded a contract to
recertify its size status, after the transition period, using either
the 3-year or 5-year averaging period through the length of that
contract and any options. This would create extensive tracking and
recordkeeping requirements that would also result in uncertainty and
unpredictability for firms trying to determine their size status after
the end of the 2-year transition period created in this rule. Thus,
even if a firm initially certified for a contract under a 3-year
averaging period, a firm must use a 5-year average when it submits a
new certification or recertification for that contract after the end of
the transition period.
Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13132, 13563, and 13771,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35)
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
final rule is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of
Executive Order 12866. Nonetheless, as required by section 3(a)(6) of
the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(6), in the next section, SBA
provides a benefit-cost analysis of this final rule, including: (1) A
statement of the need for the proposed action, and (2) an evaluation of
the benefits and costs--both quantitative and qualitative--of this
regulatory action. This rule is also not a ``major rule'' under the
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800, et seq.
a. Benefit-Cost Analysis
1. What is the need for this regulatory action?
As stated elsewhere, the Small Business Act delegates to SBA's
Administrator the responsibility for establishing small business size
definitions (usually referred to as ``size standards''). Recently,
Public Law 115-324 modified the requirements for proposed small
business size standards prescribed by an agency without separate
statutory authority to issue size standards.
The need of this final rule is to carry out the intent of Public
Law 115-324 and to ensure consistency in the calculation of average
annual receipts for size standards across the Federal Government.
SBA's mission is to aid and assist small businesses through a
variety of financial, procurement, business development and counseling,
and disaster assistance programs. This regulatory action promotes the
Administration's goals and objectives and meets the SBA's statutory
responsibility to implement a new law impacting size definitions for
small businesses. One of SBA's goals in support of promoting the
Administration's objectives is to help small businesses succeed through
access to capital, Federal Government contracts and purchases, and
management, technical and disaster assistance.
2. What are the potential benefits and costs of this regulatory action?
Changing the period for calculating average annual receipts from 3
years to 5 years may enable some mid-size businesses that have just
exceeded size standards to regain small business status. Similarly, it
could also allow some advanced and larger small businesses about to
exceed size standards to retain their small business status for a
longer period. However, as stated in the June 24, 2019, proposed rule,
it could also result in some advanced small businesses having a 5-year
receipts average that happens to be higher than the 3-year receipts
average, thus ejecting them out of their small business status sooner.
Detailed impacts of the proposed change are discussed below.
It is difficult to determine the actual number of small and mid-
size businesses that would be impacted by Public Law 115-324 and this
regulatory action because there is no annual data on receipts of
businesses. The annual receipts data from the Economic Census special
tabulation are only available once every 5 years. Similarly, the System
for Award Management (SAM) only records the data on 3-year average
annual receipts of businesses over their 3 preceding fiscal years, but
not their annual receipts for each fiscal year. For example, the
receipts data for year 2018 is an average of annual receipts for 2017,
2016, and 2015. Similarly, the receipts data for 2017 is an average of
annual receipts for 2016, 2015, and 2014, and so on. A 5-year receipts
average for 2018 would be an average of annual receipts for 2017, 2016,
2015, 2014, and 2013.
Given the lack of annual receipts for each year, SBA approximated a
firm's 5-year average annual revenue for 2018 as follows:
[[Page 66570]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE19.000
This result may slightly underestimate the 5-year revenue average
when annual revenues are rising (i.e., 2014 revenue > 2013 revenue >
2012 revenue) and overestimate it if annual revenues are declining
(i.e., 2014 revenue < 2013 revenue < 2012 revenue).
To estimate the 5-year receipts average for 2018 using the above
formula, SBA analyzed the 2018 SAM extracts (as of September 1, 2018)
and 2015 SAM extracts (as of September 1, 2015). The above 5-year
average annual receipts formula would only work for businesses that
were present in both 2015 and 2018 SAM extracts. One challenge was that
some businesses found in 2018 SAM could not be found in 2015 SAM and
vice versa. Excluding entities registered in SAM for purposes other
than government contracting and entities ineligible for small business
consideration (such as foreign governments and state-controlled
institutions of higher learning), there were a total of 346,958 unique
business concerns in SAM subject to at least one receipts-based size
standard. Of these concerns, 293,524 (or about 84.6 percent) were
``small'' in all North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
industries, 9,990 (or 2.9 percent) were ``small'' in some industries
and ``not small'' in other industries, and 43,444 (or 12.5 percent)
were ``not small'' in any industry.
Excluding entities with ``null'' or ``zero'' receipts values,
194,686 firms (or about 56 percent) appeared both in 2018 SAM and in
2015 SAM and were included in the 5-year average annual receipts
approximation and calculation of number of businesses impacted. Of
those 194,686 matched firms subject to a receipts-based size standard,
154,220 (or about 79 percent) were ``small'' in all NAICS industries,
8,049 (or 4.1 percent) were ``small'' in some industries and other than
small (``not small'') in other industries, and 32,417 (or about 17
percent) were ``not small'' in any industry. In other words, 303,514
(or 87.5 percent) of 346,958 total concerns in SAM 2018 and 162,269 (or
83.3 percent) of 194,686 total matched firms were small in at least one
NAICS industry with a receipts-based size standard. These results are
summarized in Table 1, ``Size Status of Businesses in Industries
Subject to Receipts-Based Size Standards,'' below.
Table 1--Size Status of Businesses in Industries Subject to Receipts-Based Size Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total firms in 2018 SAM Firms in both 2015 SAM and
subject to least one receipts- 2018 SAM (matched)
based standard -------------------------------- Total to
Size status -------------------------------- % Matched matched ratio
Number of Number of % *
firms % firms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small in at least one industry.......................... 303,514 87.5 162,269 83.3 53.5 1.809
Small in all industries................................. 293,524 84.6 154,220 79.2 52.5 1.903
Small in some and not small in others................... 9,990 2.9 8,049 4.1 80.6 1.241
Large in all industries................................. 43,444 12.5 32,417 16.7 74.6 1.340
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 346,958 100.0 194,686 100 56.1 1.782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To be used to translate the results from the matched data to overall 2018 SAM data.
According to Table 2, ``Distribution of Business Concerns Subject
to Receipts-Based Size Standards by Number of NAICS Codes,'' below, the
distribution of firms by the number of NAICS codes in the matched data
is very similar to that for the overall 2018 SAM data. About 42-44
percent of firms were in only one NAICS code that has a receipts-based
size standard, about 35 percent in 2-5 NAICS codes, about 12 percent in
6-10 NAICS codes, and about 8-10 percent in more than 10 NAICS codes.
In other words, 56-58 percent of firms were in multiple NAICS codes
with receipts-based size standards. Thus, it is quite possible that the
proposed change may impact a firm's
[[Page 66571]]
small business status in multiple industries. For purposes of this
analysis, an impacted firm is defined as one that would be impacted by
the change in terms of gaining, regaining, extending, or losing small
business status in at least one industry with a receipts-based size
standard.
Table 2--Distribution of Business Concerns Subject to Receipts-Based Size Standards by Number of NAICS Codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total firms in 2018 SAM with Matched firms between 2018 and
at least one receipts-based 2015 SAM
Number of NAICS codes NAICS code -------------------------------
--------------------------------
Count % Count %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 NAICS code.................................... 153,184 44.2 82,082 42.2
2 to 5 NAICS codes.............................. 123,277 35.5 68,458 35.2
6 to 10 NAICS codes............................. 41,518 12.0 24,529 12.6
>10 NAICS codes................................. 28,979 8.4 19,617 10.1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 346,958 100.0 194,686 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: A business concern is defined in terms of a unique local (vendor) DUNS number.
A central premise of Public Law 115-324 is that a 5-year annual
receipts average (as opposed to a 3-year annual receipts average) would
enable some mid-size businesses who have recently exceeded the size
standard to regain small business status and some advanced small
businesses close to exceeding the size standard to retain their small
business status for a longer period. However, this premise would only
hold true when businesses' annual revenues are rising. When businesses'
annual revenues are declining, due to economic downturns or other
factors, the 5-year annual receipts average could be higher than the 3-
year annual receipts average, thereby causing small businesses close to
their size standards to lose their small business status sooner. To
mitigate such negative impacts on small businesses, SBA has decided, in
consideration of public comments and the results from its own analysis,
to provide a 2-year transition period in which firms will be allowed to
elect either a 5-year or 3-year averaging period in calculating their
average annual receipts.
b. Impacts on Businesses From the Change
By comparing the approximated 5-year annual receipts average with
the current receipts-based size standard for each of the 194,686
matched business concerns in each NAICS code subject to a receipts-
based size standard, in the proposed rule, SBA identified the following
4 possible impacts from changing the averaging period for annual
revenues from 3 years to 5 years:
i. The number of mid-size businesses that have exceeded the size
standard and would regain small business status in at least one NAICS
industry with a receipts-based size standard (i.e., 3-year average >
size standard >= 5-year average)--positive impact;
ii. the number of advanced small businesses within 10 percent below
the size standard that would have their small business status extended
for a longer period in at least one NAICS industry with a receipts-
based standard (5-year average < 3-year average <= size standard and
0.9*size standard < 3-year average <= size standard)--positive impact;
iii. the number of currently small businesses that would lose their
small business status in at least one NAICS industry subjected to at
least one receipts-based size standard (i.e., 3-year average <= size
standard < 5-year average)--negative impact; and
iv. the number of advanced small businesses within 10 percent below
the size standard that would have their small business status shortened
in at least one NAICS industry subject to a receipts-based standard (3-
year average < 5-year average <= size standard and 0.9*size standard <
3-year average <= size standard)--negative impact.
In this final rule, SBA is changing the period for calculation of
average annual receipts for all of its as well as other agencies'
receipts-based size standards from 3 years to 5 years. The purpose of
Public Law 115-324 is to allow small businesses more time to grow and
develop competitiveness and infrastructure so that they are better
prepared to succeed under full and open competition once they outgrow
the size threshold. However, as stated in the proposed rule, a longer
5-year averaging period may not always and necessarily provide relief
to every small business concern. As discussed in the proposed rule,
when annual revenues are declining or when annual revenues for the
latest 3 years are lower than those for the earliest 2 years of the 5-
year period, the 5-year average would be higher than the 3-year
average, thereby ejecting some advanced small businesses out of their
small business status sooner or rendering some small businesses under
the 3-year average not small immediately.
In the proposed rule, SBA described 4 different types of impacts on
small businesses from changes to the averaging period for annual
receipts from 3 years to 5 years as follows: (i) Enabling current large
or mid-size businesses to gain small business status (impact i); (ii)
enabling current advanced small businesses to lengthen their small
business status (impact ii); (iii) causing current small businesses to
lose their small business status (impact iii); and (iv) causing current
small businesses to shorten their small business status (impact iv).
However, with the SBA's decision to provide a 2-year transition
period thereby allowing firms to choose either their 5-year average
annual receipts or their 3-year average annual receipts, the two
negative impacts (namely impact (iii) and impact (iv)) do not apply to
this final rule. Accordingly, this final rule provides the analysis of
the two positive impacts (namely impact (i) and impact (ii)) only.
Table 3, `Percentage Distribution of Impacted Firms by the Number
of NAICS Codes,' below, provides these results based on the 2018 SAM--
2015 SAM matched firms.
[[Page 66572]]
Table 3--Percentage Distribution of Impacted Firms by the Number of NAICS Codes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Distribution of impacted firms by number of NAICS codes
Number of -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact * impacted firms 2-5 NAICS 6-10 NAICS >10 NAICS
1 NAICS code codes codes codes Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently large in all NAICS codes
Impact (i).......................................... 914 36.0 36.1 13.6 14.3 100.0
Currently small in all NAICS codes
Impact (ii)......................................... 1,255 25.3 39.6 16.3 18.8 100.0
Currently small in some NAICS and not small in others
Impact (i).......................................... 1,640 0.0 24.6 24.2 51.2 100.0
Impact (ii)......................................... 1,138 0.0 25.0 26.0 49.0 100.0
Total Impact by Impact Type
Impact (i).......................................... 2,554 12.9 28.7 20.4 38.0 100.0
Impact (ii)......................................... 2,393 13.3 32.6 20.9 33.2 100.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total positive impact........................... 4,687 13.8 31.8 20.7 33.8 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Impact (i) = Current large businesses gaining small business status; and Impact (ii) = Current small businesses extending small business status.
It is highly notable that the distribution of impacted firms by the
number of NAICS codes, as shown in Table 3, is very different as
compared to a similar distribution based on the overall matched and
total 2018 SAM data (see Table 2), especially with respect to firms
with only one NAICS code and those with more than 5 NAICS codes. For
example, as shown in Table 2, above, more than 40 percent of all firms
in the overall data were associated with only one NAICS code, as
compared to less than 15 percent among impacted firms in Table 3.
Similarly, firms with more than 5 NAICS codes accounted for about 20
percent of all firms in the original data, as compared to more than 50
percent among impacted firms. It is also notable that NAICS Sectors 54,
56, and 23 together accounted for more than 70 percent of impacted
firms, with Sector 54 (Professional, Scientific and Technical Services)
accounting for about 35 percent, followed by Sector 23 (Construction)
about 25 percent, and Sector 56 (Administrative and Support, Waste
Management and Remediation Services) about 12-13 percent.
Each of these impacts was then multiplied by an applicable factor
or ratio, as shown in the last column of Table 1, to obtain the
respective impacts corresponding to all firms in 2018 SAM subject to at
least one receipts-based size standard. These results are presented
below in Table 4, ``Impacts from Changing the Averaging Period for
Receipts from 3 Years to 5 Years.'' The last column of the table shows
the percent of firms impacted relative to all business concerns in 2018
SAM.
Because the SAM data only captures businesses that are primarily
interested in Federal procurement opportunities, the SAM-based results
do not capture the impacts the proposed change may have on businesses
participating in various non-procurement programs that apply SBA's
receipts-based size standards, such as exemptions from compliance with
paperwork and other regulatory requirements.
Table 4--Impacts From Changing the Averaging Period for Receipts From 3 Years to 5 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms impacted Total to Total firms
Impact \1\ in matched matched ratio impacted in Total firms in % Impacted
dataset (Table 1) 2018 SAM 2018 SAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entities other than small under
all NAICS code(s)
Impact (i).................. 914 1.340 1,225 43,444 2.8
Entities small under all NAICS
code(s)
Impact (ii)................. 1,255 1.903 2,389 293,524 0.8
Entities small in some NAICS
code(s) and other than small in
other(s)
Impact (i).................. 1,640 1.241 2,035 9,990 20.4
Impact (ii)................. 1,138 1.241 1,412 9,990 14.1
Total positive impact by impact
type
Impact (i).................. 2,554 .............. 3,260 53,434 6.1
Impact (ii)................. 2,393 .............. 3,801 303,514 1.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall total positive 4,687 .............. 6,690 346,958 1.9
impact \2\.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Impact (i) = Current large businesses gaining small business status; and Impact (ii) = Current small
businesses extending small business status.
\2\ Number of firms under total positive impacts refer to the number of unique firms. Some firms could appear in
both impact types and hence individual impacts may not add up to overall impact.
The Economic Census, combined with the Census of Agriculture and
County Business Patterns Reports, provides for each NAICS code
information on the number of total small and large businesses subjected
to a receipts-based size standard. Based on the matched SAM data, SBA
computed percentages of businesses impacted under each impact category
for each NAICS industry subject to a receipts-based size standard. By
applying such percentages
[[Page 66573]]
to the 2012 Economic Census tabulation, SBA estimated the number of all
businesses impacted under each impact type for each NAICS code subject
to a receipts-based size standard. These results are presented in Table
5, ``Impacts from Changing the Averaging Period for Receipts from 3
Years to 5 Years (2012 Economic Census),'' below.
Table 5--Impacts From Changing the Averaging Period for Receipts From 3 Years to 5 Years
[2012 Economic Census]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of
Impact \1\ Total firms impacted firms % Impacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact (i)...................................................... 271,505 7,822 2.9
Impact (ii)..................................................... 6,896,633 62,822 0.9
-----------------------------------------------
Overall positive impact..................................... 7,168,138 70,644 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Impact (i) = Current large businesses gaining small business status; and Impact (ii) = Current small
businesses extending small business status.
Currently large or mid-size businesses regaining small business
status would get various benefits as small business concerns, including
access to Federal set-aside contracts, and exemptions from various
compliance and paperwork requirements. With their small business status
extended, advanced small businesses would continue to receive such
benefits for a longer period. However, the change from 3-year average
receipts to 5-year average may also harm some small businesses by
causing them to lose or shorten their small business status in at least
one receipts-based size standard, thereby depriving them of access to
small business assistance, especially Federal set-aside opportunities.
To mitigate such impacts, SBA is allowing businesses to elect either
the 3-year average annual receipts or the 5-year average annual
receipts for 2 years through January 6, 2022. SBA intends to seek
comment on implementation in the Business Loan and Disaster Loan
Programs in a proposed rule through a separate rulemaking.
c. The Baseline
For this new regulatory action modifying an existing regulation
(such as changing the average annual receipts calculation from 3 years
to 5 years), a baseline assuming no change to the regulation (i.e.,
maintaining the status quo) generally provides an appropriate benchmark
for evaluating benefits, costs, or transfer impacts of proposed
regulatory changes and their alternatives.
Based on the 2012 Economic Census special tabulations (the latest
available), 2012 County Business Patterns Reports (for industries not
covered by the Economic Census), and 2012 Agricultural Census
tabulations (for agricultural industries), of a total of about 7.2
million firms in all industries with receipts-based size standards,
about 96 percent are considered small and 4 percent other-than-small
under the 3-year annual receipts average. Similarly, of 346,958
businesses that were subject to at least one receipts-based size
standard and eligible for Federal contracting, 87.5 percent were small
in at least one NAICS code and 12.5 percent other than small in all
NAICS codes.
Based on the data from the Federal Procurement Data System--Next
Generation (FPDS-NG) for fiscal years 2015-2017 (the latest available
when the proposed rule was prepared), on average, about 88,770 unique
firms in industries subject to receipts-based size standards received
at least one Federal contract during that period, of which 83 percent
were small. Businesses subject to receipts-based standards received
$182 billion in average annual Federal contract dollars during that
period, of which nearly $64 billion or about 35 percent went to small
businesses. Of total dollars awarded to small businesses subject to
receipts-based size standards, $45 billion or 71 percent was awarded
through various small business set-aside programs and another 29
percent was awarded through non-set aside contracts.
Table 6, ``Baseline Analysis of Receipts-Based Size Standards,''
below, provides these baseline results. SBA's proposed rule included an
estimate of the number and total dollar amount of loans issued through
the Business Loan Programs and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL)
program. These estimates are not presented in this final rule because
SBA intends to issue a separate rulemaking to consider changes to size
eligibility for the Business Loan and Disaster Loan Programs.
Besides set-aside contracting and financial assistance discussed
above, small businesses also benefit through reduced fees, less
paperwork, and fewer compliance requirements that are available to
small businesses through Federal agencies that use SBA's size
standards. However, SBA has no data to estimate the number of small
businesses receiving such benefits. Similarly, due to the lack of data,
SBA is not able to determine impacts the final rule will have on small
businesses participating in other agencies' programs that are subject
to their own size standards based on average annual receipts.
Table 6--Baseline Analysis of Receipts-Based Size Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total industries subject to receipts-based standards.... 518
Total firms subject to at least one receipts-based 7.17
standard (million)--2012 Economic Census...............
Total small firms subject to at least one receipts-based 6.9
standard (million)--2012 Economic Census...............
Total small firms subject to at least one receipts-based 96.2
standard as % of total firms--2012 Economic Census.....
Total business concerns in SAM \1\ (as of September 1, 420,381
2018)..................................................
Total business concerns subject to a receipts-based size 346,958
standard in at least one NAICS code \2\ (SAM)..........
Total businesses that are small in at least one NAICS 303,514
code subject to a receipts-based size standard.........
Small business concerns as % of total business concerns 87.5
subject to receipts-based standards (2018 SAM).........
Average total number of unique Eligible vendors getting 126,500
Federal contracts \1\--FPDS-NG (2015-2017).............
Average total number of unique firms with receipts-based 88,770
size standards getting Federal contracts \2\--FPDS-NG
(2015-2017)............................................
[[Page 66574]]
Average total contract dollars awarded to business $182
concerns, subject to receipts-based standards ($
billion)...............................................
Average total small business contract dollars awarded to $63.7
businesses subject to receipts-based standards ($
billion)...............................................
Small business dollars as % of total dollars awarded to 34.9
firms subject to receipts-based standards..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Entities in SAM and FPDS-NG presented above only include business
concerns that can be eligible to qualify as small for Federal
contracting. That is, entities that can never qualify as small (e.g.,
foreign, not-for-profit and government entities) are excluded as they
are not impacted by this rule.
\2\ A business concern could appear in multiple NAICS industries
involving both receipts-based and size standards and those based on
other measures (such as employees). Similarly, a business could be
small in some industries and other-than-small in others.
Businesses that would regain or expand their small business status
can be identified by comparing the estimate of their 5-year receipts
average with the size standard. That is, if the 5-year receipts average
of a firm currently above the size standard is lower than the
applicable size standard, that firm will gain or regain small business
status. To estimate the number of small businesses that would benefit
by having their small business status extended for a longer period or
would be penalized by having their small business status shortened, SBA
considered small businesses whose 3-year average annual receipts was
within 10 percent below their receipts-based size thresholds. Depending
upon whether their annual receipts are growing or declining, small
businesses that are not immediately impacted may be impacted, either
positively (i.e., gaining small business status) or negatively (i.e.,
losing small business status) someday as they continue to grow and
approach the size standard threshold as in the current 3-year averaging
method. However, SBA is not able to quantify such impacts now.
d. Benefits
The most significant benefits to businesses from the change in the
period for calculation of average annual receipts from 3 years to 5
years include: (i) Enabling some mid-size businesses currently
categorized above their corresponding size standards to gain or regain
small business status and thereby qualify for participation in Federal
assistance intended for small businesses, and (ii) allowing some
advanced and larger small businesses close to their size thresholds to
lengthen their small business status for a longer period and thereby
continue their participation in Federal small business programs. These
include Federal procurement programs intended for small businesses.
Federal procurement programs provide targeted, set-aside opportunities
for small businesses under SBA's various business development and
contracting programs, including 8(a)/BD, HUBZone, WOSB, EDWOSB, and
SDVOSB programs. Benefits accruing to businesses gaining and extending
small business status are presented below in Table 7, ``Positive
Impacts of Changing the Averaging Period for Receipts from 3 Years to 5
Years.'' The results in Table 7 pertain to businesses and industries
subject to SBA's receipts-based size standards only.
As shown in Table 7, of 43,444 firms not currently considered small
in any receipts-based size standards, 3,260 (or 7.5 percent) would
benefit from the proposed change by gaining or regaining small business
status under the 5-year receipts average in at least one NAICS industry
that is subject to a receipts-based size standard. Additionally, about
3,800 or 1.3 percent of small businesses within 10 percent below size
standards would see their annual receipts decrease under the 5-year
averaging period, consequently enabling them to keep their small
business status for a longer period.
Using the 2012 Economic Census, SBA estimated that about 7,800 or
2.9 percent of currently large businesses would gain or regain small
business status and more than 62,800 or 0.9 percent of total small
businesses would see their small business status extended for a longer
period as the result of this proposed rule. These results are shown in
Table 7, below.
Table 7--Positive Impacts of Changing the Averaging Period for Receipts From 3 Years to 5 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms
Firms gaining extending Total
Impact of proposed change small small positive
business business impact
status status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of impacted industries...................................... 372 361 \1\ 420
No. of large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending 3,260 3,801 \2\ 6,690
small business status--SAM (as of Sept 1, 2018)................
Large firms becoming small or/and small firms with extended 7.5 1.3 1.9
small business status as % of total large or/and small firms in
the baseline--SAM (as of Sept 1, 2018).........................
No. of large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending 7,822 62,822 70,644
small business status--2012 Economic Census....................
Large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending small 2.9 0.9 1.0
business status as % of total large or/and small firms in the
baseline--2012 Economic Census.................................
No. of large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending 910 838 \2\ 1,700
small business status for small business contracts (FPDS-NG)...
Additional small business dollars available to newly qualified $961 $133 $1,094
firms or/and current small firms with extended small business
status ($ million).............................................
Additional small business dollars as % total small business 1.5 0.2 1.7
contract dollars in the baseline...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total impact represents total unique industries impacted to avoid double counting as some industries have
large firms gaining small business status and small firms extending small business status.
\2\ Total impact represents total unique firms impacted to avoid double counting as some firms may gain small
business status in at least one NAICS code, while extending small business status in at least one other NAICS
code.
[[Page 66575]]
With more businesses qualifying as small under the 5-year receipts
average, Federal agencies will have a larger pool of small businesses
from which to draw for their small business procurement programs.
Growing small businesses that are close to exceeding the current size
standards will be able to retain their small business status for a
longer period under the 5-year receipts average, thereby enabling them
to continue to benefit from the small business programs.
Based on the FPDS-NG data for fiscal years 2015-2017, as shown in
Table 7, SBA estimates that those newly qualified small businesses
(i.e., large businesses gaining small business status) under this final
rule, if adopted, could receive $961 million in small business contract
dollars annually under SBA's small business, 8(a)/BD, HUBZone, WOSB,
EDWOSB, and SDVOSB programs. That represents a 1.5 percent increase to
total small business contract dollars from the baseline. Additionally,
small businesses could receive approximately $133 million in additional
small business contract dollars because of extension of their small
business status, which is about a 0.2 percent increase from the total
small business contract dollars in the baseline. That is, businesses
gaining or extending small business status could receive about $1.1
billion in additional small business contract dollars, which is a 1.7
percent increase to the total small business dollars in the baseline.
The added competition from more businesses qualifying as small may
result in lower prices to the Federal Government for procurements set
aside or reserved for small businesses, but SBA cannot quantify this
impact. Costs could be higher when full and open contracts are awarded
to HUBZone businesses that receive price evaluation preferences.
However, with agencies likely setting aside more contracts for small
businesses in response to a larger pool of small businesses under the
proposed change, HUBZone firms might actually end up getting more set-
aside contracts and fewer full and open contracts, thereby resulting in
some cost savings to agencies. While SBA cannot estimate such costs
savings, as it is impossible to determine the number and value of
unrestricted contracts to be otherwise awarded to HUBZone firms that
will be awarded as set-asides, such cost savings are likely to be
relatively small as only a small fraction of full and open contracts
are awarded to HUBZone businesses.
Additionally, the newly defined small businesses, as well as those
with a longer small business status, would also benefit from reduced
fees, less paperwork, and fewer compliance requirements but SBA has no
data to quantify this impact.
The change from a 3-year averaging period to a 5-year averaging
period will also address some of the challenges and uncertainties small
businesses face in the open market once they graduate from their small
business status. Small and mid-size businesses experience a
considerable disadvantage in competing for full and open contracts
against large businesses, including the largest in the industry. These
large businesses have several competitive advantages over small and
mid-size firms, including vast past performance qualifications and
experience, strong brand-name recognition, a plethora of professional
certifications, security clearances, and greater financial and
marketing resources. Small and mid-size businesses cannot afford to
maintain these resources, leaving them at a considerable disadvantage.
With contracts getting bigger, one large set-aside contract could
throw a firm out of its small business status, thereby subjecting it to
certain requirements that apply to other-than-small firms, such as
developing subcontracting plans. That firm may not have the
infrastructure, existing business processes, and/or other resources in
place in order to comply with such requirements.
By allowing smaller mid-size companies that have just exceeded the
size threshold to regain small business status and advanced small
businesses close to size standards to prolong their small business
status for a longer period, using the 5-year receipts average can
expand the pool of qualified small firms for agencies to draw from to
meet their small business requirements.
e. The Costs
As stated in the proposed rule, the change enacted under Public Law
115-324 may not always and necessarily benefit every small business
concern. When businesses' annual revenues are declining or when annual
revenues for the latest 3 years are lower than those for the earliest 2
years of the 5-year period, the 5-year average would be higher than the
3-year average, thereby ejecting small businesses out of their small
business status sooner or rendering some small businesses other than
small immediately. Similarly, small businesses that lose their small
business status would have to wait longer to qualify as small again.
Such small businesses would no longer be eligible for Federal small
business opportunities, such as Federal small business contracts and
other Federal benefits (such as reduced fees and exemptions from
certain paperwork and compliance requirements) available to small
businesses. However, the SBA's decision to grant a 2-year transition
period allowing businesses to elect to use either the 5-year receipts
average or the 3-year average receipts will mitigate such impacts. SBA
believes the transition period provides small businesses with enough
time to make a permanent transition to the 5-year averaging method
without facing such impacts.
By enabling mid-size businesses to regain small business status and
lengthening the small business status of advanced and successful larger
small businesses, the final rule may disadvantage smaller small
businesses in more need of Federal assistance than their larger
counterparts in competing for Federal opportunities. SBA frequently
receives concerns from smaller small businesses that they also lack
resources, past performance qualifications and expertise to be able to
compete against more resourceful, qualified and experienced larger
small businesses for Federal opportunities for small businesses. With a
larger pool of businesses qualifying as small, SBA expects Federal
agencies to set aside more contracts to small businesses thereby
expanding opportunities for all small businesses. SBA believes that
overall benefits to small businesses from this rule change outweigh the
costs to small businesses.
Besides having to register in SAM to be able to participate in
Federal contracting and update the SAM profile annually, small
businesses incur no direct costs to gain or retain their small business
status. All businesses willing to do business with the Federal
Government have to register in SAM and update their SAM profiles
annually, regardless of their size status. SBA believes that a vast
majority of businesses that are willing to participate in Federal
contracting are already registered in SAM.
The change to the 5-year receipts average may entail some
additional administrative costs to the Federal Government because more
businesses may qualify as small for Federal small business programs.
For example, there will be more firms eligible for enrollment in the
Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) database or in certify.sba.gov;
more firms seeking certification as 8(a)/BD or HUBZone firms or
qualifying for small business, WOSB, EDWOSB, and SDVOSB status; and
more firms applying for SBA's 8(a)/BD and All Small Mentor-
Prot[eacute]g[eacute]
[[Page 66576]]
programs. With an expanded pool of small businesses, it is likely that
Federal agencies will set aside more contracts for small businesses
under the new rule. One may surmise that this might result in a higher
number of small business size protests and additional processing costs
to agencies. However, the SBA's historical data on size protests
actually shows that the number of size protests decreased after an
increase in the number of businesses qualifying as small as a result of
size standards revisions as part of the first 5-year review of size
standards. Specifically, on an annual basis, the number of size
protests dropped from about 600 during fiscal years 2011-2013 (review
of most receipts-based size standards was completed by the end of
fiscal year 2013) to about 500 during fiscal years 2014-2016. However,
with more years of data to be reviewed, 5-year averaging may increase
time needed by size specialists to process a size protest.
Additionally, some Federal contracts may possibly have higher
costs. With a greater number of businesses defined as small under the
5-year averaging method, Federal agencies may choose to set aside more
contracts for competition among small businesses only instead of using
full and open competition. The movement of contracts from unrestricted
competition to small business set-aside contracts might result in
competition among fewer total bidders, although there will be more
small businesses eligible to submit offers under the proposed change.
However, the additional costs associated with fewer bidders are
expected to be minor since, by law, procurements may be set aside for
small businesses under the 8(a)/BD, HUBZone, WOSB, EDWOSB, or SDVOSB
programs only if awards are expected to be made at fair and reasonable
prices.
Costs may also be higher when full and open contracts are awarded
to HUBZone businesses that receive price evaluation preferences.
However, with agencies likely setting aside more contracts for small
businesses in response to the availability of a larger pool of small
businesses under the 5-year receipts average, HUBZone firms might
actually end up getting fewer full and open contracts, thereby
resulting in some cost savings to agencies. However, such cost savings
are likely to be minimal as only a small fraction of unrestricted
contracts are awarded to HUBZone businesses.
f. Transfer Impacts
The change from a 3-year averaging period to a 5-year averaging
period may result in some redistribution of Federal contracts between
businesses gaining or extending small business status and large
businesses, and between businesses gaining or extending small business
status and other existing small businesses. However, it would have no
impact on the overall economic activity since the total Federal
contract dollars available for businesses to compete for will not
change. While SBA cannot quantify with certainty the actual outcome of
the gains and losses from the redistribution of contracts among
different groups of businesses, it can identify several probable
impacts in qualitative terms. With the availability of a larger pool of
small businesses under the proposed change, some unrestricted Federal
contracts may be set aside for small businesses. As a result, large
businesses may lose access to some Federal contracts. Similarly, some
currently small businesses may obtain fewer set-aside contracts due to
the increased competition from some large businesses now qualifying as
small and advanced small businesses remaining small for a longer
period. This impact may be offset by a greater number of procurements
being set aside for all small businesses. With large businesses
qualifying as small and advanced larger small businesses remaining
small for a longer period under the proposed rule, smaller small
businesses could face some disadvantages in competing for set-aside
contracts against their larger counterparts. However, SBA cannot
quantify these impacts.
B. 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. This action does
not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
C. Executive Order 13132
For purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this
final 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 final rule has
no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism
assessment.
D. Executive Order 13563
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility. 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, is
included above in the Benefit-Cost Analysis under Executive Order
12866. Additionally, Executive Order 13563, Section 6, calls for
retrospective analyses of existing rules.
Following the enactment of Public Law 115-324, SBA issued a public
notice advising business and contracting communities that SBA must go
through a rulemaking process to implement the new law and that
businesses still must report their receipts based on a 3-year average
until SBA changes its regulations. SBA updated the Small Business
Procurement Advisory Council (SBPAC) at its March 26, 2019, April 23,
2019, and August 26, 2019, meetings about SBA's rulemaking process to
implement Public Law 115-324. On April 18, 2019, SBA also presented an
update on the implementation of Public Law 115-324 at the 2019 Annual
Government Procurement Conference. Through phone calls and emails, SBA
also advised business and contracting communities and other interested
parties about the SBA's process to implement the new law.
Additionally, SBA issued a revised white paper titled ``Small
Business Size Standards: Revised Size Standards Methodology'' and
published a notice in the April 27, 2018, issue of the Federal Register
(83 FR 18468) to advise the public that the document is available for
public review and comments. The Revised Size Standards Methodology
explains how SBA establishes, reviews, and modifies its receipts-based
and employee-based small business size standards. On April 11, 2019,
SBA published a Federal Register Notice (84 FR 14587) advising the
public that the Agency has issued the revised final white paper.
E. Executive Order 13771
This rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order
12866.
F. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), this final rule may
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses in industries subject to receipts-based size standards. As
described above, this rule may affect small businesses in those
industries seeking Federal contracts and assistance under other Federal
small business programs.
[[Page 66577]]
Immediately below, SBA sets forth a final regulatory flexibility
analysis (FRFA) of this final rule to address the following questions:
(1) What is the need for and objective of the rule?; (2) What is SBA's
description and estimate of the number of small businesses to which the
rule will 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 is the need for and objective of the rule?
Recently, Public Law 115-324 amended section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of
the Small Business Act by modifying the period for calculating average
annual receipts for prescribing size standards for business concerns in
services industries by an agency without separate statutory authority
to issue size standards from 3 years to 5 years. This final rule
implements the intent of Public Law 115-324 and makes consistent
changes to SBA's definition of annual receipts by amending the SBA's
regulations on the calculation of average annual receipts for all
receipts-based standards from over 3 years to over 5 years, except for
the Business Loan Programs and Disaster Loan Programs.
2. What are SBA's description and estimate of the number of small
businesses to which the rule will apply?
This final rule applies to all small businesses that are subject to
a receipts-based size standard. Based on the 2012 Economic Census
special tabulations, 2012 County Business Patterns Reports, and 2012
Agricultural Census tabulations, of a total of about 7.2 million firms
in all industries with receipts-based size standards to which this
final rule will apply, 6.9 million or about 96.0 percent are considered
small under the 3-year annual receipts average. Of 346,958 total
concerns in SAM 2018 to which the rule will apply, about 303,500 or
87.5 percent were small in at least one NAICS industry with a receipts-
based size standard. Similarly, based on the data from FPDS-NG for
fiscal years 2015-2017, on average, about 88,770 unique firms in
industries subject to receipts-based size standards received at least
one Federal contract during that period, of which 83 percent, or 73,825
were small.
3. What are the projected reporting, record-keeping and other
compliance requirements of the rule?
The final rule changes existing reporting or record-keeping
requirements for small businesses. In reporting receipts to SBA for an
SBA size determination after the final rule's effective date,
businesses will report a 5-year average rather than a 3-year average
which requires minimal effort. To qualify for Federal procurement and a
few other programs, businesses are required to register in SAM and to
self-certify that they are small at least once annually. Therefore,
businesses opting to participate in those programs must comply with SAM
requirements. There are no costs associated with SAM registration or
certification. The change from a 3-year averaging period to a 5-year
averaging period may result in some redistribution of Federal contracts
between businesses gaining or extending small status and large
businesses, and between businesses gaining or extending small status
and other existing small businesses. However, it would have no impact
on the overall economic activity since the total Federal contract
dollars available for businesses to compete for will not change.
4. What are the relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or
conflict with the rule?
Under section 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, 5 U.S.C. 601(3), 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. 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 or changing a measurement period, no practical
alternative exists to the systems of numerical size standards. As
stated elsewhere, the objective of this final rule is to change SBA's
regulations on the calculation of business size in terms of average
annual receipts to implement Public Law 115-324.
This rule is expected to affect a substantial number of small
entities, but the effects are not expected to be significant. However,
to mitigate unintended negative impacts of a 5-year averaging period on
small businesses and to allow small businesses more time to prepare for
a switch to the 5-year receipts average, in this final rule, SBA is
allowing, through January 6, 2022, businesses to elect to calculate
average annual receipts using either a 3-year averaging period or a 5-
year averaging period. SBA also decided that the Business Loan Programs
and Disaster Loan Programs are not included in this final rule and will
instead be considered in a future proposed rule.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
SBA has determined that as a result of this final rule, an
information collection will need to be revised.
1 . SBA Form 355, Information for Small Business Size
Determination. SBA submitted this information collection to OMB for
approval of the changes described below and received conditional
approval pending any change as a result of public comments. The final
information collection package will be resubmitted to OMB concurrent
with publication of this final rule. Changes have been made to Parts
III and IV of the form to address the change from 3 years to 5 years
for calculating average annual receipts. Other revisions to the form
have been made to delete unnecessary questions, clarify certain
previously approved requests for information, and in some instances, to
request additional information where SBA has determined there is a
programmatic need. As noted in the proposed rule and the OMB
submission, these deletions and clarifications, though not required by
the statute, will alleviate the additional burden posed by changing
from 3 years to 5 years for calculating average annual receipts.
[[Page 66578]]
(a) SBA amended the General Instructions section to define
``concern'' and ``principal stockholders''; state that separate
affiliation rules apply in some of SBA's loan and research programs;
remove obsolete information about industries with special size
standards; state that dormant or inactive firms must be disclosed; and
to include in the certification a statement that accompanying
documentation is true and correct.
(b) In Part 1, SBA clarified that the information relates to the
applicant business; added a checkbox for the firm to identify its
corporate organization structure; required a firm to disclose whether
it is organized for profit; and removed various obsolete or unnecessary
information regarding county/city, purpose of the size determination,
the contracting agency, the business's major products or services and
shares of sales, addresses of owners or officers, and recently
completed mergers. Part 1 was also amended to request ownership
information for owners that are entities until the respondent
identifies the ultimate owners that are natural persons.
(c) In Part II, SBA limited the information requested about
employees to businesses that are being evaluated under an employee-
based size standard.
(d) In Part III, SBA limited the information request about receipts
to businesses that are being evaluated under a receipts-based size
standard. SBA also added two additional lines to the entries for annual
receipts so that a business that has been in business for 5 years can
provide information about its most recently completed 5 fiscal years.
SBA added a question to allow the concern to elect a 3-year average or
a 5-year average during the transition period that ends January 6,
2022.
(e) In Part IV, SBA added that the business must provide
information for any business that the applicant's owner reports on a
Schedule C or Schedule E of the owner's personal tax returns if the
owner or an immediate family member has a controlling interest in the
business; removed the request for addresses of individual owners and
managers; requested ownership information for owners that are entities
until the respondent identifies the ultimate owners that are natural
persons; limited the request for employee information to applicants
being evaluated under an employee-based size standard; limited the
information request for receipts information to applicants being
evaluated under a receipts-based size standard; and added two rows to
the receipts table so that the receipts of acknowledged affiliates are
reported based on a 5-year average.
(f) In Part V, SBA removed requests about acknowledged affiliates
that are covered in Part IV; deleted questions about performance of
work on the contract, financial impact of termination for default, and
specific terms and conditions of the contract; and added a question
about actual or proposed subcontracts between the applicant and any of
its alleged affiliates.
SBA determined that these changes to the Form 355 will not impact
the paperwork burden following the transition period, and it will
remain at 4 hours. The changes require a business in an industry with a
receipts-based size standard, if selecting to use the 5-year average
during the transition period or if certifying after the transition
period, to gather information about the business's 5 prior fiscal years
and complete information about its 5 prior fiscal years and the 5 prior
fiscal years for acknowledged affiliates. However, a business with a
receipts-based size standard will not complete information about its
number of employees. Similarly, a business with an employee-based size
standard will not complete information about its receipts.
Additionally, SBA has removed all requests for the addresses of
individual owners and managers, and deleted 3 questions from Part V.
The title, summary of the amended information collection,
description of respondents, and an estimate of the reporting burden are
discussed below. Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data, and completing and reviewing
each collection of information.
Title and Description: SBA Form 355, Information for Small Business
Size Determination. The information provided in this form will be used
by SBA for a size determination of a business applying for assistance
available to small businesses under any program administered by this
Agency, except for its SBIC Program which uses SBA Form 480, or at the
request of another Federal agency for purposes of its small business
program.
Need and Purpose: This information collection is necessary for SBA
to, among other things, evaluate the eligibility of an applicant for
SBA's small business programs.
OMB Control Number: 3245-0101.
Description of and Estimated Number of Respondents: This
information will be collected from small businesses seeking an SBA
determination of size. Based on historical information, SBA estimates
this number to be between 500 and 600 each year.
Estimated Response Time: 4 hours.
Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 2,000-2,400.
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 amends 13 CFR part
121 as follows:
PART 121--SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS
0
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).
0
2. Amend Sec. 121.104 by revising the second sentence of paragraph (a)
introductory text and by revising paragraphs (c) and (d)(2) through (4)
to read as follows:
Sec. 121.104 How does SBA calculate annual receipts?
(a) * * * Generally, receipts are considered ``total income'' (or
in the case of a sole proprietorship ``gross income'') plus ``cost of
goods sold'' as these terms are defined and reported on Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) tax return forms (such as Form 1120 for
corporations; Form 1120S for S corporations; Form 1120, Form 1065 or
Form 1040 for LLCs; Form 1065 for partnerships; Form 1040, Schedule F
for farms; Form 1040, Schedule C for other sole proprietorships) * * *
* * * * *
(c) Period of measurement. (1) Except for the Business Loan and
Disaster Loan Programs, annual receipts of a concern that has been in
business for 5 or more completed fiscal years means the total receipts
of the concern over its most recently completed 5 fiscal years divided
by 5. For certifications submitted on or before January 6, 2022, rather
than using the definitions in this paragraph (c), a concern submitting
a certification may elect to calculate annual receipts and the receipts
of affiliates using either the total receipts of the concern or
affiliate over its most recently completed 5 fiscal years divided by 5,
or the total receipts of the concern or affiliate over its most
recently completed 3 fiscal years divided by 3.
(2) Except for the Business Loan and Disaster Loan Programs, annual
receipts
[[Page 66579]]
of a concern which has been in business for less than 5 complete fiscal
years means the total receipts for the period the concern has been in
business divided by the number of weeks in business, multiplied by 52.
(3) Except for the Business Loan and Disaster Loan Programs, where
a concern has been in business 5 or more complete fiscal years but has
a short year as one of the years within its period of measurement,
annual receipts means the total receipts for the short year and the 4
full fiscal years divided by the total number of weeks in the short
year and the 4 full fiscal years, multiplied by 52.
(4) For the Business Loan and Disaster Loan Programs, annual
receipts of a concern that has been in business for three or more
completed fiscal years means the total receipts of the concern over its
most recently completed three fiscal years divided by three. Annual
receipts of a concern which has been in business for less than three
complete fiscal years means the total receipts for the period the
concern has been in business divided by the number of weeks in
business, multiplied by 52. Where a concern has been in business three
or more complete fiscal years but has a short year as one of the years
within its period of measurement, annual receipts means the total
receipts for the short year and the two full fiscal years divided by
the total number of weeks in the short year and the two full fiscal
years, multiplied by 52. For the purposes of this section, the Business
Loan Programs consist of the 7(a) Loan Program, the Microloan Program,
the Intermediary Lending Pilot Program, and the Development Company
Loan Program (``504 Loan Program''). The Disaster Loan Programs consist
of Physical Disaster Business Loans, Economic Injury Disaster Loans,
Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans, and Immediate
Disaster Assistance Program loans.
(d) * * *
(2) If a concern has acquired an affiliate or been acquired as an
affiliate during the applicable period of measurement or before the
date on which it self-certified as small, the annual receipts used in
determining size status includes the receipts of the acquired or
acquiring concern. This aggregation applies for the entire period of
measurement, not just the period after the affiliation arose. However,
if a concern has acquired a segregable division of another business
concern during the applicable period of measurement or before the date
on which it self-certified as small, the annual receipts used in
determining size status do not include the receipts of the acquired
division prior to the acquisition.
(3) Except for the Business Loan and Disaster Loan Programs, if the
business concern or an affiliate has been in business for a period of
less than 5 years, the receipts for the fiscal year with less than a
12-month period are annualized in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of
this section. Receipts are determined for the concern and its
affiliates in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section even though
this may result in using a different period of measurement to calculate
an affiliate's annual receipts.
(4) The annual receipts of a former affiliate are not included if
affiliation ceased before the date used for determining size. This
exclusion of annual receipts of such former affiliate applies during
the entire period of measurement, rather than only for the period after
which affiliation ceased. However, if a concern has sold a segregable
division to another business concern during the applicable period of
measurement or before the date on which it self-certified as small, the
annual receipts used in determining size status will continue to
include the receipts of the division that was sold.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 121.106 by revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 121.106 How does SBA calculate number of employees?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) The employees of a former affiliate are not counted if
affiliation ceased before the date used for determining size. This
exclusion of employees of a former affiliate applies during the entire
period of measurement, rather than only for the period after which
affiliation ceased. However, if a concern has sold a segregable
division to another business concern during the applicable period of
measurement or before the date on which it self-certified as small, the
employees used in determining size status will continue to include the
employees of the division that was sold.
0
4. Amend Sec. 121.903 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 121.903 How may an agency use size standards for its programs
that are different than those established by SBA?
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The size of a services concern by its average annual receipts
over a period of at least 5 years, determined according to Sec.
121.104;
(iii) The size of other concerns on data over a period of at least
5 years, determined according to Sec. 121.104; or,
* * * * *
Dated: November 25, 2019.
Christopher M. Pilkerton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-26041 Filed 12-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
