Final Rule

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

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 http://
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