[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29399-29413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12754]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 29399]]



SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

13 CFR Part 121

RIN 3245-AH16


Small Business Size Standards: Calculation of Annual Average 
Receipts

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA or Agency) 
proposes to modify its method for calculating annual average receipts 
used to prescribe size standards for small businesses. Specifically, 
consistent with a recent amendment to the Small Business Act, SBA 
proposes to change its regulations on the calculation of annual average 
receipts for all receipts-based SBA size standards and other agencies' 
proposed size standards for service-industry firms from a 3-year 
averaging period to a 5-year averaging period.

DATES: SBA must receive comments to this proposed rule on or before 
August 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Identify your comments by RIN 3245-AH16 and submit them by 
one of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov, follow the instructions for submitting comments; 
or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Office 
of Size Standards, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street 
SW, Mail Code 6530, Washington, DC 20416.
    SBA will post all comments to this proposed rule on https://www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business 
information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at https://www.regulations.gov, you must submit such information to Khem R. 
Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Office of Size Standards, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Mail Code 6530, Washington, DC 
20416, or send an email to [email protected]. Highlight the 
information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe SBA 
should withhold this information as confidential. SBA will review your 
information and determine whether it will make it public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Office 
of Size Standards, (202) 205-6618 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

    Public Law 115-324 (the ``Small Business Runway Extension Act of 
2018'') amended section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of the Small Business Act, 
15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II), to modify the requirements for proposed 
small business size standards prescribed by an agency without separate 
statutory authority to issue size standards.
    Under section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Small Business Act as amended, 
an agency without separate statutory authority to issue size standards 
must satisfy three requirements to prescribe a size standard. First, 
the agency must propose the size standard with an opportunity for 
public notice and comment. Second, the agency must provide for 
determining the size of a manufacturing concern based on a 12-month 
average of the concern's employment, the size of a services concern 
based on a 5-year average of gross receipts, and the size of another 
business concern on the basis of data of not less than 3 years. Third, 
the agency must obtain approval of the size standard from the SBA 
Administrator.
    In contrast to agencies subject to section 3(a)(2)(C), SBA has 
independent statutory authority to issue size standards. Under section 
3(a)(2)(A) of the Small Business Act, the SBA Administrator may specify 
detailed definitions or standards by which a business concern may be 
determined to be a small business concern for the purposes of SBA's 
programs or any other Federal Government program. Section 3(a)(2)(B) of 
the Small Business Act further provides that such definitions may 
utilize the number of employees, dollar volume of business, net worth, 
net income, a combination thereof, or other appropriate factors. To 
determine eligibility for Federal small business assistance, SBA 
establishes detailed size definitions for small businesses (usually 
referred to as ``size standards'') that vary from industry to industry 
reflecting differences among the various industries. SBA typically uses 
two primary measures of business size for size standards purposes: (i) 
Annual average gross receipts for businesses in services, retail trade, 
agricultural, and construction industries, and (ii) average number of 
employees for businesses in all manufacturing and most mining and 
utilities 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.
    The SBA's size standards establish eligibility for a variety of 
Federal small business assistance programs, including 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 conventional loans elsewhere. 
The 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 
Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) program, and the Economically 
Disadvantaged Woman-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) program. In fiscal 
year 2017, small businesses received $105.7 billion in Federal 
contracts, including $42.0 billion in set-aside contracts for small 
businesses. Small businesses received $25.6 billion in Federal set-
aside contracts in fiscal year 2017 through the SBA's 8(a), HUBZone, 
SDVOSB, WOSB, and EDWOSB programs. (In addition to using SBA's size 
standards, 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 rules 
implementing 3(a)(2)(C), SBA explained that the Small Business Act

[[Page 29400]]

requires that other Federal agencies use SBA's size standards or else 
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. Since 2002, SBA has repeated this interpretation of section 
3(a)(2)(C) in the Federal Register 52 times: 67 FR 48423; 67 FR 61835; 
68 FR 74841; 70 FR 68373; 70 FR 72582; 71 FR 28610; 72 FR 41242; 72 FR 
61577; 73 FR 41241; 73 FR 42519; 74 FR 53953; 74 FR 53923; 74 FR 53937; 
75 FR 61596; 75 FR 61602; 75 FR 61608; 76 FR 14339; 76 FR 27950; 76 FR 
63524; 76 FR 63228; 76 FR 70693; 76 FR 70679; 77 FR 7513; 77 FR 11016; 
77 FR 10945; 77 FR 42211; 77 FR 42224; 77 FR 42453; 77 FR 55753; 77 FR 
55767; 77 FR 58746; 77 FR 58754; 77 FR 58759; 77 FR 72775; 77 FR 72701; 
77 FR 72707; 78 FR 37415; 78 FR 37403; 78 FR 37421; 78 FR 37408; 78 FR 
77342; 78 FR 77350; 79 FR 28645; 79 FR 33654; 79 FR 53665; 79 FR 54170; 
81 FR 3947; 81 FR 3955; 81 FR 4466; 81 FR 4485; 82 FR 18263; 82 FR 
44893. Additionally, in the final Size Standards Methodology that SBA 
issued in April 2009, SBA stated, ``Paragraph 3(a)(2)(C) refers to the 
establishment of size standards by other Federal agencies. SBA 
generally applies these same provisions when it establishes its size 
standards, but the Agency is not legally bound by them. On the other 
hand, Paragraphs 3(a)(2)(A) and 3(a)(2)(B) give the Administrator the 
flexibility to evaluate and establish size standards using a broader 
range of criteria, depending on what the Administrator determines will 
serve small businesses the best.'' Thus, section 3(a)(2)(C) pertains to 
special size standards that agencies prescribe for defining small 
businesses for their programs when they determine that SBA's size 
standards are not appropriate for such programs.
    SBA grounds this long-standing interpretation of section 3(a)(2)(C) 
on the following facts. First, SBA has applied a 3-year average for 
receipts-based size standards since January 1956, see 21 FR 80, and the 
requirement in section 3(a)(2)(C) for an agency lacking specific 
authority to use a 3-year average was not passed into law until 38 
years later on October 22, 1994 through the Small Business 
Administration Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1994, Public Law 
103-403, section 301. Second, the legislative history from the U.S. 
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship specifically 
excepts SBA from section 3(a)(2)(C) by stating that the 1994 amendment 
``clarifies that a Federal Department or agency, other than the 
Administration, may issue a size standard set in terms of number of 
employees, average annual gross receipts, or otherwise, only under 
certain conditions. Those conditions are that the standard is set by 
rulemaking, including a proposal and an opportunity for public comment, 
and that the SBA Administrator has approved the standard.'' S. Rpt. No. 
103-332 (emphasis added). Third, the predecessor statutory provision to 
section 3(a)(2)(C), which is set forth in section 222(a) of Public Law 
102-366, explicitly stated that the specified averaging period applied 
only ``for the use of such department or agency'' where the department 
or agency had issued its own size standard, and the 1994 amendment did 
not evince any intent to change this rule of limited applicability. 
Fourth, based on a literal reading of the Small Business Act, section 
3(a)(2)(C) only applies where an agency is not specifically authorized 
by statute to issue size standards, but SBA has specific authorization 
to issue SBA's size standards in section 3(a)(2)(A) of the Small 
Business Act. As such, section 3(a)(2)(C) requires that a non-SBA 
agency obtain approval from the SBA's Administrator for adopting its 
own size standard.
    Nevertheless, to promote consistency government-wide on small 
business size standards, SBA proposes to change its own size standards 
to provide for a 5-year averaging period for calculating annual average 
receipts for all receipts-based size standards. It would be confusing 
for a service-industry business 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 any agency to use a 3-year average 
outside of the service industries, SBA proposes to adopt a 5-year 
averaging period for calculating the annual receipts of businesses for 
all industries that are subject to receipts-based size standards, 
including the retail trade, agricultural, and construction industries.
    SBA's proposed 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. 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 years which would result in spikes in revenue that may 
prematurely eject a small business out of their small size standard. 
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 
report states, would also protect Federal investment in SBA's small 
business programs by promoting greater 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. It is notable 
that, when annual revenues are declining, the 5-year average may be 
higher than the 3-year average. This would cause small businesses near 
the size thresholds to lose their small business status sooner under 
the 5-year average than under the 3-year average. This is more likely 
to happen during economic downturns. Businesses that lose their small 
business status under the 5-year average may be disadvantaged further 
because they may have to wait several years more to regain their small 
business status, as compared to under a 3-year average. Newly 
established firms that have been in business for less than 5 years will

[[Page 29401]]

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, 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 large small businesses for 
Federal opportunities for small businesses.
    SBA's proposed rule satisfies the requirements of section 3(a)(6) 
of the Small Business Act, which requires that, to revise, modify, or 
establish size standards pursuant to section 3(a), SBA must issue a 
notice of proposed rulemaking that includes, among other things, the 
anticipated effect of the proposed rulemaking on industry. In this 
regard, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that agencies must 
``use the same procedures when they amend or repeal a rule as they used 
to issue the rule in the first instance.'' Perez v. Mortgage Bankers 
Assn., 135 S. Ct 1199, 1206 (2015).

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Section 121.104

    The proposed 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 section 121.104(a).
    For consistency with the size standard averaging period being 
changed in Sec.  121.104, for the purposes of applying SBA's receipts-
based size standards, the proposed 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 proposed 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 complete 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.
    SBA proposes that the 5-year averaging period in Sec.  121.104 
would not distinguish between firms in service industries and other 
firms subject to receipts-based size standards. Although section 
3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act, as amended, permits other 
agencies to use a 5-year averaging period for service-industry firms 
and a 3-year averaging period for other firms, 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 proposed rule only would affect the application of SBA's size 
standard rules after the effective date of a final rule. Thus, until 
the effective date of a final rule, SBA will continue to apply the 3-
year averaging period in the present Sec.  121.104 for calculating 
annual average 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 a 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.
    SBA also proposes to clarify how it believes annual receipts should 
be calculated in connection with the acquisition or sale of a division. 
Specifically, the proposed rule would provide 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, the 
proposed rule would not increase the concern's overall receipts by the 
amount of receipts attributable to that division. This proposal is 
consistent with decisions of SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(OHA). See, e.g. Size Appeal of Global, A 1st Flagship Co., SBA No. 
SIZ-5462 (2013) (``OHA has repeatedly held 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.'').
    SBA understands that some may feel that distinguishing the sale of 
a division from that of a subsidiary would elevate form over substance, 
and would merely require a seller to move assets into a separate 
subsidiary and then sell that subsidiary in order to bring the 
transaction under the rule. However, SBA believes that there really is 
an important distinction between a division and a separate legal 
entity. SBA specifically requests comments on this issue.

B. Section 121.903

    As required by Public Law 115-324, SBA is proposing to amend 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 proposed rule, a non-SBA agency's receipts-based size standard 
applying to services-industry firms must be proposed with an averaging 
period of at least 5 years.
    SBA is not proposing to change the requirement that other agency's 
size

[[Page 29402]]

standards for firms other than service and manufacturing firms use data 
over a period of at least 3 years. Such a change is not mandated by 
Public Law 115-324. 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.'' Because Congress did not change this 
statutory language, SBA is reluctant to change it administratively. 
However, SBA believes that it could also require other agencies 
establishing size standards for industries other than services or 
manufacturing to use data over a 5-year period. Since requiring 5 years 
instead of 3 is not inconsistent with the statutory provision (i.e., 5 
years is ``not less than 3 years''), SBA specifically requests comments 
on whether SBA should require other agencies to use 5 years' worth of 
data for all industries.
    This new calculation period does not affect existing non-SBA size 
standards. The averaging period for existing non-SBA size standards is 
not changed unless the responsible agency proposes and finalizes 
changes to such size standards. 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 
proposing a change to the averaging period for its existing size 
standard, the responsible agency should coordinate with SBA using the 
procedure in Sec.  121.903.

III. Request for Comments

    SBA invites comments, input, or suggestions from interested parties 
on its proposal to change the period for the calculation of annual 
average receipts for all receipts-based size standards from 3 years to 
5 years. The comments should address the following specific issues 
pertaining to the SBA's proposal.
    1. SBA seeks feedback, along with supporting facts and analyses, on 
whether the Agency should calculate annual average receipts over 5 
years for all industries subject to receipts-based size standards or on 
whether it should use a 5-year annual receipts average for businesses 
in services industries only and continue using a 3-year annual average 
for other businesses. SBA is concerned that the latter option may 
create confusion for both businesses in reporting their size based on 
annual average receipts and contracting personnel in verifying the size 
of bidders to Federal contracts.
    2. SBA invites input on how the use of annual average 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.

IV. 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 
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866. However, in the next section, SBA provides a 
benefit-cost analysis of this proposed 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 the proposed 
action and alternatives considered. 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 proposed rule is to carry out Public Law 115-324 
and to ensure consistency in the calculation of annual average receipts 
for SBA's size standards. In addition to the averaging requirements, 
size standards prescribed under section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Small 
Business Act must meet two other requirements: (1) Be proposed with an 
opportunity for public notice and comment, and (2) be approved by the 
Administrator. Public Law 115-324 does not undo these 2 requirements, 
and this proposed rule satisfies these requirements.
    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 annual average 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 status for a longer period. 
However, it could also result in some advanced small businesses having 
a 5-year receipts average that happens to be higher than the 3-year 
receipts average, thus ejecting them out of their small business status 
sooner. Detailed impacts of the proposed change are discussed below.
    It is difficult to determine the actual number of small and mid-
size businesses that would be impacted by Public Law 115-324 and this 
regulatory action because there is no data on annual 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 annual 
average receipts of businesses over their three 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 approximates a 
firm's 5-year annual average revenue for 2018 as follows:

[[Page 29403]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24JN19.008

    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 
annual average 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 annual average receipts 
approximation and calculation of number of businesses impacted. Of 
those 194,686 matched firms subject to a receipts-based size standard, 
154,220 (or about 79 percent) were ``small'' in all NAICS industries, 
8,049 (or 4.1 percent) were ``small'' in some industries and other than 
small (``not small'') in other industries, and 32,417 (or about 17 
percent) were ``not small'' in any industry. In other words, 303,514 
(or 87.5 percent) of 346,958 total concerns in SAM 2018 and 162,269 (or 
83.3 percent) of 194,686 total matched firms were small in at least one 
NAICS industry with a receipts-based size standard. These results are 
summarized in Table 1, ``Size Status of Businesses in Industries 
Subject to Receipts-Based Size Standards,'' below.

                                Table 1--Size Status of Businesses in Industries Subject to Receipts-Based Size Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Total firms in 2018 SAM       Firms in both 2015 SAM and
                                                              subject to at least one           2018 SAM  (matched)
                                                              receipts-based standard    --------------------------------                    Total to
                       Size status                       --------------------------------                                    % Matched    matched  ratio
                                                            Number  of                      Number  of           %                               *
                                                               firms             %             firms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small in at least one industry..........................         303,514            87.5         162,269            83.3            53.5           1.809
Small in all industries.................................         293,524            84.6         154,220            79.2            52.5           1.903
Small in some and not small in others...................           9,990             2.9           8,049             4.1            80.6           1.241
Large in all industries.................................          43,444            12.5          32,417            16.7            74.6           1.340
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         346,958           100.0         194,686             100            56.1           1.782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To be used to translate the results from the matched data to overall 2018 SAM data.

    According to Table 2, ``Distribution of Business Concerns Subject 
to Receipts-Based Size Standards by Number of NAICS Codes,'' below, the 
distribution of firms by the number of NAICS codes in the matched data 
is very similar to that for the overall 2018 SAM data. About 42-44 
percent of firms were in only one NAICS code that has a receipts-based 
size standard, about 35 percent in 2-5 NAICS codes, about 12 percent in 
6-10 NAICS codes, and about 8-10 percent in more than 10 NAICS codes. 
In other words, 56-58 percent of firms were in multiple NAICS codes 
with receipts-based size standards. Thus, it is quite possible that the 
proposed change may impact a firm's

[[Page 29404]]

small business status in multiple industries. For purposes of this 
analysis, an impacted firm is defined as one that would be impacted by 
the change in terms of gaining, regaining, extending, or losing small 
business status in at least one industry with a receipts-based size 
standard.

  Table 2--Distribution of Business Concerns Subject to Receipts-Based Size Standards by Number of NAICS Codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total firms in 2018 SAM with   Matched firms between 2018 and
                                                    at least one receipts-based              2015 SAM
              Number of NAICS codes                         NAICS code           -------------------------------
                                                 --------------------------------
                                                       Count             %             Count             %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 NAICS code....................................         153,184            44.2          82,082            42.2
2 to 5 NAICS codes..............................         123,277            35.5          68,458            35.2
6 to 10 NAICS codes.............................          41,518            12.0          24,529            12.6
> 10 NAICS codes................................          28,979             8.4          19,617            10.1
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         346,958           100.0         194,686           100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: A business concern is defined in terms of a unique local (vendor) DUNS number.

    A central premise of Public Law 115-324 is that a 5-year annual 
receipts average (as opposed to a 3-year annual receipts average) would 
enable some mid-size businesses who have recently exceeded the size 
standard to regain small business status and some advanced small 
businesses close to exceeding the size standard to retain their small 
business status for a longer period. However, this premise would only 
hold true when businesses' annual revenues are rising. When businesses' 
annual revenues are declining, due to economic downturns or other 
factors, the 5-year annual receipts average could be higher than the 3-
year annual receipts average, thereby causing small businesses close to 
their size standards to lose their small business status sooner.
b. Impacts on Businesses From the Proposed Change
    By comparing the approximated 5-year annual receipts average with 
the current receipts-based size standard for each of the 194,686 
matched business concerns in each NAICS code subject to a receipts-
based size standard, SBA first estimated the following:
    i. The number of mid-size businesses that have exceeded the size 
standard and would regain small business status in at least one NAICS 
industry with a receipts-based size standard (i.e., 3-year average > 
size standard >= 5-year average)--positive impact;
    ii. the number of advanced small businesses within 10 percent below 
the size standard that would have their small business status extended 
for a longer period in at least one NAICS industry with a receipts-
based standard (5-year average < 3-year average <= size standard and 
0.9*size standard < 3-year average <= size standard)--positive impact;
    iii. the number of currently small businesses that would lose their 
small business status in at least one NAICS industry subjected to at 
least one receipts-based size standard (i.e., 3-year average <= size 
standard < 5-year average)--negative impact; and
    iv. the number of advanced small businesses within 10 percent below 
the size standard that would have their small 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 proposed rule, SBA is changing the period for calculation 
of average annual receipts for all of its 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 previously, a longer 5-year averaging period may not always and 
necessarily provide relief to every small business concern. As 
discussed previously, 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.
    As discussed earlier, the change in the averaging period for annual 
receipts from 3 years to 5 years results in four different types of 
impacts on small businesses: (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). 
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.

                                     Table 3--Percentage Distribution of Impacted Firms by the Number of NAICS Codes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     % Distribution of impacted firms by number of NAICS codes
                                                             Number of   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Impact *                             impacted                        2-5 NAICS      6-10 NAICS       >10 NAICS
                                                               firms       1 NAICS code        codes           codes           codes           Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently small in all NAICS codes:
    Impact (ii).........................................           1,255            25.3            39.6            16.3            18.8           100.0
    Impact (iii)........................................           1,176            35.5            32.5            14.9            17.2           100.0
    Impact (iv).........................................             112            20.5            33.9            25.0            20.5           100.0

[[Page 29405]]

 
Currently large business in all NAICS codes:
    Impact (i)..........................................             914            36.0            36.1            13.6            14.3           100.0
Currently small in some NAICS and not small in others:
    Impact (i)..........................................           1,640             0.0            24.6            24.2            51.2           100.0
    Impact (ii).........................................           1,138             0.0            25.0            26.0            49.0           100.0
    Impact (iii)........................................             497             0.0            23.7            20.9            55.3           100.0
    Impact (iv).........................................             108             0.0            23.1            23.1            53.7           100.0
Total Impact by Impact Type:
    Impact (i)..........................................           2,554            12.9            28.7            20.4            38.0           100.0
    Impact (ii).........................................           2,393            13.3            32.6            20.9            33.2           100.0
    Impact (iii)........................................           1,673            24.9            29.9            16.7            28.5           100.0
    Impact (iv).........................................             220            10.5            28.6            24.1            36.8           100.0
Overall Impact:
    Positive............................................           4,687            13.8            31.8            20.7            33.8           100.0
    Negative............................................           1,890            23.3            29.8            17.6            29.4           100.0
    Both................................................           6,577            16.5            31.2            19.8            32.5           100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Impact (i) = Current large businesses gaining small status; Impact (ii) = Current small businesses extending small status; Impact (iii) = Current
  small businesses losing small status; Impact (iv) = Current small businesses shortening small 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, more than 40 percent of all firms in the overall data were 
associated with only one NAICS code, as compared to less than 20 
percent among impacted firms. 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 (both negatively and positively 
impacted), with Sector 54 (Professional, Scientific and Technical 
Services) accounting for about 35 percent, 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 to SBA's 
receipts-based size standards, such as SBA loan programs and 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      Total to       Total firms   Total firms in
           Impact \1\                 matched      matched ratio    impacted in      2018 SAM       % Impacted
                                      dataset                        2018 SAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entities only small under all
 NAICS code(s):
    Impact (ii).................           1,255           1.903           2,389         293,524             0.8
    Impact (iii)................           1,176           1.903           2,238         293,524             0.8
    Impact (iv).................             112           1.903             213         293,524             0.1
Entities other than small under
 all NAICS code(s):
    Impact (i)..................             914           1.340           1,225          43,444             2.8
Entities small in some NAICS
 code(s) and other than small in
 other(s):
    Impact (i)..................           1,640           1.241           2,035           9,990            20.4
    Impact (ii).................           1,138           1.241           1,412           9,990            14.1
    Impact (iii)................             497           1.241             617           9,990             6.2
    Impact (iv).................             108           1.241             134           9,990             1.3
Total impact by impact type:
    Impact (i)..................           2,554  ..............           3,260          53,434             6.1
    Impact (ii).................           2,393  ..............           3,801         303,514             1.3
    Impact (iii)................           1,673  ..............           2,855         303,514             0.9
    Impact (iv).................             220  ..............             347         303,514             0.1
Overall total by positive or
 negative impact: \2\

[[Page 29406]]

 
    Positive [impact (i) or                4,687  ..............           6,690         346,958             1.9
     impact (ii)]...............
    Negative [impact (iii) or              1,890  ..............           3,197         346,958             0.9
     impact (iv)]...............
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total impact............           6,577  ..............           9,887         346,958             2.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Impact (i) = Current large businesses gaining small business status; Impact (ii) = Current small businesses
  extending small status; Impact (iii) = Current small businesses losing small status; Impact (iv) = Current
  small businesses shortening small status.
\2\ Number of firms under overall positive, negative and total impacts refer to the number of unique firms. Some
  firms could appear in multiple impact types and hence individual impacts may not add up to overall impact.

    The Economic Census, combined with the Census of Agriculture and 
County Business Patterns Reports, provides for each NAICS code 
information on the number of total small and large businesses subjected 
to a receipts-based size standard. Based on the matched SAM data, SBA 
computed percentages of businesses impacted under each impact category 
for each NAICS industry subject to a receipts-based size standard. By 
applying such percentages 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total firms     Estimate of
                           Impact \1\                              (in million)   impacted firms    % Impacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact (i)......................................................         271,505           7,822             2.9
Impact (ii).....................................................       6,896,633          62,822             0.9
Impact (iii)....................................................       6,896,633          62,662             0.9
Impact (iv).....................................................       6,896,633           5,945             0.1
Overall impact:
    Positive [impact (i) or impact (ii)]........................       7,168,138          70,644             1.0
    Negative [impact (iii) or impact (iv)]......................       7,168,138          68,607             1.0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total impact............................................       7,168,138         139,251             1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Impact (i) = Current large businesses gaining small status; Impact (ii) = Current small businesses extending
  small status; Impact (iii) = Current small businesses losing small status; Impact (iv) = Current small
  businesses shortening small 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, SBA's guaranteed loans and 
disaster assistance, reduced patent fees, 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 proposed change may also 
cause some small businesses to lose their small business status in at 
least one receipts-based size standard and access to small business 
assistance, especially Federal set-aside opportunities.
c. The Baseline
    OMB directs agencies to establish an appropriate baseline to 
evaluate benefits, costs, or transfer impacts of regulatory actions and 
alternative approaches considered, if any. The baseline should 
represent the agency's best assessment of what the world would look 
like absent the regulatory action. For a new regulatory action 
modifying an existing regulation (such as changing the annual average 
receipts calculation from 3 years to 5 years), a baseline assuming no 
change to the regulation (i.e., maintaining the status quo) generally 
provides an appropriate benchmark for evaluating benefits, costs, or 
transfer impacts of proposed regulatory changes and their alternatives.
    Based on the 2012 Economic Census special tabulations (the latest 
available), 2012 County Business Patterns Reports (for industries not 
covered by the Economic Census), and 2012 Agricultural Census 
tabulations (for agricultural industries), of a total of about 7.2 
million firms in all industries with receipts-based size standards, 
about 96 percent are considered small and 4 percent other than small 
under the 3-year annual receipts average. Similarly, of 346,958 
businesses that were subject to at least one receipts-based size 
standard and eligible for Federal contracting, 87.5 percent were small 
in at least one NAICS code and 12.5 percent other than small in all 
NAICS codes.
    Based on the data from the Federal Procurement Data System--Next 
Generation (FPDS-NG) for fiscal years 2015-2017, 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 annual average 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.

[[Page 29407]]

    Based on SBA's internal data on its loan programs, small businesses 
subject to receipts-based size standards received, on an annual basis, 
a total of nearly 58,600 7(a) and 504 loans for fiscal years 2016-2018, 
totaling $24.5 billion, of which 85 percent was issued through the 7(a) 
program and 15 percent was issued through the CDC/504 program. During 
fiscal year 2018, small businesses in those industries also received 
about 11,350 loans through the SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loan 
(EIDL) program, totaling about $1.0 billion on an annual basis. Table 
6, ``Baseline Analysis of Receipts-Based Size Standards,'' below, 
provides these baseline results.
    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 proposed rule will have on 
small businesses participating in other agencies' programs that are 
subject to their own size standards based on annual average receipts.

       Table 6--Baseline Analysis of Receipts-Based Size Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Measure                               Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total industries subject to receipts-based standards....             518
Total firms subject to at least one receipts-based                  7.17
 standard (million)--2012 Economic Census...............
Total small firms subject to at least one receipts-based             6.9
 standard (million)--2012 Economic Census...............
Total small firms subject to at least one receipts-based            96.2
 standard as % of total firms--2012 Economic Census.....
Total business concerns in SAM \1\ (as of September 1,           420,381
 2018)..................................................
Total business concerns subject to a receipts-based size         346,958
 standard in at least one NAICS code \2\ (SAM)..........
Total businesses that are small in at least one NAICS            303,514
 code subject to a receipts-based size standard.........
Small business concerns as % of total business concerns             87.5
 subject to receipts-based standards (2018 SAM).........
Average total number of unique Eligible vendors getting          126,500
 Federal contracts \1\--FPDS-NG (2015-2017).............
Average total number of unique firms with receipts-based          88,770
 size standards getting Federal contracts \2\--FPDS-NG
 (2015-2017)............................................
Average total contract dollars awarded to business                  $182
 concerns, subject to receipts-based standards ($
 billion)...............................................
Average total small business contract dollars awarded to           $63.7
 businesses subject to receipts-based standards ($
 billion)...............................................
Small business dollars as % of total dollars awarded to             34.9
 firms subject to receipts-based standards..............
Annual average number of 7(a) and 504 loans to                    58,569
 businesses subject to receipts-based standards (2015-
 2018)..................................................
Annual average amount of 7(a) and 504 loans ($ billion)            $24.5
 (2015-2018)............................................
Number of EIDL loans to businesses subject to receipts-           11,345
 based size standards (2018)............................
Amount of EIDL loans ($ billion)........................            $1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

    As mentioned previously, businesses that would regain or lose small 
business status can be identified by comparing 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. Similarly, if the 5-year annual receipts average of a currently 
small business is higher than the size standard, that business will 
lose its small business status. However, 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 size status shortened, SBA considered small businesses 
whose 3-year annual average receipts average was within 10 percent 
below their receipts-based size thresholds. Small businesses that are 
not immediately impacted may be impacted either negatively or 
positively someday as they continue to grow and approach the size 
standard threshold.
d. Benefits
    The most significant benefits to businesses from the proposed 
change in the period for calculation of annual average 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 size 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 SBA's loan programs, EIDL program, and 
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 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 
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 status 
under the 5-year receipts average in at least one NAICS industry that 
is subject to a receipts-based size standard. Additionally, about 3,800 
or 1.3 percent of small businesses within 10 percent below size 
standards would see their annual receipts decrease under the 5-year 
averaging period, consequently enabling them to keep their size 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 
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

[[Page 29408]]

rule. These results are shown in Table 7, below.
    With more businesses qualifying as small under the proposed change, 
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.

         Table 7--Positive Impacts of Changing the Averaging Period for Receipts From 3 Years to 5 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Large firms     Small firms
                    Impact of proposed change                      gaining small     extending    Total positive
                                                                      status       small status       impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of impacted industries......................................             372             361         \1\ 420
No. of large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending             3,260           3,801       \2\ 6,690
 small status--SAM (as of Sept 1, 2018).........................
Large firms becoming small or/and small firms with extended                  7.5             1.3             1.9
 small status as % of total large or/and small firms in the
 baseline--SAM (as of Sept 1, 2018).............................
No. of large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending             7,822          62,822          70,644
 small status--2012 Economic Census.............................
Large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending small                2.9             0.9             1.0
 status as % of total large or/and small firms in the baseline--
 2012 Economic Census...........................................
No. of large firms becoming small or/and small firms extending               910             838       \2\ 1,700
 small status for small business contracts (FPDS-NG)............
Additional small business dollars available to newly qualified              $961            $133          $1,094
 firms or/and current small firms with extended small status ($
 million).......................................................
Additional small business dollars as % total small business                  1.5             0.2             1.7
 contract dollars in the baseline...............................
No. of additional 7(a) and 504 loans to newly qualified firms or/             54             478             532
 and current small firms extending small status.................
Additional 7(a) and 504 loan amount to newly qualified firms or/             $22            $189            $211
 and current small firms extending small status ($ million).....
Additional 7(a) and 504 loan amount as % of total EIDL loan                  0.1             0.8             0.9
 amount in the baseline.........................................
No. of additional EIDL loans to newly qualified for/firms and                 21              84             105
 small firms extending small status.............................
Additional EIDL loan amount to newly qualified firms or/and                 $2.2            $7.8           $10.0
 small firms with extended small status ($ million).............
Additional EIDL loan amount as % of total loan amount in the                 0.2             0.8             1.0
 baseline.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total impact represents total unique industries impacted to avoid double counting as some industries have
  large firms gaining small status and small firms extending small 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.

    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 status) under the proposed 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.
    Under SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs, based on the data for 
fiscal years 2016-2018, SBA estimates up to about 54 SBA 7(a) and 504 
loans totaling nearly $22.0 million could be made to these newly 
qualified small businesses under the proposed change. Additionally, 
small businesses could receive up to 478 SBA 7(a) and 504 loans 
totaling $189 million due to the extension of their size status. These 
are, respectively, 0.1 percent and 0.8 percent increases to the loan 
amount in the baseline.
    Newly qualified small businesses and those with extended small 
business status will also benefit from the SBA's EIDL program. Since 
the benefit provided through this program is contingent on the 
occurrence and severity of a disaster in the future, SBA cannot make a 
meaningful estimate of this impact. However, based on the historical 
trends of the EIDL data, SBA estimates that, on an annual basis, the 
newly defined small businesses under the proposed change could receive 
about 21 EIDL loans, totaling about $21 million. Similarly, extending 
small business status for a longer period could result in small 
businesses receiving 84 EIDL loans, totaling about $7.8 million. These 
results are presented in Table 7, above.
    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

[[Page 29409]]

benefit from reduced fees, less paperwork, and fewer compliance 
requirements but SBA has no data to quantify this impact.
    The proposed change 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 size status, thereby subjecting 
it to certain requirements that apply to other-than-small firms, such 
as developing subcontracting plans. That firm may not have the 
infrastructure, existing business processes, and/or other resources in 
place in order to comply with such requirements. This may also result 
in constant shuffling between small and other-than-small status.
    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, this proposed rule can expand the pool of 
qualified small firms for agencies to draw upon to meet their small 
business requirements.
e. The Costs
    As stated previously, 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 status 
sooner or rendering some small businesses other than small immediately. 
Such small businesses would no longer be eligible for Federal small 
business opportunities, such as SBA's loans, Federal small business 
contracts, and other Federal assistance available to small businesses. 
These impacts are provided in Table 8, ``Negative Impacts from Changing 
the Averaging Period for Receipts from 3 Years to 5 Years,'' below.

        Table 8--Negative Impacts From Changing the Averaging Period for Receipts From 3 Years to 5 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Small firms     Small firms
                    Impact of proposed change                      losing small     shortening    Total negative
                                                                      status       small status       impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of industries impacted......................................             370             184         \1\ 383
No. of small firms losing or/and shortening small status--SAM              2,855             347       \2\ 3,197
 (as of Sept 1, 2018)...........................................
Small firms losing or shortening small status as % of total                  0.9             0.1             1.1
 small firms--SAM (as of Sept 1, 2018)..........................
No. of small firms losing or extending small status--2012                 62,662           5,945          68,607
 Economic Census................................................
Small firms losing or shortening small status as % of total                  0.9             0.1             1.0
 small firms in the baseline--2012 Economic Census..............
No. of small firms losing or shortening small business                       416              82             498
 eligibility for set-aside contracts--FPDS-NG (2015-17).........
Small business dollars unavailable to small firms losing or                 $289             $46            $335
 shortening small status ($ million)............................
Small business dollars as % of total small business dollars in               0.5            0.07             0.5
 the baseline...................................................
No. of 7(a) and 504 loans unavailable to small firms losing or               565              52             617
 shortening small status........................................
7(a) and 504 loan amount unavailable to small firms losing or               $256             $22            $278
 shortening ($ million).........................................
Unavailable 7(a) and 504 loan amount as % of total loan amount               1.0             0.1             1.1
 in the baseline (baseline = $24.5 billion).....................
No. of EIDL loans unavailable to small firms losing or                       100              21             121
 shortening small status........................................
Unavailable EIDL loan amount to small firms losing or extending             $9.6            $2.2           $11.8
 small status ($ million).......................................
Unavailable EIDL loan amount as % of total EIDL loan amount in               1.0             0.2             1.2
 the baseline (baseline = $1.0 billion).........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total impact represents total unique industries impacted to avoid double counting as some industries have
  small firms losing small status and small firms shortening small 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.

    SBA estimates that, of 303,514 firms in 2018 SAM that were small 
under at least one receipts-based size standard based on the 3-year 
receipts average, 2,855 firms (or 0.9 percent) would lose their small 
status and another 347 firms (or 0.1 percent) would see their size 
status shortened as a result of the proposed change. Similarly, based 
on the 2012 Economic Census data, about 62,650 firms would lose their 
small business status and about 5,950 firms would see their size status 
shortened, which represent, respectively, 0.9 percent and 0.1 percent 
of total small firms subject to a receipts-based size standard.
    Based on the contract awards data from FPDS-NG for fiscal years 
2015-2017, businesses losing or shortening small status would lose 
access to about $335 million in Federal small business contract 
collars, which is about a 0.5 percent decrease from the corresponding 
value in the baseline. Similarly, based on the SBA's loan data for 
fiscal years 2016-2018 and the number of impacted firms from the 
Economic Census, SBA estimates that businesses losing or shortening 
small status would also lose access to about $277 million in SBA 7(a) 
and 504 loans and $12 million in EIDL loans. These are, respectively, 
1.1 percent and 1.2 percent of the corresponding baseline values.
    Businesses losing small status and those with size status shortened 
would also be deprived of other Federal benefits available, including 
reduced fees and exemptions from certain paperwork and compliance

[[Page 29410]]

requirements. However, there exists no data to quantify this impact.
    Additionally, by enabling mid-size businesses to regain small 
business status and lengthening the small business status of advanced 
and successful larger small businesses, the proposed 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 large small businesses for 
Federal opportunities for 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. Furthermore, this proposed 
rule does not establish the new size standards for the first time; 
rather, it merely proposes to modify the calculation of annual average 
receipts that apply to the existing size standards in accordance with a 
statutory requirement.
    The proposed change 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 seeking SBA's loans; more firms eligible for enrollment in the 
Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) database or in certify.sba.gov; 
more firms seeking certification as 8(a)/BD or HUBZone firms or 
qualifying for small business, WOSB, EDWOSB, and SDVOSB status; and 
more firms applying for SBA's 8(a)/BD and All-Small Mentor-
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs. With an expanded pool of small 
businesses, it is likely that Federal agencies will set aside more 
contracts for small businesses under the proposed change. 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 actually 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. Among those newly defined small businesses 
seeking SBA's loans, there could be some additional costs associated 
with compliance and verification of their small business status. 
However, small business lenders have an option of using the tangible 
net worth and net income based alternative size standard instead of 
using the industry-based size standard to establish eligibility for 
SBA's loans. For these reasons, SBA believes that these added 
administrative costs will be minor because necessary mechanisms are 
already in place to handle these added requirements.
    Additionally, some Federal contracts may possibly have higher 
costs. With a greater number of businesses defined as small under the 
proposed change, 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 proposed increases to size standards, 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. Net Impact
    As discussed elsewhere, the proposed rule would result in four 
primary impacts, which can be categorized as either having a `positive 
impact' or `negative impact' on size status of both currently large and 
small businesses. Allowing some currently large firms to gain small 
business status and some advanced small firms to remain small for a 
longer period represents the positive impact of the proposed rule. 
Causing some currently small firms to lose or shorten their small 
business is the negative impact.
    Although businesses in a majority of industries with receipts-based 
size standards would be both positively and negatively impacted by this 
proposed rule, in totality the number firms with positive impacts was 
generally greater than the number of firms with negative impacts. The 
proposed rule would result in a net gain of about $759 million (or 1.2 
percent) in Federal small business dollars. However, due to the 
relative sizes of the industries in terms of the number of firms, the 
net impact of the proposed rule on SBA loans was slightly negative. SBA 
estimates a net loss of 0.3 percent of 7(a) and 504 loans and 0.2 
percent of EIDL loans to small firms as a result of changing the period 
for calculating annual average receipts from 3 years to 5 years. Net 
impacts of the proposed rule are summarized in Table 9, ``Net Impact 
from Changing the Averaging Period for Receipts from 3 Years to 5 
Years,'' below.

           Table 9--Net Impact From Changing the Averaging Period for Receipts From 3 Years to 5 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total           Total
                    Impact of proposed change                        positive        negative       Net  impact
                                                                      impact          impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total no. of impacted firms--SAM (as of Sept 1, 2018)...........           6,690           3,197           3,493
Impacted firms as % of total firms in the baseline--SAM (as of               1.9             0.9             1.0
 Sept 1, 2018)..................................................
Number of impacted firms--2012 Economic Census..................          70,644          68,607           2,037
Impacted firms as % of total firms in the baseline--2012                     1.0             1.0            0.03
 Economic Census................................................

[[Page 29411]]

 
Number of impacted firms eligible for set-aside contracts (FPDS-           1,700             498           1,200
 NG)............................................................
Small business dollars impacted ($ million).....................          $1,094            $335            $759
Small business dollars impacted as % total set-aside dollars in              1.7             0.5             1.2
 the baseline...................................................
Number of 7(a) and 504 loans impacted...........................             532             617             -85
7(a) and 504 loan amount impacted ($ million)...................            $211            $277            -$66
7(a) and 504 loan amount impacted as % of total 7(a) and 504                 0.9             1.1            -0.3
 loan amount in the baseline....................................
No. of EID loans impacted.......................................             105             121             -16
EID loan amount impacted ($ million)............................           $10.0           $11.8           -$1.8
EID loan amount impacted as % of total loan amount in the                    1.0             1.2            -0.2
 baseline.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Transfer Impacts
    The proposed change 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. 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 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 
proposed rule will not have substantial, direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. Therefore, SBA has determined that this proposed 
rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a 
federalism assessment.

D. Executive Order 13563

    Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both 
costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting 
flexibility. A description of the need for this regulatory action and 
benefits and costs associated with this action, including possible 
distributional impacts that relate to Executive Order 13563 is included 
above in the Benefit-Cost Analysis under Executive Order 12866. 
Additionally, Executive Order 13563, Section 6, calls for retrospective 
analyses of existing rules.
    Following the enactment of Public Law 115-324, SBA issued a public 
notice advising business and contracting communities that SBA must go 
through a rulemaking process to implement the new law and that 
businesses still must report their receipts based on a 3-year average 
until SBA changes its regulations. SBA updated the Small Business 
Procurement Advisory Council (SBPAC) at its March 26, 2019, and April 
23, 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 draft 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 proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 
regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866.

F. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), this proposed rule, if 
adopted, may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses in industries subject to receipts-based size standards. As 
described above, this rule may affect small businesses in those 
industries seeking Federal contracts, loans under SBA's 7(a), 504 and 
EIDL programs, and assistance under other Federal small business 
programs.
    Immediately below, SBA sets forth an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA) of this proposed 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,

[[Page 29412]]

overlap, or conflict with the rule?; and (5) What alternatives will 
allow the Agency to accomplish its regulatory objectives while 
minimizing the impact on small businesses?
1. What are the need for and objective of the rule?
    Recently, Public Law 115-324 amended section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of 
the Small Business Act by modifying the period for calculating annual 
average receipts of business concerns providing services in a proposed 
size standard prescribed by an agency without separate statutory 
authority to issue size standards from 3 years to 5 years. This 
proposed rule is needed to implement Public Law 115-324 and to make 
consistent changes to SBA's definition of annual receipts by amending 
the SBA's regulations on the calculation of annual average receipts for 
all receipts-based standards from over 3 years to over 5 years.
2. What are SBA's description and estimate of the number of small 
businesses to which the rule will apply?
    This proposed rule applies to all small businesses that are subject 
to a receipts-based size standard. Based on the 2012 Economic Census 
special tabulations, 2012 County Business Patterns Reports, and 2012 
Agricultural Census tabulations, of a total of about 7.2 million firms 
in all industries with receipts-based size standards to which the rule 
will apply, 6.9 million or about 96.0 percent are considered small 
under the 3-year annual receipts average. Of 346,958 total concerns in 
SAM 2018 to which the rule will apply, about 303,500 or 87.5 percent 
were small in at least one NAICS industry with a receipts-based size 
standard. Similarly, based on the data from FPDS-NG for fiscal years 
2015-2017, on average, about 88,770 unique firms in industries subject 
to receipts-based size standards received at least one Federal contract 
during that period, of which 83 percent, or 73,825 were small.
3. What are the projected reporting, record-keeping and other 
compliance requirements of the rule?
    The proposed rule changes existing reporting or record-keeping 
requirements for small businesses. In reporting receipts to SBA for an 
SBA size determination, businesses will report a 5-year average rather 
than a 3-year average. To qualify for Federal procurement and a few 
other programs requires businesses to register in SAM and to self-
certify that they are small at least once annually. Therefore, 
businesses opting to participate in those programs must comply with SAM 
requirements. There are no costs associated with SAM registration or 
certification. Changing size standards alters access to SBA's programs 
that assist small businesses but does not impose a regulatory burden 
because they neither regulate nor control business behavior.
4. What are the relevant Federal rules, which may duplicate, overlap or 
conflict with the rule?
    Under 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 authorizes an Agency to establish an alternative small 
business definition, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of 
the U.S. Small Business Administration (5 U.S.C. 601(3)).
5. What alternatives will allow the Agency to accomplish its regulatory 
objectives while minimizing the impact on small entities?
    By law, SBA is required to develop numerical size standards for 
establishing eligibility for Federal small business assistance 
programs. Other than varying size standards by industry and changing 
the size measures, no practical alternative exists to the systems of 
numerical size standards. As stated elsewhere, the objective of this 
proposed rule is to change SBA regulations on the calculation of 
business size in terms of annual average receipts to implement Public 
Law 115-324 and there are no other alternatives to achieve that 
objective.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 
SBA has determined that this proposed rule would amend an information 
collection (SBA Form 355, Information for Small Business Size 
Determination, which was previously approved under OMB Control Number 
3245-0101). In addition to seeking reinstatement of this information 
collection, SBA will also submit it to OMB for approval of the changes 
described below. Certain proposed revisions in Parts III and IV of Form 
355 address the change from 3 years to 5 years for calculating annual 
average receipts. Other proposed revisions to the form would be 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. The 
proposed 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 annual average receipts.
    First, SBA will amend 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 the requirement to identify a labor surplus county, as well as 
obsolete information about industries with special size standards; and 
to include in the certification a statement that accompanying 
documentation is true and correct.
    Second, in Part 1, SBA will clarify that the information relates to 
the applicant business; add a checkbox for the firm to identify its 
corporate organization structure; require a firm to disclose whether it 
is organized for profit; and remove 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 will also be amended to request ownership 
information for owners that are entities until the respondent 
identifies the ultimate owners that are natural persons.
    Third, in Part II, SBA will limit the information requested about 
employees to businesses that are being evaluated under an employee-
based size standard.
    Fourth, in Part III, SBA will limit the information request about 
receipts to businesses that are being evaluated under a receipts-based 
size standard. SBA will add 2 additional lines to the entries for 
annual receipts so that a business that has been in business for 5 
years provides information about its most recently competed 5 fiscal 
years.
    Fifth, in Part IV, SBA will add that the business must provide 
information for any business that the applicant's owner

[[Page 29413]]

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, remove the request for addresses of 
individual owners and managers, request ownership information for 
owners that are entities until the respondent identifies the ultimate 
owners that are natural persons, limit the request for employee 
information to applicants being evaluated under an employee-based size 
standard, limit the information request for receipts information to 
applicants being evaluated under a receipts-based size standard, and 
add two rows to the receipts table so that the receipts of acknowledged 
affiliates are reported based on a 5-year average.
    Sixth, in Part V, SBA will remove requests about acknowledged 
affiliates that are covered in Part IV; delete questions about 
performance of work on the contract, financial impact of termination 
for default, and specific terms and conditions of the contract; and add 
a question about actual or proposed subcontracts between the applicant 
and any of its alleged affiliates.
    SBA determines that these changes to the information collection 
will cause the paperwork burden to remain at 4 hours. The changes will 
require a business in an industry with a receipts-based size standard 
to gather information about the business's 5 prior fiscal years and 
complete information about its 5 prior fiscal years and the 5 prior 
fiscal years for acknowledged affiliates. However, a business with a 
receipts-based size standard will not complete information about its 
number of employees. Similarly, a business with an employee-based size 
standard will not complete information about its receipts. 
Additionally, SBA has removed all requests for the addresses of 
individual owners and managers, and deleted 3 questions from Part V.
    The deadline and method for submitting comments are as stated above 
in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections, respectively. 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.
    1. Title and Description: SBA Form 355, Information for Small 
Business Size Determination. The information provided in this form will 
be used by SBA for a size determination of a business applying for 
assistance available to small businesses under any program administered 
by this Agency, except for its SBIC Program which uses SBA Form 480, or 
at the request of another Federal agency for purposes of its small 
business program.
    Need and Purpose: This information collection is necessary for SBA 
to, among other things, evaluate the eligibility of an applicant for 
SBA's small business programs.
    OMB Control Number: 3245-0101.
    Description of and Estimated Number of Respondents: This 
information will be collected from small businesses seeking an SBA 
determination of size. Based on historical information, SBA estimates 
this number to be between 500 and 600 each year.
    Estimated Response Time: 4 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 2,000-2,400.
    SBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed changes to this 
collection of information are necessary for the proper performance of 
SBA's functions, including whether the information will have a 
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of SBA's estimate of the burden of 
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways 
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when 
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 121

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, 
Government property, Grant programs--business, Individuals with 
disabilities, Loan programs--business, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Small businesses.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, SBA proposes to amend 13 
CFR part 121 as follows:

PART 121--SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 662, and 694a(9).

    2. In Sec.  121.104 revise the second sentence of paragraphs (a), 
paragraphs (c) and (d)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.104   How does SBA calculate annual receipts?

    (a) * * * Generally, receipts are considered ``total income'' (or 
in the case of a sole proprietorship ``gross income'') plus ``cost of 
goods sold'' as these terms are defined and reported on Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) tax return forms (such as Form 1120 for 
corporations; Form 1120S for S corporations; Form 1120, Form 1065 or 
Form 1040 for LLCs; Form 1065 for partnerships; Form 1040, Schedule F 
for farms; Form 1040, Schedule C for other sole proprietorships) * * *
* * * * *
    (c) Period of measurement. (1) 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.
    (2) Annual receipts 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) 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.
    (d) Annual receipts of affiliates.
* * * * *
    (3) 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.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend by Sec.  121.903 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) as follows:


Sec.  121.903   How may an agency use size standards for its programs 
that are different than those established by SBA?

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (ii) The size of a services concern by its average annual receipts 
over a period of at least 5 years, determined according to Sec.  
121.104;
* * * * *

    Dated: June 6, 2019.
Christopher M. Pilkerton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-12754 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P