65FR37689 Small Business Size Standards; General Building Contractors, Heavy Construction, Except Building, Dredging and Surface Cleanup Activities, Special Trade Contractors, Garbage and Refuse Collection, Without Disposal, and Refuse Systems
robop...@us.govnews.org
Posting-number: Volume 65, Issue 117, Page 37689
[Federal Register: June 16, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 117)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37689-37694]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jn00-1]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
[[Page 37689]]
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 121
Small Business Size Standards; General Building Contractors,
Heavy Construction, Except Building, Dredging and Surface Cleanup
Activities, Special Trade Contractors, Garbage and Refuse Collection,
Without Disposal, and Refuse Systems
AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Small Business Administration (SBA) is establishing a size
standard of $27.5 million in average annual receipts for all industries
in General Building Contractors, Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) Major Group 15, and for all industries except Dredging and
Surface Cleanup Activities in Heavy Construction Other Than Building
Construction, SIC Major Group 16; $17.0 million for Dredging and
Surface Cleanup Activities, part of SIC 1629, Heavy Construction, Not
Elsewhere Classified (NEC); $11.5 million for all industries in Special
Trade Contractors, SIC Major Group 17; and $10.0 million for Garbage
and Refuse Collection, Without Disposal, part of SIC 4212, Local
Trucking Without Storage, and Refuse Systems, SIC 4953. These revisions
are being made to adjust the Construction and Refuse size standards for
the effects of inflation from the time they were established in the
mid-1980s through 1999, and to address unique costs trends in the
Dredging industry.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 17, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert N. Ray, Office of Size
Standards (202) 205-6618.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 26, 1999, SBA proposed increasing
the size standards for the Construction and Refuse Systems and Related
Services industries (see 64 FR 40311). We proposed size standards of
$25 million for all industries in General Building Contractors, SIC
Major Group 15, (referred to as the General Construction industry) and
for all industries except Dredging and Surface Cleanup Activities in
Heavy Construction Other Than Building Construction, SIC Major Group
16, (referred to as the Heavy Construction industry); $20.0 million for
Dredging and Surface Cleanup Activities, part of SIC 1629, Heavy
Construction, NEC (referred to as the Dredging industry ); $10.5
million for all Special Trade Contractors industries, SIC Major Group
17 (referred to as the Special Trades industry); and $9.0 million for
Garbage and Refuse Collection, Without Disposal, part of SIC 4212,
Local Trucking Without Storage, and Refuse Systems, SIC 4953, (referred
to as the Refuse industries).
These proposed increases were designed to adjust the current size
standards for the effects of inflation that had occurred since 1984,
when all but one of these size standards became effective. (The one
exception, the Dredging industry, first became effective on December 9,
1985.) Inflation had increased 48.2% based on the change in the price
level for the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product
between the third quarter of 1982 and the fourth quarter of 1993 (the
time period that most other receipts-based size standards were last
adjusted for inflation). By adjusting the Construction and Refuse size
standards to the same point in time, we attempted to have all receipts-
based size standards adjusted for inflation to a common base year of
1994.
In response to the comments received on the proposed rule, this
final rule adopts different size standards than proposed. For all of
the Construction industries, except the Dredging industry, and for the
Refuse industries, the proposed size standards are further increased to
reflect inflation that has occurred through 1999. For the Dredging
industry, however, a lower size standard than proposed is adopted to
more realistically reflect inflationary trends that have occurred since
the establishment of the current $13.5 million Dredging size standard.
The remainder of the final rule discusses the comments we received on
the proposed rule and our reasons for adopting different size
standards.
Construction and Refuse Size Standards
We have decided to increase the size standards for all of the
Construction industries (except for the Dredging industry) and the
Refuse industries to account for inflation through 1999 rather than
through 1994 as proposed. This decision is based on several factors.
First, comments on the proposed rule were nearly unanimous that an
inflation adjustment to the Construction and Refuse size standards was
an acceptable basis for changing these size standards. Second, about
one-fourth of the comments to the proposed Construction and Refuse size
standards argued for higher size standards than the ones adjusted to
the 1994 level. Third, SBA is committed to more frequent inflation
adjustments than has occurred in the past, and five years would seem to
be sufficient time to wait for an inflationary adjustment. Considering
these factors together, we conclude that these size standards should be
adjusted for inflation to 1999.
By choosing to inflate its Construction and Refuse size standards
to 1999, SBA is again positioning its receipts-based size standards to
different base periods. Most receipts-based size standards were changed
in 1994 using the inflation rate between 1982 and 1993 (see 59 FR
16513, dated April 7, 1994). This rule, however, changes the
Construction and Refuse size standards to a 1999 base. This change
results in an additional 10.5% inflation adjustment to these size
standards than the inflation rate applied in 1994.
We generally prefer to have all receipts-based size standards
adjusted to the same base year. This achieves comparability among
industry size standards. Since this rule is inflating a number of size
standards to 1999, we anticipate that we will propose in the near
future a broad-based inflation adjustment to our receipts-based size
standards. Since we have already proposed increases to the Construction
and Refuse size standards and received overwhelming support for the
concept of increasing these size standards for inflation, we see no
need to go through a second rulemaking action to make the changes
associated with this final rule.
[[Page 37690]]
Inflation Adjustment Methodology
To adjust the Construction and Refuse size standards through 1999,
we calculated an additional inflation adjustment to the proposed size
standards of July 26, 1999. The proposed size standards were based on
inflation up to the fourth quarter of calendar year 1993 (the latest
available data at the time of the 1994 final rule). Currently, the
latest available inflation data is for the fourth quarter of 1999. In
determining the rate of inflation, we continue to use the U.S.
Department of Commerce's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Implicit Price
Deflator. Currently, the latest published data show index values of
94.98 for the fourth quarter of 1993 and 104.99 for the fourth quarter
of 1999. This change records inflation of 10.5% between the two periods
((104.99/94.98)-1)*100)=10.54%, rounded to 10.5%).
Each of the Construction and Refuse size standards receives an
inflationary adjustment of 10.5% from the proposed size standards of
$25.0 million for General and Heavy Construction, $10.5 million for
Special Trades and $9.0 million for Refuse. The inflated size standards
are rounded to the nearest half-million dollar increment similar to
previous inflation adjustments to SBA's size standards. This rounding
method produces net increases to most industry size standards that are
slightly above or below the calculated 10.5% inflation rate. This
method is selected because it results in an increase to each size
standard that is as close as possible to the calculated 10.5%
inflationary increase. The following table shows the calculation of the
Construction and Refuse size standards adjusted to 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size
New size standards
standard in millions
Proposed calculation of dollars
size Inflation in millions after
Industry standard in index of dollars rounding to
millions of (Column 2 the nearest
dollars times $0.5
Column3) million
increment
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General and Heavy Construction.............................. $25.0 1.105 $27.625 $27.5
Special Trades industry..................................... 10.5 1.105 11.603 11.5
Refuse industries........................................... 9.0 1.105 9.945 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Construction and Refuse Size Standards
Comments
We received 45 comments to the proposed rule. Twenty-six comments
addressed the General and Heavy Construction proposed size standard of
$25 million in average annual receipts. Eleven of these comments also
addressed the Special Trades size standard that was proposed to be
$10.5 million. All of the comments to the Special Trades, however,
discussed all of the Construction size standards rather than narrowly
focusing on the Special Trade industries. When references were made to
Special Trades, all of the comments except one recommended the proposed
$10.5 million size standard. The one comment not recommending this size
standard, supported a size standard in the $7 to $10 million range.
Significantly, no comment primarily addressing the Construction size
standards opposed some increase to the Construction size standards.
Of the 26 comments addressing the General and Heavy Construction
size standards, 19 supported the proposed size standard of $25 million
and the concept of an inflationary adjustment, while six argued for a
higher size standard between $27 million and $32 million, and one
comment advocated a size standard of $17 million for both the Dredging
industry and General and Heavy Construction (This comment appeared to
be primarily addressing the Dredging industry size standard rather than
the General Construction size standard). Most of the comments arguing
for a size standard higher than proposed believed that the current size
standard should be increased to reflect inflation through 1999. Four of
these comments also noted that there would likely be a lengthy delay
before the next inflationary adjustment, and that SBA should set a size
standard that would consider the amount of time before it would again
propose an inflation adjustment to the receipts-based size standards.
Of the three associations commenting on the proposed size standard
revision, two supported a higher size standard of $30 million to $32
million in average annual receipts, and one recommended more frequent
inflation adjustments in the future. The one comment recommending a $17
million size standard believed that there is sufficient competition
among small businesses with a $17 million size standard to justify the
retention of this size standard, however, the comment primarily focused
on the Dredging industry.
Of the seven comments addressing the Refuse size standard, three
supported the proposed size standard of $9 million, three argued for a
size standard greater than $9 million and one contended that it should
remain at $6 million. The comments advocating a higher size standard
than $9 million claimed that businesses had to be larger than $9
million to be competitive in the industry. According to these comments,
consolidations and mergers have made it difficult for small businesses
to compete against the resources of the largest businesses in the
industry. On the other hand, the comment opposing the proposed size
standard was concerned that a $9 million size standard would qualify a
business in the top 100 firms in the industry. Further, small
businesses are competitive given their lower costs and overhead, as
evidenced by small businesses receiving more than 40% of Federal refuse
contracts.
The comments received on the Construction and Refuse industries
overwhelmingly support an inflation adjustment to the current size
standards. In addition, about one-half of the Refuse comments and about
one-fourth of the Construction comments presented reasons supporting a
further upward adjustment to the size standards in recognition of the
additional inflation that has been present in the economy over the 1994
to 1999 period. Of these latter construction comments, two were from
important trade associations representing large segments of the
industry.
We believe in light of these comments that we should proceed now
with a further inflation adjustment to 1999 levels and avoid the delay
that would occur from a second rulemaking action. In the proposed rule,
we discussed
[[Page 37691]]
adjusting these size standards to the 1999 levels as alternative size
standards. We chose not to propose that alternative since it would
result in some size standards being adjusted to 1999 while all other
receipts-based size standards adjusted to 1994. We would prefer to
adjust all size standards to the same period of time. However, the
comments have convinced us that a further inflation adjustment to these
size standards at this time results in more appropriate size standards
than what we proposed. We believe that the comments supporting an
inflationary adjustment through 1994 would not oppose an adjustment
through 1999. We do not believe, however, that the size standards
should be raised beyond the 1999 level in anticipation of future
inflation, which in any case is unpredictable.
We are concerned about the trends in the Refuse industry that were
cited by six of the eight comments. Although one comment argued that
small businesses were very competitive, the industry appears to have
been consolidating in recent years. Three comments cited concerns of
vertical integration, consolidation and buyouts of smaller firms by
larger firms. Three other comments cited a concern over larger Federal
contracts in recent years--a trend which normally favors larger
companies. Furthermore, small businesses have been obtaining a smaller
share of Federal refuse contracts over the past few years. (See the
Small Business Administration's report to Congress ``The Small Business
Competitiveness Demonstration Program October 1, 1997-September 30,
1998,'' dated December 1999, Table A-2b. This report is available on
SBA's web page at www.sba.gov/opc/pubs/compdemo/.) We plan to examine
these trends closer to determine the implications on the size standard
in the future.
Dredging Industry Size Standard
SBA received 22 comments to the proposed $20 million size standard
for the Dredging industry. Seven of the comments, or about one-third of
the Dredging industry comments, supported the proposed inflationary
adjusted size standard of $20 million. Another seven comments opposed
any change in the current $13.5 million Dredging industry size
standard. Three comments supported a size standard that fell between
the current size standard of $13.5 million and the proposed size
standard of $20 million. Four comments argued for a size standard
higher than $20 million. However, three of these comments appeared to
be from firms primarily engaged in General and Heavy Construction
rather than the Dredging industry, and they essentially focused their
comments on the Construction size standards. A comment from a dredging
association took no position on the proposed Dredging industry size
standard.
Partly in response to these comments, we have decided to adopt a
$17 million size standard for the Dredging industry rather than
adjusting the size standard by the proposed inflationary increase (to
$20 million) as applied to the other industry size standards addressed
in this final rule. The four major issues raised by the comments and
our reason for adopting a $17 million size standard are discussed
below.
(1) One comment pointed out that costs per cubic yard have not
matched the general rate of inflation used in the proposed rule. This
view appears to be supported by three other comments that seek a size
standard that would be less than a full inflationary adjustment. While
these comments did not directly address the inflationary issue, their
contention that industry conditions did not merit a full inflationary
increase suggests a view that cost pressures may not be as great in the
Dredging industry as in the economy generally. Since the proposed rule
adjusted for inflation through 1994, dredging costs through 1999, it
was argued, did not even match the 1994 general inflation level.
Based on a further review of costs trends in the Dredging industry,
we agree that a smaller inflation adjustment is more appropriate for
this industry's size standard. While we usually prefer to apply the
same inflation adjustment to all industries, the Dredging industry is a
relatively small industry and unique in the sense that most of this
industry's revenues are derived from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
dredging contracts. As such, we believe relevant data exist for us to
more precisely assess inflation trends in the Dredging industry.
The U.S. Corps of Engineers (the Corps) collects data on dredging
costs. In lieu of price indexes developed by Federal statistical
agencies, these data provide the best source of information to address
the impact of inflation in the Dredging industry. Almost all dredging
work performed by small businesses is for maintenance dredging. For
this reason, we believe the Corps' costs data on maintenance dredging
are the most appropriate data to assess the impact of dredging
inflation trends on small businesses. The following table shows the
Corps data relating to the costs per cubic yard of maintenance dredging
from fiscal years 1982 to 1998:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance
Fiscal year dollars Cubic yards Cost per cubic
(millions) (millions) yard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982...................................................... $76.0 60.0 $1.27
1983...................................................... 64.0 48.0 1.33
1984...................................................... 80.0 49.0 1.63
1985...................................................... 73.0 65.0 1.12
1986...................................................... 80.0 64.0 1.25
1987...................................................... 66.0 47.7 1.38
1988...................................................... 73.4 58.2 1.26
1989...................................................... 68.5 58.7 1.26
1990...................................................... 61.8 35.0 1.17
1991...................................................... 99.6 62.4 1.60
1992...................................................... 89.2 52.4 1.70
1993...................................................... 75.0 38.3 1.96
1994...................................................... 84.3 52.5 1.61
1995...................................................... 88.8 53.8 1.65
1996...................................................... 85.4 52.5 1.63
1997...................................................... 95.9 67.8 1.41
1998...................................................... 76.6 42.4 1.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center for data used in calculating the cost per cubic yard
of maintenance dredged materials on Corps of Engineers contracts, February 28, 1999 revised data.
[[Page 37692]]
From FY 1982 to FY 1998, maintenance dredging costs have increased
42.5%. However, the high cost per cubic yard in FY 1998 appears to be a
one year outlier due to a very low volume of maintenance work in that
year as compared to the typical amount of maintenance work in previous
years. We're reluctant to inflate the Dredging industry size standard
by an inflation rate that may have been partially influenced by work
load in a single year. To moderate the influence of work load, we have
decided to calculate an average cost per cubic yard for the last three
fiscal years. For fiscal years 1996-98, the average cost per cubic yard
was $1.617 (($1.63+$1.41+$1.81)/3). Using this figure, maintenance
dredging costs have increased 27.3% (($1.617/$1.27)-1)*100) since FY
1982. Applying this increase to the current Dredging industry size
standard results in a $17 million size standard ($13.5 *1.273=$17.186,
or $17 million rounded to the nearest $0.5 million increment).
This figure of $17.0 million would permit a number of businesses
presently in the $9 million to $13.5 million range to grow without
losing eligibility for SBA preference programs based on size. We do not
believe that there are any businesses that are primarily in the
Dredging industry that presently fall in the $13.5 million to $20.0
million size range directly affected by the proposed rule or this final
rule. Consequently, there would be no immediate impact from businesses
gaining eligibility because of their size in the small business
category in which the set-aside program restricts bidding. There will,
however, be some businesses that will gain status as emerging small
businesses (a business whose size is one-half or less than the size
standard). This measure will increase from $6.75 million to $8.5
million. This category is reserved for dredging contracts that are
$400,000 or less in value. We estimate that only these dredging
businesses will be directly impacted by this final rule, and this
impact will be limited because contracts less than $400,000 in size
constitute only a small percentage of total Federal dredging contracts
expenditures.
(2) Seven comments believe a higher size standard would hurt other
small businesses. They cited the declining importance of small
businesses in the Dredging industry in recent years. For example, they
pointed out that 45 small businesses were awarded contracts in FY 1991,
but only 19 were awarded contracts in FY 1998. Also, only a few small
businesses received a majority of Federal contract dollars. A number of
small businesses have gone out of business while other small businesses
have been bought out by large businesses or consolidated their
operations in recent years.
We do not agree that the level of the current size standard has
played a role in reducing the number of small businesses receiving
Federal dredging contracts. From year to year, variations will occur in
which different size businesses will receive contracts. Data for FY
1997 and FY 1999 present a different picture of small business trends.
For FY 1997, 40 small businesses received contracts, with 17 of these
small businesses receiving more than one contract award. For FY 1999,
34 small businesses won dredging contacts, with 14 receiving more than
one contract. These two years were more similar to the FY 1991 result
than the FY 1998 experience.
Furthermore, a review of the top four small businesses receiving
awards in FY 1998 and FY 1999 does not suggest that other small
businesses are being harmed due to the size of these firms. The small
business that received the largest amount of contract dollars in FY
1998 won all of its contracts on an unrestricted basis. Two of the
other three small businesses were emerging small businesses (businesses
at or below one-half of the size standard). In FY 1999, the top four
small businesses received 41% of total small businesses contract
dollars--much less than the 54% amount of total small business
contracts dollars obtained in FY 1998.
These trends do not suggest that smaller businesses have been
harmed by the level of the current Dredging size standard. Based on the
comments from other small businesses that supported an increase to size
standard, we believe an increase in the current size standard to
account for inflation is unlikely to harm smaller dredging businesses.
Also, we generally view a declining share of contract dollars to
small businesses in an industry as supporting a higher size standard.
Higher size standards usually result in more eligible bidders and a
somewhat higher likelihood that preference programs oriented toward
small businesses will be utilized. This, in turn, could help the
remaining small businesses that are active in the industry to survive
and expand operations. Although cost trends in the industry for small
firms do not point to the need of a size standard as high as the
proposed $20 million, they do support a size standard of $17 million.
(3) Several comments stated that Federal dredging contracts have
grown larger in size, while total contracting has remained the same in
dollar terms. These comments argued that larger-sized contracts lessen
opportunities for small dredging businesses, and thus, support the need
for a higher size standard.
We agree that the trend of larger contracts is one factor that may
justify a higher size standard. To have smaller businesses in an
industry compete for a greater proportion of larger-sized dredging
contracts, a higher size standard may be warranted. We believe a $17
million size standard will assist currently defined small businesses in
obtaining some additional dredging opportunities in light of a trend
towards larger-sized contracts.
(4) Four comments cited the fact that most Federal contracting goes
to a few large businesses that are awarded the larger contracts as a
reason for SBA to increase the Dredging size standard. We generally
agree, noting that small dredging businesses have been receiving about
20% or less of Federal dredging contracts while the top four businesses
in the industry received 56% in FY 1999. We believe a higher Dredging
industry size standard might result in greater use of small business
preference programs and partially offset a pattern in which a majority
of Federal contracting consistently has been awarded to a few large
businesses.
Compliance With Executive Orders 13132, 12988, and 12866, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35)
SBA has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory
action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 since it is expected
to have an annual economic effect of over $100 million. For purposes of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, this rule has a significant impact on a
substantial number of small businesses. Immediately below, SBA sets
forth a regulatory flexibility analysis and economic impact analysis of
this final rule.
1. Description of Entities to Which the Rule Applies
SBA estimates that 2,548 additional businesses would be considered
small as a result of this rule. These businesses would be eligible to
seek available SBA assistance provided that they meet other program
requirements. Many of those businesses that were in existence in 1984
undoubtedly had small business status at the time when the size
standards were established, but have since lost eligibility because of
inflationary increases.
[[Page 37693]]
Of the additional businesses gaining eligibility, 654 operate as
General Construction, 394 operate in Heavy Construction, 1,363 operate
in the Special Trades industries, while 137 operate in Refuse.
Businesses becoming eligible for SBA assistance as a result of this
rule cumulatively generate $33.7 billion in annual sales, which
represents 6% of the $564 billion of total sales in these industries.
Of the $33.7 billion in annual sales for newly eligible businesses,
$13.1 billion are in General Construction, $7.6 billion are in Heavy
Construction, $12.0 billion are in Special Trades, and $1.0 billion are
in Refuse.
SBA estimates that out of approximately $7.85 billion in total
initial Federal contracts per year, an additional $471 million worth of
contracts could be awarded to businesses designated as small businesses
in the four industry groups affected by this rule. (This estimate
assumes the newly categorized small businesses will receive 6% of the
$7.85 billion in total initial Federal contracts per year.) Of these
contracts, $445 million may be awarded to newly defined small
businesses and $26 million to currently defined small businesses. These
contracts could be obtained through awards under the small business
set-aside Program, the 8(a) Program, the Small Disadvantaged Business
(SDB) Program, the HUBZone Empowerment Contracting Program, or on an
unrestricted basis.
Also, these newly defined small businesses would be eligible for
SBA's financial assistance programs and could potentially receive an
estimated $24.8 million in loans under the 7(a) Guaranteed Loan Program
and $4.6 million in loans under the Certified Development Company (504)
Program.
2. Description of Potential Benefits of the Rule
This rule will result in an increase in the number of businesses
eligible for small business set-aside contracts, the 8(a) Program, and
SDB and HUBZone price preferences. For Federal contracts set aside for
small business or competed under the 8(a) and HUBZone Programs, this
rule will lead to an increase in competition for these contracts and
lower overall costs to the government.
When an SDB or a HUBZone business competes for an unrestricted
contract, the Federal government generally allows them a price
preference of up to 10%. An increase in the size standard will increase
the number of businesses competing for these contracts in two ways.
First, the number of SDB and HUBZone businesses will increase. Second,
with more small businesses competing on unrestricted contracts, the
government may decide to set aside more contracts for competition among
all small businesses where they had previously awarded price
preferences. Any increase in competition that results in a more
efficient or competitive business being awarded a contract will result
in a benefit.
3. Description of Potential Costs of the Rule
In areas where the rule acts to decrease competition for contracts,
it may lead to an increase in costs to the Federal government. This may
occur in areas where small businesses are currently not present or are
not bidding on Federal contracts. If, after issuance of this rule,
small businesses bid on these contracts and require the government to
provide a price preference, or the rule causes a decision to set aside
a size a contract under one of the procurement preference programs, it
may increase costs to the Federal government on some contracts. These
additional costs, however, are likely to be relatively minor since, as
a matter of policy, procurements may be set aside for small businesses
or under the 8(a), HUBZone or SDB Programs only if awards are expected
to be made at fair and reasonable prices
4. Transfers
The primary effect of this rule will be transfers among the four
parties--Federal government, large businesses, businesses gaining small
business status under this rule, and businesses that are currently
small businesses. SBA estimates that of the $471 million Federal
contracts expected to be awarded to small businesses and the newly
defined small businesses, approximately 11.3%, or $53.2 million, may be
reallocated from large businesses to current small businesses and the
newly defined small businesses.
The remaining $417.8 million of contracts will not change hands,
rather, the businesses holding the contracts will be reclassified as
small under the rule. In addition, $3.9 billion of initial contracts
awarded to small businesses, SBA estimates that $52.4 million could be
transferred from small businesses to larger, more efficient or
competitive, newly defined small businesses.
5. Description of Reasons Why This Action is Being Taken and Objectives
of Rule
SBA has provided in the supplementary information a statement of
the reasons why these new size standards should be established and a
statement of the reasons for and the objectives of the rule.
For the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., SBA has determined that this rule would not impose new reporting
or record keeping requirements. For purposes of Executive Order 13132,
SBA has determined that this rule does not have any federalism
implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. For
purposes of Executive Order 12988, SBA certifies that this rule is
drafted to the extent practicable, in accordance with the standards set
forth in that order.
List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 121
Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs--
business, Loan Programs--business, Small business.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR part 121
as follows:
PART 121--SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632(a), 634(b)(6), 637(a), 644(c), and
662(5); and Sec. 304, Pub. L. 103--403, 108 Stat. 4175, 4188.
Sec. 121.201 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 121.201, the table ``SIZE STANDARDS BY SIC INDUSTRY'' is
amended as follows:
a. Revise DIVISION C--CONSTRUCTION
b. Under DIVISION E--TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRIC, GAS,
AND SANITARY SERVICES, MAJOR GROUP 42--MOTOR FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION AND
WAREHOUSING, revise the entry 4212 (Part):
c. Under DIVISION E--TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRIC, GAS,
AND SANITARY SERVICES, MAJOR GROUP 49--ELECTRIC, GAS AND SANITARY
SERVICES, revise the entry 4953 to read as follows:
[[Page 37694]]
Size Standards by SIC Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size standards in
number of
SIC code and description employees or
millions of
dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION C--CONSTRUCTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR GROUP 15--BUILDING CONSTRUCTION--GENERAL $27.5
CONTRACTORS AND OPERATIVE BUILDERS..................
MAJOR GROUP 16-HEAVY CONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN BUILDING 27.5
CONSTRUCTION--CONTRACTORS...........................
EXCEPT:
1629 (Part) Dredging and Surface Cleanup \1\ 17.0
Activities......................................
MAJOR GROUP 17--CONSTRUCTION--SPECIAL TRADE 11.5
CONTRACTORS.........................................
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION E--TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRIC, GAS, AND SANITARY
SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
4212 (Part) Garbage and Refuse Collection, Without 10.0
Disposal............................................
* * * *
* * *
4953 Refuse Systems.................................. 10.0
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SIC code 1629--Dredging: To be considered small for purposes of
Government procurement, a firm must perform at least 40 percent of the
volume dredged with its own equipment or equipment owned by another
small dredging concern.
Dated: March 27, 2000.
Aida Alvarez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-15258 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-U