prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: Requirements for military awards and decorations can change over time  New events and changes in military, political, or social conditions can generate debate over who is eligible for various military awards  These changes tend to be controversial, especially with veterans groups  Congress has considered several pieces of legislation that would change who would be eligible to receive the Purple Heart, and under what conditions  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have greatly increased the number of servicemembers receiving the Purple Heart award as well as the potential conditions under which they receive the award  Increasingly acknowledged conditions, such as traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as accidents and other events while deployed, bring up new questions as to when a servicemember deserves a Purple Heart  The July 17, 2015, shooting of servicemembers at a Marine recruiting office and a naval reserve center in Chattanooga, TN, again prompted questions about applying the Purple Heart to terrorist attacks versus criminal acts  Veterans groups often voice their views when Congress or the President proposes making changes to expand eligibility for the Purple Heart  These groups argue, for example, that a servicemember who acquires PTSD may not always deserve the same recognition as a servicemember killed or wounded in direct combat, while others contend that these medical conditions can debilitate servicemembers just as much as physical injuries and can have lasting effects on servicemembers' lives  Determining which actions and events make a servicemember qualified for receiving a Purple Heart, and whether expanding eligibility does a disservice to those who have already earned the award, are contentious elements of this debate  Although Congress has traditionally left many military award requirements to the executive branch, the Constitution does allow Congress to act in this area, and events have prompted changes regarding eligibility for the Purple Heart  On December 19, 2014, Congress passed The Carl Levin and Howard P  "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015  Section 571 of the NDAA for FY2015 expanded eligibility by redefining what should be considered an attack by a "foreign terrorist organization" for purposes of determining eligibility for the Purple Heart  As a result, servicemembers wounded and killed in the 2009 shootings in Little Rock, AR, and at Fort Hood, TX, were awarded Purple Hearts in 2015  Congressional offices often receive questions about Purple Heart eligibility from constituents, especially when eligibility rules change  The number of these questions is likely to increase as servicemembers return from conflicts around the world and if eligibility requirements are again changed  This report will examine the history of the Purple Heart and changes in eligibility over time as well as current issues facing Congress  In 1782, George Washington created the Badge of Military Merit to reward "any singularly meritorious action" displayed by a soldier, noncommissioned officer, or officer in the Continental Army  This award was intended to encourage gallantry and fidelity among soldiers, and would later become known as the Purple Heart  The Badge of Military Merit was designed as a purple heart of cloth edged with a narrow lace  Records are incomplete and researchers debate how many soldiers received this award  According to Military Order of the Purple Heart, three soldiers from Connecticut were the first to receive the Badge of Military Merit during the American Revolutionary War  All three were noncommissioned officers and the only recipients who received the award from General Washington  The soldiers were Sergeant William Brown, 5 th Connecticut Regiment of the Connecticut Line on May 3, 1783; Sergeant Elijah Churchill, 2 nd Continental Light Dragoons on May 3, 1783; and Sergeant Daniel Bissell, 2 nd Connecticut Regiment of the Connecticut Line, on June 10, 1783  However, the Badge of Military Merit fell into disuse shortly after its conception  The Badge of Military Merit was not seriously considered again until General Douglas MacArthur (then Army Chief of Staff) revived the award on February 22, 1932, the 200 th anniversary of George Washington's birth  This award, renamed the "Purple Heart," was redesigned to its modern appearance: a purple heart-shaped medal with bronze border and George Washington's coat of arms between two green spray leaves  See Figure 1   General MacArthur also redefined the eligibility requirements to those who received Meritorious Service Citation certificates from World War I or those authorized to wear wound chevrons by Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22, Military Awards   It was at this point that the Purple Heart became focused on soldiers killed and wounded in combat, rather than "any singularly meritorious act " In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt extended the Purple Heart award, which to this point was exclusively an Army award, to Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard members serving in World War II  In 1952, President Truman retroactively awarded Purple Hearts to personnel in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard that qualified after April 5, 1917, thus including World War I veterans of all services  From 1962 until 1998, eligibility for the Purple Hearts was changed on several occasions  President Kennedy authorized Purple Hearts to all servicemembers, and civilians serving with the Armed Forces, who were engaged in armed conflict against an opposing military or hostile foreign force  This expansion was written to permit U S  servicemembers, and the civilians that accompanied them, who were killed or wounded in Vietnam to receive the Purple Heart, as many of those servicemembers were officially considered advisors to the Republic of Vietnam, rather than combatants  Purple Heart eligibility was expanded again by President Reagan to include military personnel and government civilians killed or wounded in international terrorist attacks after March 28, 1973, or those serving in peacekeeping operations outside of the United States  This expansion was in response to increased terrorist attacks against U S  servicemembers abroad, namely the Marine Corps Barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983  The NDAA for Fiscal Year 1996 expanded eligibility to prisoners of war injured or wounded in captivity prior to 1962, a group of servicemembers previously not covered for Purple Heart eligibility by President Kennedy's executive order  In 1997, President Clinton signed the NDAA for Fiscal Year 1998, which limited future awards of the Purple Heart to military personnel  It has since remained a military-only award  The Department of Defense does not maintain a record of the number of Purple Heart recipients  However, some military historians estimated more than 1 million Purple Hearts have been awarded mostly to soldiers since 1932  Likewise, the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor estimates 1 8 million Purple Hearts have been awarded since the medal was established by the Army in 1932  During the 115 th Congress (2017-2018), H R  7097 was introduced as the "Find our Hearts Act " It would have amended Title 10, United States Code, to require the establishment of a searchable database containing the names and citations of members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Purple Heart  H R  7097 was referred to the House Armed Services Committee but saw no further action  See Table 1 for current Purple Heart legislation  Currently, the Purple Heart is authorized for any member of the U S  Armed Forces who has been wounded or died from wounds sustained under one of the following conditions: (1) In accordance with E O  11016, subject to the provisions of Sections 1129, 1129a, and 1131 of Title 10, U S C , and P L  104-106 , the Secretary of a Military Department, will, in the name of the President of the United States, award the PH, with suitable ribbons and appurtenances, to any Service member under the jurisdiction of that Department who, after April 5, 1917, has been wounded, killed, or who has died or may hereafter die of wounds received under any of the following circumstances: (a) In action against an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which U S  Armed Forces are or have been engaged  (b) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Military Services are or have been engaged  (c) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party  (d) As a result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed forces  (e) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force  (f) After March 28, 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack for purposes of award of the PH by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, or jointly by the Secretaries of the Military Departments concerned if members from more than one Military Department are wounded in the attack  The Secretary of the Military Department concerned shall notify the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness USD(P&R) prior to awarding the PH for an international terrorist attack that occurs in the United States or its territories  (g) After March 28, 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force  (h) On or after December 7, 1941, pursuant to Section 1129 of Title 10, U S C , a service member who is killed or wounded in action as the result of action by friendly weapon fire while directly engaged in combat, other than as a result of an act of an enemy of the United States, unless (in the case of a wound) the wound is the result of willful misconduct of the member  (i) Before April 25, 1962, pursuant to Section 521 of P L  104-106 which held as a prisoner of war (POW), or while being taken captive in the same manner as a former POW who is wounded on or after that date while held as a POW  A person will be considered to be a former POW if the person is eligible for the POW Medal under Section 1128 of Title 10, U S C  (j) On or after December 7, 1941, to a Service member who is killed or dies while in captivity as a prisoner of war (POW) under circumstances establishing eligibility for the POW medal pursuant to section 1128 of Title 10, U S C , and Volume 2 of DoD Manual 1348 33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards , unless compelling evidence is presented that shows that the member's death was not the result of enemy action  (k) After September 11, 2001, pursuant to section 1129a of Title 10, U S C , to a Service member on active duty who is killed or wounded in an attack by a foreign terrorist organizations in circumstances where the death or wound is the result of an attack targeted on the member due to such member's status as a member of the armed forces  An attack by an individual or entity shall be considered to be a foreign terrorist attack if the individual or entity was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack and the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization  An award is not authorized if the death or wound was the result of the willful misconduct of the Service member  To assist in making a PH determination pursuant to section 1129a of Title 10, U S C , the Military Department Secretary concerned may request an intelligence assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agencies' Defense Combating Terrorism Center (DCTC)  The DCTC assessment of potential foreign terrorist attacks by an individual or entity will assess whether the individual or entity was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack, and if the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization  The assessment shall include supporting citations and rationale  (2) A wound for which the award is made must have been of such severity that it required treatment, not just examination, by a military medical officer  (a) Treatment must be noted in the Servicemember's medical record  (b) Award may be made of wounds treated by a medical professional other than a medical officer provided a medical officer issues a statement in the Service member's medical record that the extent of the wounds were such that the wounds would have required treatment from a medical officer if one had one been available to treat the wounds  (3) After May 17, 1998, pursuant to Section 1131 of Title 10, U S C , the PH may only be awarded to a person who is a Service member at the time the person is killed or wounded under circumstances otherwise qualifying that person for award of the PH  Before this date, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned was authorized to award the PH to U S  civilian nationals who were serving under competent authority in any capacity with the armed forces of that department  For deceased servicemembers, the Purple Heart may be given to the representatives of the deceased as the individual Service Secretary considers appropriate  Servicemembers can be awarded multiple Purple Hearts for separate incidents  The servicemember receives the Purple Heart medal for the first award  Subsequent awards are indicated with oak leaf clusters or 5/16 inch service stars, depending on the rules of the recipient's service  Purple Hearts may not be awarded to foreign military personnel  Although the decision to award medals and other military decorations traditionally rests with the executive branch, Congress has been expanding its role in this area in recent decades, exercising its constitutional power "To Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces " Previously, Congress took the lead and adjusted Purple Heart eligibility in both the NDAA for FY1996 and the NDAA for FY1998  See Appendix A   In response to some mass shootings in recent years, Congress passed a provision in the NDAA for FY2015 that expanded the Purple Heart's eligibility requirements  On June 1, 2009, a man who was allegedly angry over the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan opened fire on two U S  Army soldiers near a recruiting station in Little Rock, AR, killing one and wounding the other  On November 5, 2009, an Army major opened fire at Ft  Hood, TX, killing 13 and wounding 29, many of them servicemembers  Both men were charged with murder and other crimes  Federal and local law enforcement authorities initially considered these acts to be crimes, and the Defense Department reports the Fort Hood shooting as "workplace violence," not acts perpetrated by an enemy or hostile force, which made them ineligible for the Purple Heart  However, some believed these acts should be viewed as acts of war or domestic terrorism because they involved Muslim perpetrators angered over U S
Report 2:  NHTSA began implementing a mandated 2-year pilot grant program intended to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of informing consumers about open auto recalls during state vehicle registration  In September 2016, NHTSA solicited applications to participate in the program, wherein selected states would inform consumers—at no charge—about open recalls using all means that permit consumers to register vehicles within the state (e g , in person, Internet, and mail)  According to NHTSA, only one state applied for the grant  In September 2017, NHTSA awarded the sole applicant $223,000  Under the program, the grantee needs to collect and report program performance data, including the extent to which open recalls have been identified and repaired  In addition, the grantee must report whether certain notification means were more effective than others and what could be done to improve the program  Upon completion of the pilot program, NHTSA is required to evaluate the extent to which open recalls identified have been remedied  Auto manufacturers we met with were generally supportive of the program  Specifically, representatives from 9 of the 10 manufacturers told us that notifying consumers about open recalls during vehicle registration can raise consumer awareness or improve recall completion rates  In September 2016, NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposes to require auto manufacturers to notify consumers about open recalls by electronic means—such as e-mails, phone calls, and text messages, in addition to First-Class Mail  As we described earlier, auto manufacturers are currently required to notify consumers about safety recalls affecting their vehicles via First-Class Mail  According to NHTSA, the NPRM aims to aid in efficiently and effectively improving recall completion rates, by proposing that manufacturers provide notification using electronic means in addition to First-Class Mail  Consumers in our focus groups as well as auto manufacturers and consumer associations we interviewed generally supported additional notification using electronic means  Consumers in our focus groups: As we discussed earlier, 69 of the consumers in our focus group discussion sessions reported they would prefer to receive additional notification by at least one type of electronic means  However, only 7 consumers actually received such notifications—suggesting a gap between industry notification practices and notification preferences for these consumers  Auto manufacturers: Representatives from 9 of 10 manufacturers we interviewed told us they generally support providing notification using electronic means  Although the NPRM proposes a broad definition of electronic means to give manufacturers flexibility to determine the most effective means, these representatives also shared implementation concerns  For example, representatives from 1 of the 9 manufacturers told us that—although the company collects e- mail addresses from some customers for other purposes—not all customers provide e-mail addresses, and those collected are not always accurate  As we discussed previously, most manufacturers we met with currently use supplemental electronic means notification on a case-by-case basis  Consumer associations: Similarly, both consumer associations we interviewed told us additional electronic notification can help reach consumers who do not complete repairs after receiving initial mailed notification  NHTSA’s proposal would maintain manufacturer reporting requirements, though it may result in additional reporting  This additional information could help the agency evaluate the effectiveness of various means of consumer notification  We previously found that NHTSA may be able to use manufacturers’ data to identify what factors make some recalls more or less successful than others  We recommended that NHTSA use the recall data it collects to analyze particular patterns or trends that may characterize successful recalls and determine whether these factors represent best practices  If the NPRM is finalized, manufacturers would provide NHTSA with representative copies of the newly required electronic notifications, in addition to mailed notifications, and would specify the electronic means used, such as e-mail or text message  According to NHTSA officials, this information could allow the agency to track and evaluate the effectiveness of various notification means used by manufacturers by, for example, comparing completion rates across means—a key step in identifying best practices that could encourage consumers to complete repairs  However, it is too early for NHTSA to conduct such an evaluation, because the agency has not issued a final rule  NHTSA officials told us the agency is working with the administration on NHTSA’s regulatory portfolio and priorities, including this rulemaking  NHTSA has also taken steps to collaborate with industry stakeholders and explore consumer education best practices  For example, in April 2015 NHTSA hosted a day-long workshop that brought together auto industry stakeholders to examine public education of the recall process  During the workshop, participants identified current barriers to the public’s awareness of auto recalls and discussed potential solutions to address them, such as using text messages and social media to communicate with younger consumers and using different delivery methods for recall notices  Similarly, in January 2016 NHTSA and 18 auto manufacturers adopted a set of Proactive Safety Principles to explore and employ new ways to increase safety recall participation rates  For example, NHTSA and auto manufacturers agreed to share industry best practices and policies based on lessons learned from ongoing safety recalls  The Independent Monitor of Takata in conjunction with NHTSA has also issued a set of coordinated communications recommendations based on consumer research, best practices observed during the Takata recall, and discussions with manufacturers  For example, the recommendations encourage manufacturers to: pursue a “multi-touch” communications strategy that employs non- traditional means, such as e-mail and text messages; convey risk in clear, accurate and urgent terms; and include a clear “call to action” designed to facilitate prompt and efficient scheduling of repairs  According to NHTSA officials, the agency relies on auto manufacturers to evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts  However, agency officials told us NHTSA reviews manufacturers communication plans as part of the Takata recall’s Coordinated Remedy Program and provides ongoing recommendations on manufacturers’ communication language, approach, and strategies  With the recent steep increase in safety defect vehicle recalls and continued low recall completion rates, it is vital for consumers to be able to easily access and use publicly available auto recall information  NHTSA has taken important steps to improve its website—which provides safety recall information to consumers—resulting in most consumers in our focus groups finding the website easy to use  However, the difficulties some experienced in attempting to complete essential auto recall tasks demonstrated that NHTSA gov does not always reflect key website usability practices for website design  Although NHTSA plans to conduct a website usability study with consumers after consolidating its websites, it has not determined a completion date for this effort—an essential step for organizations to effectively guide their information technology efforts  Without such a date, the website usability difficulties may persist and limit the effectiveness of NHTSA gov in providing consumers with recall information about their vehicles  By addressing these difficulties in the interim, NHTSA can better assure that consumers obtain this information, which can be vital to their safety  We are making the following two recommendations to NHTSA: The Administrator of NHTSA should determine a completion date for the agency’s website consolidation effort  (Recommendation 1) The Administrator of NHTSA should, while the agency continues its website consolidation effort, take interim steps to improve the usability of the auto recall areas of NHTSA gov by addressing the website usability difficulties we identified  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment  In its written comments, reproduced in appendix VI, DOT stated that it concurred with our recommendations  The department also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of NHTSA  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII  This report examines the use of publicly available auto recall information for safety defects affecting passenger vehicles  The report addresses the following objectives: (1) How do consumers and industry stakeholders use publicly available auto recall information? (2) How easy or difficult to use do consumers find the auto recall areas of NHTSA gov? (3) What steps, if any, has the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) taken to raise consumer awareness about auto recalls and how has NHTSA evaluated the effectiveness of these steps? We define publicly available auto recall information to include information on the auto recall areas of NHTSA gov, such as examples of notification letters that manufacturers mail to consumers  This report focuses on safety defect vehicle recalls affecting passenger vehicles that are initiated when a defect in a vehicle or vehicle equipment creates an unreasonable safety risk, as determined by NHTSA or a manufacturer  To determine how consumers use publicly available auto recall information, we conducted and analyzed transcripts and questionnaires from 12 consumer focus groups we conducted with used and new vehicle owners who had experienced an auto recall in the last 24 months  Each focus group was split into two sessions: (1) a discussion session to explore participants’ thoughts, experiences, and preferences about auto recall information and (2) a website usability testing session  Also, we administered a questionnaire as part of each of these sessions  For the discussion session, we asked consumers about the recall notification process and how they used the recall information, and for the website usability testing session, we asked consumers to fill in a questionnaire during the session itself as they assessed the usability of the auto recall areas of NHTSA’s website  We conducted the 12 focus groups at six locations across the country, with each group including 7 or 8 consumers for a total of 94 participants  Half of the focus groups were comprised of consumers who had completed the repair and the remaining half included consumers who had not completed the repair  We selected the six focus group locations to provide population and geographic dispersion  To ensure geographic dispersion, we selected at least one location in each U S  Census region (see table 3)  To ensure population dispersion, we selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas representing a range of population sizes based on 2015 U S  Census estimates  To ensure our selection included the perspectives of vehicle owners in geographically distant or isolated communities, we also selected a rural location, which we defined as a city or town that has a population of less than 50,000 inhabitants and is not an urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants  Using information provided by the participants, we selected focus group participants based on age, income, gender, education level, race, and ethnicity to ensure we collected a range of perspectives on auto recall information use  However, since we did not select a representative sample of participants, focus group results are not generalizable to all vehicle owners  During focus group discussion sessions, we asked participants to discuss factors they considered when deciding whether to repair their recalled vehicle and then to select the single most influential factor  Each of the 12 focus group sessions was audio recorded and transcriptions were created; transcripts served as the record for each group  We then evaluated those transcripts using systematic content analysis to identify the factors consumers considered when deciding whether to complete repairs and any suggested improvements to the auto recall communication process  The analysis was conducted in three steps  First, two analysts independently developed a code framework and then worked together to resolve any discrepancies  Second, each transcript was coded independently by analysts using the framework and any discrepancies were resolved by both analysts agreeing on the coding of the associated statement by a participant  Third, if needed, another analyst adjudicated any continued disagreement between coders  Because the transcripts did not include a unique identifier for each focus group participant, we conducted our analysis of focus group session discussions at the group level (i e , of the 12 focus groups we conducted)  We also administered and analyzed a questionnaire as part of each discussion session to quantify responses regarding consumers’ use of auto recall information, including how they received and preferred to receive auto recall notifications  Our analysis of the questionnaire responses was conducted at the individual consumer level (i e , of the 94 consumers who participated)  These focus group sessions were structured, guided by a moderator who used a standardized list of questions to encourage participants to share their thoughts, experiences, and preferences  We also conducted two pretest focus groups at our headquarters and made some revisions to the focus group guide prior to beginning the sessions with consumers  Methodologically, focus groups are not designed to demonstrate the extent of a problem or to generalize results to a larger population or provide statistically representative samples or reliable quantitative estimates  Instead, they are intended to generate in-depth information about the reasons for the focus group participants’ thoughts, experiences, and preferences on specific topics  The projectability of the information produced by our focus group sessions is limited  For example, the information includes only the responses from the vehicle owners from the 12 selected groups and their individual responses to questions we asked  The experiences and preferences expressed may not reflect other vehicle owners’ thoughts and preferences  In addition, while the composition of the groups was designed to ensure a range of age and education levels, among the other criteria mentioned previously, the groups were not constructed using a random sampling method  To determine how industry stakeholders use auto recall information, we interviewed selected auto manufacturers, selected franchised and independent auto dealerships, NHTSA program officials, and other industry stakeholders  Specifically, we interviewed representatives from the following 10 auto manufacturers, selected based on each manufacturer’s sales market share (small, medium, and large), place of ownership (foreign and domestic), and experience with auto recalls (lower to higher based on the average annual number of auto recall campaigns and average market share of each manufacturer from 2010 to 2014) to collect a range of perspectives on how manufacturers use auto recall information: Tesla Motors, Inc  To understand the perspective of auto dealers, we interviewed four franchised dealerships, one in each of the four U S  Census regions where we conducted focus groups with consumers  We also interviewed three independent auto dealerships in two U S  Census regions  The results of these interviews are not generalizable to all auto manufacturers and dealerships, but provide insights about how some industry stakeholders use auto recall information  We conducted interviews with NHTSA program officials to understand NHTSA’s role in the auto recall process  In addition, we interviewed other stakeholders, including the Independent Monitor of Takata, which assists NHTSA in overseeing the Takata recall, as well as officials from consumer associations and other industry groups (see table 4)  To evaluate how easy or difficult consumers find the auto recall areas of NHTSA gov to use, we reviewed various website usability resources to understand federal and industry key website usability practices for making websites easy to use, such as focusing on design and how easily users can find information  In addition, we reviewed federal standards for internal control related to communicating quality information externally  During our usability testing sessions, we asked consumers to attempt to complete auto recall tasks—the primary means NHTSA gov provides for consumers to access information about auto recalls affecting their vehicles—and discuss their experiences  We then compared consumers’ experiences with the usability of the website against these practices  To identify key website usability practices, we analyzed guidance documents from NHTSA and other federal agencies  For example, we analyzed the General Services Administration’s (GSA) and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines, which includes quantified, peer-reviewed guidelines intended to help federal agencies improve the design and usability of their information-based websites  We also analyzed GSA’s Requirements for Federal Websites and Digital Services, and the U S  Digital Services Playbook to identify key practices for making websites easy to use  Identified key practices are: (1) design and content— focusing on the layout, headers, and design; (2) navigation—how easily users can find information; (3) clarity—the ability to read and digest content; (4) identity and purpose—whether the site clearly presents its purpose; and (5) accessibility—the ability of people with physical or mental disabilities to use the site  To analyze the results of focus group website testing sessions, we performed a systematic content analysis of the session transcripts using the same content analysis methods described above and an analysis of the questionnaire we administered to each participant during the website usability sessions  Specifically, we analyzed the transcripts from the website usability testing sessions to account for consumers’ experiences, including their initial impressions of the website and any suggested usability improvements  We also analyzed the results of the questionnaire that each participant completed where participants were asked to mark responses regarding their experience including an assessment of the usability of the auto recall areas of NHTSA gov  Our analysis of the results from the questionnaire responses was conducted at the individual consumer level (i e , of the 94 consumers who participated) while our analysis of focus group session discussions was conducted at the group level (i e , of the 12 focus groups we conducted)  To corroborate the results of usability testing sessions we conducted with the consumers in our focus groups, we requested that five website usability professionals from GSA’s Federal User Experience Community conduct an independent evaluation of the auto recall areas of NHTSA gov against federal and industry key website usability practices (described above)  The website usability professionals developed a website usability evaluation form, which they used to individually evaluate the auto recall areas of NHTSA’s website  The website usability professionals then met to form a consensus and provided us with one final group evaluation of the website usability of the auto recall areas of NHTSA gov  Also, although neither our usability testing nor the website usability evaluation conducted by website usability professionals directly addressed accessibility, we interviewed responsible agency officials about how the agency assesses the accessibility of NHTSA gov  We also requested and analyzed website data provided by NHTSA to understand how consumers access and use NHTSA gov  Requested data included the number of subscribers to NHTSA’s Recall Notification E-mail System Sign-up; the number of weekly vehicle identification number (VIN) searches performed on NHTSA gov from August 2014 through May 2017; and NHTSA gov usage data by device (i e , usage by mobile devices, tablets, and desktop computers)  We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing any supporting documents provided by the agency and interviewing responsible NHTSA officials, and concluded the data were sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes  While we did not independently review the usability of auto manufacturers’ auto recall websites, we requested and reviewed the results of any audits that NHTSA performed of these websites, including whether the websites met statutory and regulatory requirements for providing auto recall information to the public  We then corroborated any audit findings by reviewing the auto recall websites of the selected auto manufacturers that we interviewed  To determine any steps NHTSA has taken to raise consumer awareness about auto recalls and how NHTSA evaluates the effectiveness of any steps, we reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and proposed rules, including the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to recall notification methods  We also reviewed agency and other documents that describe or evaluate NHTSA’s public awareness activities  For example, we analyzed NHTSA’s strategic planning documents—such as NHTSA’s Strategic Plan 2016–2020—to identify ongoing public awareness activities along with their related goals, objectives, or performance metrics  Similarly, we requested and analyzed any documents NHTSA uses to evaluate the effectiveness of its public awareness activities, including performance reports for NHTSA’s ongoing Safe Cars Save Lives campaign  To assess the reliability of data included in these performance reports— such as VIN searches performed—we reviewed agency documentation and interviewed agency officials about the reliability, accuracy, and completeness of the data and determined the data were sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes  We reviewed performance management practices as provided in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, and standards for internal control in the federal government to identify any opportunities for improvement  We also performed a literature review to identify any related published articles and research studies  To understand how NHTSA implements and evaluates any public awareness activities, we also interviewed responsible agency officials from NHTSA’s Office of Communications and Consumer Information and other offices  In addition, we discussed NHTSA’s public awareness efforts during interviews with industry stakeholders, including selected auto manufacturers, selected franchised and independent auto dealerships, and other industry stakeholders  We analyzed the results of these interviews along with the focus group discussions we conducted with consumers (discussed above) to identify perspectives on the effectiveness of NHTSA’s public awareness steps  We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to December 2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is required to conduct a biennial analysis of vehicle safety recall completion rates and submit the results of its analysis in a report to certain congressional committees  The report must include, among other things, the annual recall completion rate by vehicle type and vehicle component (such as brakes, fuel systems, and air bags) for each of the 5 years preceding the year the report is submitted  According to NHTSA’s May 2017 report, completion rates for all vehicles combined ranged between 63 percent and 67 percent between calendar year 2011 and calendar year 2014 (see table 5)  However, NHTSA reported wider variation when the recall completion rates are broken down by vehicle type  Similarly, the report found that completion rates for most component categories fall within a range of 60 percent to 75 percent (see table 6)  The annual completion rate is a volume-based, weighted metric, such that the more vehicles affected by the recall, the more weight or influence it has on the computed rate  Focus group participants responded to a questionnaire we administered to collect information on consumers’ auto recall notification preferences during our discussion sessions  Table 7 shows participants’ responses to the administered questionnaire, by age group  We present these responses by age group, because consumers’ notification preferences may vary according to their ages  Focus group participants responded to a questionnaire we administered to collect information on the usability of NHTSA gov during our usability testing sessions  Table 8 shows focus group participants’ responses to the administered questionnaire, by age group  We present these responses by age group, because consumers’ website usability needs or preferences may vary according to their ages  In addition to the individual named above, H  Brandon Haller (Assistant Director); Katherine Blair; Jason Blake; Melissa Bodeau; Alicia Cackley; William Colwell (Analyst in Charge); Lacey Coppage; Elizabeth Dretsch; Jaci Evans; Marcia Fernandez; Sarah Kaczmarek; Malika Rice; Todd Schartung; and Andrew Stavisky made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: Small business size standards are of congressional interest because they have a pivotal role in determining eligibility for Small Business Administration (SBA) assistance as well as federal contracting and, in some instances, tax preferences. Although there is bipartisan agreement that the nation's small businesses play an important role in the American economy, there are differences of opinion concerning how to define them. The Small Business Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-163, as amended) authorized the SBA to establish size standards to ensure that only small businesses receive SBA assistance. The SBA currently uses two types of size standards to determine SBA program eligibility: industry-specific size standards and alternative size standards based on the applicant's maximum tangible net worth and average net income after federal taxes. The SBA's industry-specific size standards determine program eligibility for firms in 1,036 industrial classifications in 23 sub-industry activities described in the 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The size standards are based on one of four measures: (1) number of employees, (2) average annual receipts in the previous three (may soon be the previous five) years, (3) average asset size as reported in the firm's four quarterly financial statements for the preceding year, or (4) a combination of number of employees and barrel per day refining capacity. Overall, about 97% of all employer firms qualify as small under the SBA's size standards. These firms represent about 30% of industry receipts. The SBA conducts an analysis of various economic factors, such as each industry's overall competitiveness and the competitiveness of firms within each industry, to determine its size standards. However, in the absence of precise statutory guidance and consensus on how to define small, the SBA's size standards have often been challenged, typically by industry representatives seeking to increase the number of firms eligible for assistance and by Members concerned that the size standards may not adequately target assistance to firms that they consider to be truly small. This report provides a historical examination of the SBA's size standards and assesses competing views concerning how to define a small business. It also discusses P.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which authorized the SBA to establish an alternative size standard using maximum tangible net worth and average net income after federal taxes for both the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs; established, until the SBA acted, an interim alternative size standard for the 7(a) and 504/CDC programs of not more than $15 million in tangible net worth and not more than $5 million in average net income after federal taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) for the two full fiscal years before the date of the application; and required the SBA to conduct a detailed review of not less than one-third of the SBA's industry size standards every 18 months beginning on the new law's date of enactment (September 27, 2010) and ensure that each size standard is reviewed at least once every five years. P.L. 112-239, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which directed the SBA not to limit the number of size standards and to assign the appropriate size standard to each NAICS industrial classification. This provision addressed the SBA's practice of limiting the number of size standards it used and combining size standards within industrial groups as a means to reduce the complexity of its size standards and to provide greater consistency for industrial classifications that have similar economic characteristics. P.L. 114-328, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which authorizes the SBA to establish different size standards for agricultural enterprises using existing methods and appeal processes. Previously, the small business size standard for agricultural enterprises was set in statute as having annual receipts not in excess of $750,000. P.L. 115-324, the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018, which directs federal agencies proposing a size standard (and, based on report language accompanying the act, presumably the SBA as well) to use the average annual gross receipts from at least the previous five years, instead of the previous three years, when seeking SBA approval to establish a size standard based on annual gross receipts. Legislation introduced during recent Congresses (including H.R. 33, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2017, and its Senate companion bill, S. 584, during the 115th Congress) to authorize the SBA's Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy to approve or disapprove a size standard requested by a federal agency for purposes other than the Small Business Act or the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. The SBA's Administrator currently has that authority.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: The Small Business Act of 1953 (P L  83-163, as amended) authorized the U S  Small Business Administration (SBA) and justified the agency's existence on the grounds that small businesses are essential to the maintenance of the free enterprise system  In economic terms, the congressional intent was to assist small businesses as a means to deter monopoly and oligarchy formation within all industries and the market failures caused by the elimination or reduction of competition in the marketplace  Congress decided to allow the SBA to establish size standards to ensure that only small businesses were provided SBA assistance  Specifically, the Small Business Act of 1953 defines a small business as one that is organized for profit; has a place of business in the United States; operates primarily within the United States or makes a significant contribution to the U S  economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials, or labor; is independently owned and operated; and is not dominant in its field on a national basis  The business may be a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, or any other legal form  The SBA conducts an analysis of various economic factors, such as each industry's overall competitiveness and the competitiveness of firms within each industry, to determine its size standards  The analysis is designed to ensure that only small businesses receive SBA assistance and that these small businesses are not dominant in their field on a national basis  The SBA currently uses two types of size standards to determine SBA program eligibility: (1) industry-specific size standards and (2) alternative size standards based on the applicant's maximum tangible net worth and average net income after federal taxes  The SBA's industry-specific size standards are also used to determine eligibility for federal small business contracting purposes  The SBA's industry-specific size standards determine program eligibility for firms in 1,036 industrial classifications (hereinafter industries) in 23 sub-industry activities described in the 2017 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)  Given its mandate to promote competition in the marketplace, the SBA includes an economic analysis of each industry's overall competitiveness and the competitiveness of firms within the industry in its size standards methodology  The size standards are based on four measures: (1) number of employees (505 industries), (2) average annual receipts in the previous three (may soon be the previous five) years (526 industries), (3) average asset size as reported in the firm's four quarterly financial statements for the preceding year (5 industries), or (4) a combination of number of employees and barrel per day refining capacity (1 industry)  Overall, about 97% of all employer firms qualify as small  These firms represent about 30% of industry receipts  In the absence of precise statutory guidance and consensus on how to define small, the SBA's size standards have often been challenged, typically by industry representatives seeking to increase the number of firms eligible for assistance  The size standards have also been challenged by Members of Congress concerned that the size standards may not adequately target federal assistance to firms that they consider to be truly small  This report provides a historical examination of the SBA's size standards and assesses competing views concerning how to define a small business  It also discusses P L  111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which authorized the SBA to establish an alternative size standard using maximum tangible net worth and average net income after federal taxes for both the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs; established, until the SBA acted, an interim alternative size standard for the 7(a) and 504/CDC programs of not more than $15 million in tangible net worth and not more than $5 million in average net income after federal taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) for the two full fiscal years before the date of the application; and required the SBA to conduct a detailed review of not less than one-third of the SBA's industry size standards every 18 months beginning on the new law's date of enactment (September 27, 2010) and ensure that each size standard is reviewed at least once every five years  P L  112-239 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which directs the SBA not to limit the number of size standards and to assign the appropriate size standard to each NAICS industrial classification  This provision addressed the SBA's practice of limiting the number of size standards it used and combining size standards within industrial groups as a means to reduce the complexity of its size standards and to provide greater consistency for industrial classifications that have similar economic characteristics  P L  114-328 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which authorizes the SBA to establish different size standards for agricultural enterprises using existing methods and appeal processes  Previously, the small business size standard for agricultural enterprises was set in statute as having annual receipts not in excess of $750,000  P L  115-324 , the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018, which directs federal agencies proposing a size standard (and, based on report language accompanying the act, presumably the SBA as well) to use the average annual gross receipts from at least the previous five years, instead of the previous three years, when seeking SBA approval to establish a size standard based on annual gross receipts  Legislation introduced during the 112 th Congress ( H R  585 , the Small Business Size Standard Flexibility Act of 2011), 113 th Congress ( H R  2542 , the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013, and included in H R  4 , the Jobs for America Act), 114 th Congress ( H R  527 , the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, and its Senate companion bill, S  1536 ), and 115 th Congress ( H R  33 , the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2017, and its Senate companion bill, S  584 , and included in H R  5 , the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017) to authorize the SBA's Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy to approve or disapprove a size standard requested by a federal agency for purposes other than the Small Business Act or the Small Business Investment Act of 1958  The SBA's Administrator currently has that authority  In 2016 (the most recent available data), there were over 5 95 million employer firms and over 24 8 million nonemployer (self-employed) firms  As Table 1 indicates, there were 5,954,684 employer firms in the United States employing 126,752,238 people and providing total payroll of $6 43 trillion in 2016  Most employer firms (61 6%) had 4 or fewer employees, 78 6% had fewer than 10 employees, 89 1% had fewer than 20 employees, 98 1% had fewer than 100 employees, and 99 7% had fewer than 500 employees in 2016  The table also provides data concerning other economic factors that might be used to define a small business: an employer firm's number of employees as a share (cumulative percentage) of the total number of employer firms, as a share of employer firm total employment, and as a share of employer firm total annual payroll  As will be discussed, the SBA has traditionally applied economic factors to specific industries, not to cumulative statistics for all employer firms, to determine which firms are small businesses  Nonetheless, the data in Table 1 illustrate how the selection of economic factors used to define small business affects the definition's outcome  For example, for illustrative purposes only, if the mid-point (50%) for these three economic factors was used to define what is a small business, three different employee firm sizes would be used to designate firms as small: Businesses would be required to have no more than 4 employees to be defined as small if the definition for small used the mid-point (50%) share of the total number of employer firms (employer firms with no more than four employees accounted for 61 6% of the total number of employer firms in 2016)  Businesses would be required to have no more than 999 employees to be defined as small if the definition for small used the mid-point (50%) share of employer firm total employment (employer firms with no more than 999 employees accounted for 52 6% of employer firm total employment in 2016)  Businesses would be required to have no more than 1,999 employees to be defined as small if the definition for small used the mid-point (50%) share of employer firm total annual payroll (employer firms with no more than 1,999 employees accounted for 51 8% of employer firm total annual payroll in 2016)  Other economic factors that might be used to define a small business include the value of the employer firm's assets or its market share, expressed as a firm's sales revenue from that market divided by the total sales revenue available in that market or as a firm's unit sales volume in that market divided by the total volume of units sold in that market  The Small Business Act of 1953 (P L  83-163, as amended) authorized the SBA to establish size standards for determining eligibility for SBA assistance  More than sixty years have passed since the SBA established its initial small business size standards on January 1, 1957  Yet, decisions made then concerning the rationale and criteria used to define small businesses established precedents that continue to shape current policy  Moreover, as mentioned previously, the SBA relies on an analysis of various economic factors, such as each industry's overall competitiveness and the competitiveness of firms within each industry, in its size standards methodology to ensure that businesses receiving SBA assistance are not dominant in their field on a national basis  However, in the absence of precise statutory guidance and consensus on how to define small, the SBA's size standards have often been challenged, typically by industry representatives seeking to increase the number of firms eligible for assistance and by Members of Congress concerned that the size standards do not adequately target the SBA's assistance to firms that they consider to be truly small  Over the years, the SBA typically reviewed its size standards piecemeal, reviewing specific industries when the SBA determined that an industry's market conditions had changed or the SBA was asked to undertake a review by an industry claiming that its market conditions had changed  On five occasions, in 1980, 1982, 1992, 2004, and 2008, the SBA proposed a comprehensive revision of its size standards  The SBA did not fully implement any of these proposals, but the arguments presented, both for and against the proposals, provide a context for understanding the SBA's current size standards, and the rationale and criteria that have been presented to retain and replace them  As mentioned previously, P L  111-240 requires the SBA to conduct a detailed review of not less than one-third of the SBA's industry size standards during the 18-month period beginning on the date of enactment (September 27, 2010) and during every 18-month period thereafter  The act also requires the SBA to review each size standard at least once every five years  The SBA completed its first five-year review of all SBA industry size standards in 2016  As a result of its five-year review, the SBA estimates that more than 72,000 small businesses gained SBA eligibility  There is no uniform or accepted definition for a small business  Instead, several criteria are used to determine eligibility for small business spending and tax programs  This was also the case when Congress considered establishing the SBA during the early 1950s  For example, in 1952, the House Select Committee on Small Business reviewed federal statutes, executive branch directives, and the academic literature to serve as a guide for determining how to define small businesses  The Select Committee began its review by asserting that the need to define the concept of small business was based on a general consensus that assisting small business was necessary to enhance economic competition, combat monopoly formation, inhibit the concentration of economic power, and maintain "the integrity of independent enterprise " It noted that the definition of small businesses in federal statutes reflected this consensus by taking into consideration the firm's size relative to other firms in its field and "matters of independence and nondominance " For example, the War Mobilization and Reconversion Act of 1944 defined a small business as either "employing 250 wage earners or less" or having "sales volumes, quantities of materials consumed, capital investments, or any other criteria which are reasonably attributable to small plants rather than medium- or large-sized plants " The Selective Service Act of 1948 classified a business as small for military procurement purposes if "(1) its position in the trade or industry of which it is a part is not dominant, (2) the number of its employees does not exceed 500, and (3) it is independently owned and operated " The Select Committee also found that, for data-gathering purposes, the executive branch defined small businesses in relative, as opposed to absolute, terms within specific industries  For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics "defined small business in terms of an average for each industry based on the volume of employment or sales  All firms which fall below this average are deemed to be small " The U S  Census Bureau also used different criteria for different industries  For example, manufacturing firms were classified as small if they had fewer than 100 employees, wholesalers were considered small if they had annual sales below $200,000, and retailers were considered small if they had annual sales below $50,000  According the Census Bureau, in 1952, small businesses accounted for "roughly 92 percent of all business establishments, 45 percent of all employees, and 34 percent of all dollar value of all sales " The Select Committee also noted that in 1951, the National Production Authority's Office of Small Business proposed defining all manufacturing firms with fewer than 50 employees as small and any with more than 2,500 employees as large  Manufacturers employing between these numbers of employees would be considered large or small depending on the general structure of the industry to which they belonged  The larger the percentage of total output produced by large firms, the larger the number of employees a firm could have to be considered small  Using this definition, most manufacturing firms with fewer than 50 employees would be classified as small, but others, such as an aircraft manufacturer, could have as many as 2,500 employees and still be considered small  For procurement purposes, the Select Committee found that executive branch agencies defined small businesses in absolute, as opposed to relative, terms, using 500 employees as the dividing line between large and small firms  Federal agencies defended the so-called 500 employee rule on the grounds that it "had the advantage of easy administration" across federal agencies  In reviewing the academic literature, the Select Committee reported that Abraham Kaplan's Small Business: Its Place and Problems defined small businesses as those with no more than $1 million in annual sales, $100,000 in total assets, and no more than 250 employees  Applying this definition would have classified about 95% of all business concerns as small, and would have accounted for about half of all nonagricultural employees  Based on its review of federal statutes, executive branch directives, and the academic literature, the Select Committee decided that it would not attempt "to formulate a rigid definition of small business" because "the concept of small business must remain flexible and adaptable to the peculiar needs of each instance in which a definition may be required " However, it concluded that the definition of small should be a relative one, as opposed to an absolute one, that took into consideration variations among economic sectors: This committee is also convinced that whatever limits may be established to the category of small business, they must vary from industry to industry according to the general industrial pattern of each  Public policy may demand similar treatment for a firm of 2,500 employees in one industry as it does for a firm of 50 employees in another industry  Each may be faced with the same basic problems of economic survival  Reflecting the view that formulating a rigid definition of small business was impractical, the Small Business Act of 1953 provided leeway in defining small businesses  It defined a small firm as "one that is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation " The SBA was authorized to establish and subsequently alter size standards for determining eligibility for federal programs to assist small business, some of which are administered by the SBA  The act specifies that the size standards "may utilize number of employees, dollar volume of business, net worth, net income, a combination thereof, or other appropriate factors " It also notes that the concept of small is to be defined in a relative sense, varying from industry to industry to the extent necessary to reflect "differing characteristics" among industries  The House Committee on Banking and Currency's report accompanying H R  5141, the Small Business Act of 1953, issued on May 28, 1953, provided the committee's rationale for not providing a detailed definition of small: It would be impractical to include in the act a detailed definition of small business because of the variation between business groups  It is for this reason that the act authorizes the Administration to determine within any industry the concerns which are to be designated small-business concerns for the purposes of the act  The report did not provide specific guidance concerning what the committee might consider to be small, but it did indicate that data on industry employment, as of March 31, 1948, "reveals that on the basis of employment, small business truly is small in size  Of the approximately 4 million business concerns, 87 4% had fewer than 8 employees and 95 2% of the total number of concerns, employed fewer than 20 people " Initially, the SBA created two sets of size standards, one for federal procurement preferences and another for the SBA's loan and management training services  At the request of federal agencies, the SBA adopted the then-prevailing small business size standard used by federal agencies for procurement, which was no more than 500 employees  The SBA retained the right to make exceptions to the no more than 500 employee procurement size standard if the SBA determined that a firm having more than 500 employees was not dominant in its industry  For the SBA's loan and management training services, the SBA's staff reviewed economic data provided by the Census Bureau to arrive at what Wendell Barnes, SBA's Administrator, described at a congressional hearing in 1956 as "a fairly accurate conclusion as to what comprises small business in each industry " Jules Abels, SBA's economic advisor to the Administrator, explained at that congressional hearing how the SBA's staff determined what constituted a small business: There are various techniques for the demarcation lines, but in a study of almost any industry, you will find a large cluster of small concerns around a certain figure     On the other hand, above a certain dividing line you will find relatively few and as you map out a picture of an industry it appears that a dividing line at a certain point is fair  On January 5, 1956, the SBA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register announcing its first proposed small business size standards  During the public comment period, representatives of several industries argued that the proposed standards were too restrictive and excluded too many firms  In response, Mr  Abels testified that the SBA decided to adjust its figures to make them "a little bit more liberal because there was some feeling on the part of certain industries that they were too tight and that they excluded too many firms " The SBA published its final rule concerning its small business size standards on December 7, 1956, and they became effective on January 1, 1957  The SBA decided to use number of employees as the sole criterion for determining if manufacturing firms were small and annual sales or annual receipts as the sole criterion for all other industries  Mr  Abels explained at the congressional hearing the SBA's rationale for using number of employees for classifying manufacturing firms as small and annual sales or annual receipts for all other firms: in the absence of automation which would give one firm in an industry a great advantage over another, roughly speaking if the firms were mechanized to the same extent, a firm with 400 employees would have an output which would be twice as large as the output of a firm with 200 employees     However when you depart from the manufacturing field and go into, say, a distributive field or trade, it then becomes necessary to discard the number of employees, because it is a matter of judicial notice, that one man for example in the distributive trades can sell as much as 100 men can sell  One small construction firm possibly can do a lot more business than one with a lot more employees  A service trade again has its volume geared to something other than the number of employees  So I think that one can say with reasonable certainty that it is only within the manufacturing field that the employee standard is the uniform yardstick, but that other than manufacturing the dollar volume is the appropriate yardstick  The SBA's initial size standards defined most manufacturing firms employing no more than 250 employees as small  In addition, the SBA considered manufacturing firms in some industries (e g , metalworking and small arms) as small if they employed no more than 500 employees, and in some others (e g , sugar refining and tractors) as small if they employed no more than 1,000 employees  To be considered small, wholesalers were required to have annual sales volume of $5 million or less; construction firms had to have average annual receipts of $5 million or less over the preceding three years; trucking and warehousing firms had to have annual receipts of $2 million or less; taxicab companies and most firms in the service trades had to have annual receipts of $1 million or less; and most retail firms had to have annual sales of $1 million or less  Mr  Abels testified that the SBA experienced "continual" protests of its size standards by firms denied financial or support assistance because they were not considered small  He also testified that in each case, the SBA denied the protest and determined, in his words, that the standard was "valid and accurate " In 1977, the U S  General Accounting Office (GAO, now the U S  Government Accountability Office) was asked by the Senate Select Committee on Small Business to review the SBA's size standards  At that time, most of the SBA's size standards remained at their original 1957 levels, other than a one-time upward adjustment for inflation in 1975 for industries using annual sales and receipts to restore eligibility to firms that may have lost small-business status due solely to the effect of inflation  GAO's report, issued in 1978, found that the SBA's size standards "are often high and often are not justified by economic rationale " Specifically, GAO reported that many size standards may not direct assistance to the target group described in SBA regulations as businesses "struggling to become or remain competitive" because the loan and procurement size standards for most industries were established 15 or more years ago and have not been periodically reviewed; SBA records do not indicate how most standards were developed; and the standards often define as small a very high percentage of the firms in the industries to which they apply  GAO recommended that the SBA reexamine its size standards "by collecting data on the size of bidders on set-aside and unrestricted contracts, determining the size of businesses which need set-aside protection because they cannot otherwise obtain Federal contracts" and then consider reducing its size standards or "establishing a two-tiered system for set-aside contracts, under which certain procurements would be available for bidding only to the smaller firms and others would be opened for bidding to all businesses considered small under present standards " Citing the GAO report, several Members objected to the SBA's size standards at a House Committee on Small Business oversight hearing conducted on July 10, 1979  Representative John J  LaFalce, chair of the House Committee on Small Business Subcommittee on General Oversight and Minority Enterprise, stated that "what we have faced from 1953 to the present is virtually nothing other than acquiescence to the demands of the special interest groups  That is how the size standards have been set " Representative Tim Lee Carter, the subcommittee's ranking minority member, stated that "it seems to me that we may be fast growing into just a regular bank forum not just to small business but to all business " At that time, approximately 99% of all firms with employees were classified by the SBA as a small business  Roger Rosenberger, SBA's associate administrator for policy, planning and budgeting, testified at the hearing that the SBA would undertake a comprehensive economic analysis of industry data to determine if its size standards should be changed  However, he also defended the validity of the SBA's size standards, arguing that the task of setting size standards was a complicated and difficult one because of "how market structure and size distribution of firms vary from industry to industry " He testified that some industries are dominated by a few large firms, some are comprised almost entirely of small businesses, and others "can be referred to as a mixed industry " He argued that each market structure presents unique challenges for defining small businesses within that industry group  For example, he argued that it was debatable whether the SBA should provide any assistance to any of the businesses within industries where "smaller firms are flourishing " On March 10, 1980, the SBA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking designed to "reduce administrative complexity" by replacing its two sets of size standards, one for procurement preferences and another for its loan and consultative support services, with a single set of size standards for both purposes  The SBA also proposed to use a single factor, the firm's number of employees, for definitional purposes for nearly all industries instead of using the firm's number of employees for some industries, the firm's assets for others, and the firm's annual gross receipts for still others  The SBA argued that when size standards are denominated in dollars, i e , annual revenues, its ability to help the small business sector is undermined by inflation  Using employment, as opposed to dollar sales, will provide greater stability for SBA and its clients; will remove inter-industry distortions generated by differential inflation rates; and reduce the need for SBA to make frequent revisions in the size standards merely to reflect price increases  In setting its proposed new size standards for each industry (ranging from no more than 15 to no more than 2,500 employees), the SBA first placed each industry into one of three groups: concentrated (characterized by a highly unequal distribution of sales among the firms in the industry), competitive (characterized by a more equal distribution of sales in the industry), or mixed (industries that do not meet the criteria of competitive or concentrated industries)  The SBA determined that there were 160 concentrated industries, 317 competitive industries, and 249 mixed industries  The SBA argued that establishing a size standard for the 160 concentrated industries was a "straight-forward task—simply identify and exclude those few firms which account for a disproportionately large share of the industry's sales " For competitive industries, the SBA argued that the size standard should be set "relatively low, so as to support entry and moderate growth " The SBA argued that mixed industries require "relatively high size standards     to reinforce competition and offset the pressures to increase the degree of concentration in these industries " The proposed new SBA size standards would have had the net effect of reducing the number of firms classified as small by about 225,000  In percentage terms, the number of firms classified as small would have been reduced from about 99% of all employer firms to 96%  Over 86% of the more than 1,500 public comments received by the SBA concerning its proposed new size standards criticized it  Most of the criticism was from firms that would no longer be considered small under the new size standards  In addition, several federal agencies indicated that the proposed size standards in the services and construction industries were set too low, reducing the number of small firms eligible to compete for procurement contracts below levels they deemed necessary to ensure adequate competition to prevent agency costs from rising  On October 21, 1980, Congress required the SBA to take additional time to consider the consequences of the proposed changes to the size standards by adopting the Small Business Export Expansion Act of 1980 ( P L  96-481 )  It prohibited "the SBA from promulgating any final rule or regulation relating to small business size standards until March 31, 1981 " In the meantime, the Reagan Administration entered office, and, as is customary when there is a change in Administration, replaced the SBA's senior leadership  The SBA's new Administrator, Michael Cardenas, was sympathetic to the concerns of federal agencies that the proposed size standards in the services and construction industries were set too low to meet those agencies' procurement needs  As a result, he indicated that the SBA would modify its size standards proposal by (1) increasing the proposed size standards for 51 industries, mostly in the services and construction industries; (2) lowering the proposed size standards in 157 manufacturing industries (typically from no more than 2,500 employees to no more than 500 employees) to prevent one or more of the largest producers in those industries from being classified as small; and (3) increasing the SBA's proposed lowest size standard from no more than 15 employees to no more than 25 employees (affecting 93 service and trade industries)  The net effect of these changes would have restored eligibility for approximately 60,000 of the 225,000 firms expected to lose eligibility under the previous Administration's proposal  The SBA subsequently met with various trade organizations and federal agency procurement officials to discuss the proposal  As these consultations took place, the SBA experienced another turnover in its senior leadership  The SBA, headed by the new appointee, James C  Sanders, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning its size standards on May 3, 1982  The proposal differed from its March 10, 1980, predecessor in three ways: First, the range of size standards was narrowed to a range of 25 employees to 500 employees  This reflected a widespread view that 15 employees was too low a cutoff while 2,500 employees was too high  Second, SBA proposed a 500-employee ceiling, focusing on smaller firms  Third, SBA responded to sentiments within many procurement-sensitive industries that the proposed size standards in some cases were too low to accommodate the average procurement currently being performed by small business  Therefore, SBA proposed higher size standards in a number of procurement-sensitive industries, while maintaining the 500-employee cap  The SBA received over 500 comments on the proposed rule, with about 72% of those comments opposing the rule  Taking those comments into consideration, the SBA reexamined its size standards once again, and, after a year of further consultation with various trade organizations and federal agency procurement officials, issued another notice of proposed rulemaking on May 6, 1983  The 1983 proposal (1) replaced the use of two sets of size standards, one for procurement and another for the SBA's loan and consultative support services, with a single set for all programs; (2) retained most of the size standards that were expressed in terms of average annual sales or receipts; (3) adjusted those size standards for inflation (an upward adjustment of 81%); (4) retained most of the size standards for manufacturing; and (5) made relatively minor changes to the size standards in other industries, with a continued emphasis on a 500-employee ceiling for most industries  The SBA received 630 comments on the proposed rule, with almost 70% supporting it  SBA Administrator Sanders characterized the SBA's revised size standard proposal as "a fine-tuning of current standards which has the basic support of both the private sector and the Federal agencies that use the basic size standards to achieve their set-aside procurement goals " He also added that "since almost no size standard is proposed to decrease, and most will in fact increase, very few firms will lose their small business status  We estimate that about 39,000 firms will gain small business status " He testified that in percentage terms, in 1983, 97 9% of the nation's 5 2 million firms with employees were classified by the SBA as small  Under the SBA's proposal, 98 6% of all firms with employees would be classified as small  The final rule was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 1984  Representative Parren J  Mitchell, chair of the House Committee on Small Business, expressed disappointment in the SBA's final rule, stating at a congressional oversight hearing on July 30, 1985, that "the government and the business community are still victimized by that same ad hoc, sporadic system that the SBA promised to fix some six years ago " He introduced legislation ( H R  1178 , a bill to amend the Small Business Act) that would have required the SBA to adjust its size standard for an industrial classification downward by at least 20% if small business' share of that market equaled or exceeded 60%, and at least 40% of the market share was achieved through the receipt of federal procurement contracts  The bill also mandated a minimum 10% increase in the SBA's size standard for an industrial classification if small business' share of that market was less than 20% and less than 10% of the market share was achieved through the receipt of federal procurement contracts  The bill was opposed by various trade associations, the SBA, and federal agency procurement officials, and was not reported out of committee  On December 31, 1992, the SBA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking "to streamline its size standards" by reducing the number of fixed size standard levels from 30 to 9  The nine proposed size standards were no more than 100, 500, 750, 1,000, or 1,500 employees; and no more than $5 million, $10 million, $18 million, or $24 million in annual receipts  The annual receipts levels reflected an upward adjustment of 43% for inflation  The SBA argued that the proposed changes would make the size standards more user-friendly for small business owners and restore eligibility to nearly 20,000 firms that were no longer considered small solely because of the effects of inflation  The proposed rule was later withdrawn as a courtesy to allow the incoming Clinton Administration time to review it  The SBA ultimately decided not to pursue this approach because it felt that converting "receipts based size standards in effect at that time to one of four proposed receipts levels created a number of unacceptable anomalies " Over the subsequent decade, the SBA reviewed the size standards for some industries on a piecemeal basis and, in 1994, adjusted for inflation its size standards based on firm's annual sales or receipts (an upward adjustment of 48 2%)  The SBA estimated that the adjustment would restore eligibility to approximately 20,000 firms that lost small-business status due solely to the effects of inflation  In 2002, the SBA adjusted for inflation its annual sales and receipts based size standards for the fourth time (an upward adjustment of 15 8%)  The SBA estimated that the adjustment would restore eligibility to approximately 8,760 firms that lost small-business status due solely to the effects of inflation  The rule also included a provision that the SBA would assess the impact of inflation on its annual sales and receipts based size standards at least once every five years  Then, on March 19, 2004, the SBA, once again, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to streamline its size standards  The proposed rule would have established size standards based on the firm's number of employees for all industries, avoiding the need to adjust for inflation size standards based on sales or receipts  At that time, the SBA size standards consisted of 37 different size levels: 30 based on annual sales or receipts, 5 on the number of employees (both full- and part-time), 1 on financial assets, and 1 on generating capacity  Under the proposed rule, the SBA would use 10 size standards, 5 new employee size standards (adding no more than 50, 150, 200, 300, and 400 employees), and the existing 5 employee size standards (no more than 100, 500, 750, 1,000, and 1,500 employees)  The proposed rule would not have changed any existing size standards based on number of employees  The SBA argued that the use of a single size standard would "help to simplify size standards" and "tends to be a more stable measure of business size" than other measures  It added that the proposed rule would change 514 size standards and that, after the proposed conversion to the use of number of employees, of the "approximately 4 4 million businesses in the industries with revised size standards, 35,200 businesses could gain and 34,100 could lose small business eligibility, with the net effect of 1,100 additional businesses defined as small " A majority (51%) of the more than 4,500 comments on the proposed rule supported it, but with "a large number of comments opposing various aspects of SBA's approach to simplifying size standards " In addition, the chairs of the House Committee on Small Business and Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship opposed the proposed rule, largely because they were concerned about potential job losses resulting from more than 34,000 small businesses losing program eligibility  The SBA withdrew the proposed rule on July 1, 2004  In 2005, the SBA adjusted for inflation size standards based on firms' annual sales or receipts (an upward adjustment of 8 7%)  The SBA estimated that the adjustment restored eligibility to approximately 12,000 firms that lost small-business status due solely to inflation  In 2008, the SBA made another adjustment for inflation to its annual sales and receipts based standards (another upward adjustment of 8 7%)  The SBA estimated that the adjustment restored eligibility for approximately 10,400 firms that lost small-business status due solely to inflation  In June 2008, the SBA announced that it would undertake a comprehensive, two-year review of its size standards, proceeding one industrial sector at a time, starting with Retail Trade (NAICS Sector 44-45), Accommodations and Food Services (NAICS Sector 72), and Other Services (NAICS Sector 81)  The SBA argued that it was concerned that "not all of its size standards may now adequately define small businesses in the U S  economy, which has seen industry consolidations, technological advances, emerging new industries, shifting societal preferences, and other significant industrial changes " It added that its reliance on an ad hoc approach "scrutinizing the limited number of specific industries during a year, while worthwhile, leaves unexamined many deserving industries for updating and may create over time a set of illogical size standards " The SBA announced that it would begin its analysis of its size standards by assuming that "$6 5 million [later increased to $7 5 million] is an appropriate size standard for those industries with receipts size standards and 500 employees for those industries with employee size standards " It would then analyze the following industry characteristics: "average firm size; average asset size (a proxy for startup costs); competition, as measured by the market share of the four largest firms in the industry; and, the distribution of market share by firm size—that is, are firms in the industry generally very small firms, or dominated by very large firms " Then, before making its final determination on the size standard, it would "examine the participation of small businesses in federal contracting and SBA's guaranteed loan program at the current size standard level  Depending on the level of small business participation, additional consideration may be given to the level of the current size standard and the analysis of industry factors " In April 2009, the SBA announced that was simplifying the administration and use of its size standards by reducing the number of receipts based size standards from 31 to 8 when establishing a new size standard or reviewing an existing size standard: For many years, SBA has been concerned about the complexity of determining small business status caused by a large number of varying receipts based size standards (see 69 FR 13130 (March 4, 2004) and 57 FR 62515 (December 31, 1992))  At the start of current comprehensive size standards review, there were 31 different levels of receipts based size standards  They ranged from $0 75 million to $35 5 million, and many of them applied to one or only a few industries  The SBA believes that to have so many different size standards with small variations among them is unnecessary and difficult to justify analytically  To simplify managing and using size standards, SBA proposes that there be fewer size standard levels  This will produce more common size standards for businesses operating in related industries  This will also result in greater consistency among the size standards for industries that have similar economic characteristics  Under the current comprehensive size standards review, SBA is proposing to establish eight "fixed-level" receipts based size standards: $5 0 million, $7 0 million, $10 0 million, $14 0 million, $19 0 million, $25 5 million, $30 0 million, and $35 5 million  These levels are established by taking into consideration the minimum, maximum and the most commonly used current receipts based size standards  These eight receipts based size standards were increased to $5 5 million, $7 5 million, $11 0 million, $15 0 million, $20 5 million, $27 5 million, $32 5 million, and $38 5 million in 2014 to account for inflation  The SBA also announced that it would use eight employee based size standards when establishing a new size standard or reviewing an existing size standard (no more than 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 500, 750, and 1,000 employees) instead of seven (no more than 50, 100, 150, 500, 750, 1,000, and 1,500 employees); and continue to use one asset based size standard, one megawatt hours size standard (based on electrical output over the preceding fiscal year), and one size standard based on a combination of the number of employees and barrel per day refining capacity  The SBA also announced that "to simplify size standards further" it "may propose a common size standard for closely related industries " The SBA argued although the size standard analysis may support a separate size standard for each industry, SBA believes that establishing different size standards for closely related industries may not always be appropriate  For example, in cases where many of the same businesses operate in the same multiple industries, a common size standard for those industries might better reflect the Federal marketplace  This might also make size standards among related industries more consistent than separate size standards for each of those industries  Because SBA size standards remain in force until after they are reviewed, the number of size standards did not immediately drop from 41 to 19 in 2009  Instead, the number of size standards began to decline gradually as new size standard final rules were issued  In addition, from 2010 through 2016, the SBA decided, in most instances, not to lower size standards (which would have made it more difficult for businesses to qualify) even if the data supported lowering them because unemployment at that time was relatively high and doing so would "run counter to numerous Congressional and Administration's initiatives and programs to create jobs and boost economic growth " As a result of this policy decision, several size standards that would have otherwise been eliminated remained in place  Also, in 2016, the SBA added a new employee based size standard (no more than 1,250 employees) and reinstated the use of another (no more than 1,500 employees) when establishing a new, or revising an existing, size standard  The SBA's decisions in 2009 to reduce the number of receipts based size standards and to propose a common size standard for closely related industries were opposed by some industry groups  They argued that these policies could lead to the SBA to classify an industry "for the sake of convenience" into a size standard that the agency's own economic analysis indicates should be in a different (easier to qualify) size standard  Congress adopted legislation in 2013 ( P L  112-239 , National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013) that included provisions directing the SBA not to limit the number of size standards and to assign the appropriate size standard to each NAICS industrial classification  The SBA currently has 27 SBA industry size standards in effect (16 receipts based size standards, 9 employee based sized standards, 1 asset based size standard, and 1 size standard based on a combination of the number of employees and barrel per day refining capacity)  That number is expected to increase given the SBA's directive not to limit the number of size standards  As mentioned previously, P L  111-240 requires the SBA to conduct a detailed review of not less than one-third of the SBA's industry size standards during the 18-month period beginning on the date of enactment (September 27, 2010) and during every 18-month period thereafter  The act directs the SBA to "make appropriate adjustments to the size standards" to reflect market conditions, and to report to the House Committee on Small Business and the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and make publicly available "not later than 30 days" after the completion of each review information regarding the factors evaluated as part of each review, the criteria used for any revised size standard, and why the SBA did, or did not, adjust each size standard that was reviewed  The act also requires the SBA to ensure that each industry size standard is reviewed at least once every five years  On July 7, 2011, the SBA announced that its "comprehensive review of all small business size standards" would begin with the following six industries: Educational Services (final rule was issued on September 24, 2012); Health Care and Social Assistance Services (final rule was issued on September 24, 2012); Real Estate Rental and Leasing (final rule was issued on September 24, 2012); Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services (final rule was issued on December 6, 2012); Information (final rule was issued on December 6, 2012); and Utilities (final rule was issued on December 23, 2013)  The SBA subsequently completed size standard reviews for all industries in January 2016 (listed by when the final rule was issued): Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (final rule was issued on February 24, 2012); Transportation and Warehousing (final rule was issued on February 24, 2012); Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (final rule was issued on June 20, 2013); Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (final rule was issued on June 20, 2013); Finance and Insurance (final rule was issued on June 20, 2013); Management of Companies (final rule was issued on June 20, 2013); Support Activities for Mining (final rule was issued on June 20, 2013); Construction (final rule was issued on December 23, 2013); Wholesale Trade (final rule was issued on January 25, 2016); Industries with Employee Based Size Standards not Part of Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, or Retail Trade (final rule was issued on January 26, 2016); and Manufacturing (final rule was issued on January 26, 2016)  A summary of the final rules issued for each industry is provided in Table A-1   During the first five-year review cycle, the SBA increased 621 size standards, decreased 3 (to exclude potentially dominant firms from being considered small), and retained 388 at their pre-existing levels  Of the 388 retained size standards, 214 were retained based on the results of the SBA's economic analysis and 174 were retained based on the SBA's policy of generally not lowering any size standard, even though the results of the economic analysis supported lowering them, due to national economic conditions  The SBA has started its second five-year review of its size standards and anticipates issuing its first final rules in the second five-year review cycle in 2019, using new size standard methodology announced in April 2018 (discussed in the next section)  The SBA also announced in April 2018 that its policy of generally not lowering size standards when the analysis indicates that a lower standard is justified would no longer be in force, at least initially, during the second five-year review cycle: the decision to raise, lower, or retain a size standard will primarily be driven by analytical results, with due considerations of public comments, impacts of changes on the affected businesses, and other factors SBA considers important  All of these decisions will be detailed in individual rulemakings  It will take several years to complete the five-year review of all size standards … during which the state of the economy may change  It is, therefore, not possible to state now … what impact, if any, the future economic environment would have on the SBA's policy decision regarding size standards  As mentioned earlier, the SBA, relying on statutory language, defines a small business as a concern that is organized for profit; has a place of business in the United States; operates primarily within the United States or makes a significant contribution to the economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials, or labor; is independently owned and operated; and is not dominant in its field on a national basis  The business may be a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, or any other legal form  The SBA uses two measures to determine if a business is small: industry specific size standards or a combination of the business's net worth and net income  For example, the SBA's Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program allows businesses to qualify as small if they meet the SBA's size standard for the industry in which the applicant is primarily engaged, or an alternative net worth and net income based size standard which has been established for the SBIC program  The SBIC's alternative size standard is currently set as a maximum net worth of not more than $19 5 million and average after-tax net income for the preceding two years of not more than $6 5 million  All of the company's subsidiaries, parent companies, and affiliates are considered in determining if it meets the size standard  The SBA decided to apply the net worth and net income measures to the SBIC program "because investment companies evaluate businesses using these measures to decide whether or not to make an investment in them " Businesses participating in the SBA's 504/Certified Development Company (504/CDC) loan guaranty program are to be deemed small if they did not have a tangible net worth in excess of $8 5 million and did not have an average net income in excess of $3 million after taxes for the preceding two years  As discussed below, P L  111-240 increased these threshold amounts on an interim basis to not more than $15 million in tangible net worth and not more than $5 million in average net income after federal taxes for the two full fiscal years before the date of the application  All of the company's subsidiaries, parent companies, and affiliates are considered in determining if it meets the size standard  Also, before May 5, 2009, businesses participating in the SBA's 7(a) loan guaranty program, including its express programs, were deemed small if they met the SBA's size standards for firms in the industries described in NAICS  Using authority provided under P L  111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the SBA temporarily applied the 504/CDC program's size standards as an alternative for 7(a) loans approved from May 5, 2009, through September 30, 2010  Firms applying for a 7(a) loan during that time period qualified as small using either the SBA's industry size standards or the 504/CDC program's size standard  The provision's intent was to enhance the ability of small businesses to access the capital necessary to create and retain jobs during the economic recovery  P L  111-240 made the use of alternative size standards for the 7(a) program permanent  The act directs the SBA to establish an alternative size standard for both the 7(a) and 504/CDC programs that uses maximum tangible net worth and average net income as an alternative to the use of industry standards  The act also establishes, until the date on which the alternative size standard is established, an interim alternative size standard for the 7(a) and 504/CDC programs of not more than $15 million in tangible net worth and not more than $5 million in average net income after federal taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) for the two full fiscal years before the date of the application  The SBA Administrator has the authority to establish and modify size standards for particular industries  Overall, about 97% of all employer firms qualify as small under the SBA's size standards  These firms account for about 30% of industry receipts  The SBA generally "prefers to use average annual receipts as a size measure because it measures the value of output of a business and can be easily verified by business tax returns and financial records " However, historically, the SBA has used the number of employees to determine if manufacturing and mining companies are small  Before a proposed change to the size standards can take effect, the SBA's Office of Size Standards (OSS) undertakes an analysis of the change's likely impact on the affected industry, focusing on the industry's overall degree of competition and the competitiveness of the firms within the industry  The analysis includes an assessment of the following four economic factors: "average firm size, average assets size as a proxy of start-up costs and entry barriers, the 4-firm concentration ratio as a measure of industry competition, and size distribution of firms " The SBA also considers the ability of small businesses to compete for federal contracting opportunities and, when necessary, several secondary factors "as they are relevant to the industries and the interests of small businesses, including technological change, competition among industries, industry growth trends, and impacts of size standard revisions on small businesses " The specifics of SBA's size standards methodology have evolved over the years with the availability of new industry and federal procurement data and staff research  For example, the SBA previously presumed less than $7 0 million (increased to less than $7 5 million in 2014 to account for inflation) as an appropriate "anchor" size standard for the services, retail trade, construction, and other industries with receipts based size standards; 500 or fewer employees as an appropriate anchor size standard for the manufacturing, mining and other industries with employee based size standards; and 100 or fewer employees as an appropriate anchor size standard for the wholesale trade industries  These three anchor size standards were used as benchmarks or starting points for the SBA's economic analysis  To the extent an industry displayed "differing industry characteristics," a size standard higher, or in some cases lower, than an anchor size standard was used  In April 2018, the SBA replaced the "anchor" approach with a "percentile" approach, primarily because the anchors were no longer representative of the size standards being used (just 24% of industries with receipt-based size standards and 22% of those with employee based size standards have the anchor size standards) and the anchor approach entails "grouping industries from different NAICS sectors thereby making it inconsistent with section 3(a)(7) of the [Small Business] Act," which limits the SBA's ability to create common size standards by grouping industries below the 4-digit NAICS level  Specifically, when assessing the appropriateness of the current size standards, the SBA now evaluates the structure of each industry in terms of four economic characteristics or factors, namely average firm size, average assets size as a proxy of start-up costs and entry barriers, the 4-firm concentration ratio as a measure of industry competition, and size distribution of firms using the Gini coefficient  For each size standard type     SBA ranks industries both in terms each of the four industry factors and in terms of the existing size standard and computes the 20 th percentile and 80 th percentile values for both  SBA then evaluates each industry by comparing its value for each industry factor to the 20 th percentile and 80 th percentile values for the corresponding factor for industries under a particular type of size standard  If the characteristics of an industry under review within a particular size standard type are similar to the average characteristics of industries within the same size standard type in the 20 th percentile, SBA will consider adopting as an appropriate size standard for that industry the 20 th percentile value of size standards for those industries  For each size standard type, if the industry's characteristics are similar to the average characteristics of industries in the 80 th percentile, SBA will assign a size standard that corresponds to the 80 th percentile in the size standard rankings of industries  A separate size standard is established for each factor based on the amount of differences between the factor value for an industry under a particular size standard type and 20 th percentile and 80 th percentile values for the corresponding factor for all industries in the same type  Specifically, the actual level of the new size standard for each industry factor is derived by a linear interpolation using the 20 th percentile and 80 th percentile values of that factor and corresponding percentiles of size standards  Each calculated size standard will be bounded between the minimum and maximum size standards levels [see Table 2 ]     the calculated value for a receipts based size standard for each industry factor is rounded to the nearest $500,000 and the calculated value for an employee based size standard is rounded to the nearest 50 employees for Manufacturing and industries in other sectors (except Wholesale and Retail Trade) and to the nearest 25 employees for employee based size standards for Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade  The SBA anticipates that its shift from using the anchor approach to the percentile approach will have minimal impact, both in terms of the direction and magnitude of changes, to its industry size standards  Any changes to size standards must follow the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act  A proposed rule changing a size standard is first published in the Federal Register , allowing for public comment  It must include documentation establishing that a significant problem exists that requires a revision of the size standard, plus an economic analysis of the change  Comments from the public, plus any other new information, are reviewed and evaluated before a final rule is promulgated establishing a new size standard  The SBA currently uses employment size to determine eligibility for 505 of 1,036 industries (48 6%), including all 360 manufacturing industries, 24 mining industries, and 71 wholesale trade industries  As of October 1, 2017, 98 manufacturing industries have an upper limit of 500 employees (27 2%); 91 have an upper limit of 750 employees (25 2%); 89 have an upper limit of 1,000 employees (24 7%); 56 have an upper limit of 1,250 employees (15 6%); and 26 have an upper limit of 1,500 employees (7 2%)  3 of the 24 mining industries have an upper limit of 250 employees (12 5%), 7 have an upper limit of 500 employees (29 2%), 7 have an upper limit of 750 employees (29 2%), 2 have an upper limit of 1,000 employees (8 3%), 3 have an upper limit of 1,250 employees (12 5%), and 2 have an upper limit of 1,500 employees (8 3%)  25 of the 71 wholesale trades industries have an upper limit of 100 employees (35 2%), 16 have an upper limit of 150 employees (22 5%), 21 have an upper limit of 200 employees (29 6%), and 9 have an upper limit of 250 employees (12 7%)  The SBA currently has nine employee based industry size standards in effect (no more than 100, 150, 200, 250, 500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, and 1,500 employees)  The SBA uses average annual receipts over the three (soon to be five) most recently completed fiscal years to determine program eligibility for most other industries (526 of 1,036 industries, or 50 8%)  The SBA also uses average asset size as reported in the firm's four quarterly financial statements for the preceding year to determine eligibility for five finance industries, and a combination of number of employees and barrel per day refining capacity for petroleum refineries  The SBA currently has 16 receipts based industry size standards in effect  In some instances, there is considerable variation in the size standards used within each industrial sector  For example, the SBA uses 11 different size standards to determine eligibility for 66 industries in the retail trade sector  In general, most administrative and support service industries have an upper limit of either $15 0 million or $20 5 million in average annual sales or receipts; most agricultural industries have an upper limit of $0 75 million in average annual sales or receipts; most construction of buildings and civil engineering construction industries have an upper limit of $36 5 million in average annual sales or receipts, and most construction specialty trade contractors have an upper limit of $15 0 million in average annual sales or receipts; most educational services industries have an upper limit of either $7 5 million or $11 0 million in average annual sales or receipts; most health care industries have an upper limit of either $7 5 million or $15 0 million in average annual sales or receipts; most social assistance industries have an upper limit of $11 0 million in average annual sales or receipts; there is considerable variation within the professional, scientific, and technical service industries, ranging from an upper limit of $7 5 million in average annual sales or receipts to $38 5 million; there is considerable variation within the transportation and warehousing industrial sector, ranging from an upper limit of $7 5 million in average annual sales or receipts to $38 5 million for 43 industries and from an upper limit of 500 employees to 1,500 employees for 15 industries); and most finance and insurance industries have an upper limit of $38 5 million in average annual sales or receipts  The SBA also applies a $550 million average asset limit (as reported in the firm's four quarterly financial statements for the preceding year) to determine eligibility in five finance industries: commercial banks, saving institutions, credit unions, other depository credit intermediation, and credit card issuing  Many federal statutes provide special considerations for small businesses  For example, small businesses are provided preferences through set-asides and sole source awards in federal contracting and pay lower fees to apply for patents and trademarks  In most instances, businesses are required to meet the SBA's size standards to be considered a small business  However, in some cases, the underlying statute defines the eligibility criteria for defining a small business  In other cases, the statute authorizes the implementing agency to make those determinations  Under current law, a federal agency that decides that it would like to exercise its authority to establish its own size standard through the federal rulemaking process is required to, among other things, (1) undertake an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to determine the potential impact of the proposed rule on small businesses, (2) transmit a copy of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis to the SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy for comment, and (3) publish the agency's response to any comments filed by the SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy in response to the proposed rule and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of those comments  In addition, the federal agency must provide public notice of the proposed rule and an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed rule, typically through the publication of an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and notification of interested small businesses and related organizations  Also, prior to issuing the final rule, the federal agency must have the approval of the SBA's Administrator  Under current practice, the SBA's Administrator, through the SBA's Office of Size Standards, consults with the SBA's Office of Advocacy prior to making a final decision concerning such requests  The Office of Advocacy is an independent office within the SBA  During the 112 th Congress, H R  585 , the Small Business Size Standard Flexibility Act of 2011, was reported by the House Committee on Small Business on November 16, 2011, by a vote of 13 to 8  The bill would have retained the SBA's Administrator's authority to approve or disapprove size standards for programs under the Small Business Act of 1953 (as amended) and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (as amended)  The Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy would have assumed the SBA Administrator's authority to approve or disapprove size standards for purposes of any other act  Similar legislative provisions have been introduced during the 113 th Congress ( H R  2542 , the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2013, and included in H R  4 , the Jobs for America Act), 114 th Congress ( H R  527 , the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, and its Senate companion bill, S  1536 ), and 115 th Congress ( H R  33 , the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2017, and its Senate companion bill, S  584 , and included in H R  5 , the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017)  Advocates of splitting the SBA Administrator's small business size standards' authority between the Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy and the SBA's Administrator have argued that Should an agency wish to draft a regulation that adopts a size standard different from the one already adopted by the Administrator in regulations implementing the Small Business Act, the agency must obtain approval of the Administrator  However, that requires the Administrator to have a complete understanding of the regulatory regime of that other act—knowledge usually outside the expertise of the SBA  However, the Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, an independent office within the SBA, represents the interests of small businesses in rulemaking proceedings (as part of its responsibility to monitor agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U S C  601-12, (RFA)) does have such expertise  Therefore, it is logical to transfer the limited function on determining size standards of small businesses for purposes other than the Small Business Act and Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to the Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy…  the Administrator is not the proper official to determine size standards for purposes of other agencies' regulatory activities  The Administrator is not fluent with the vast array of federal regulatory programs, is not in constant communication with small entities that might be affected by another federal agency's regulatory regime, and does not have the analytical expertise to assess the regulatory impact of a particular size standard on small entities  Furthermore, the Administrator's standards are: very inclusive, not developed to comport with other agencies' regulatory regimes, and lack sufficient granularity to examine the impact of a proposed rule on a spectrum of small businesses  Opponents have argued that When an agency is seeking to use a size standard other than those approved by the SBA, the agency may consult with the Office of Advocacy  Such consultation is sensible, as the Office of Advocacy has significant knowledge of the regulatory environment outside of the canon of SBA law  However, the SBA's Office of Size Standards, with its historical involvement, expertise, and staff resources in this area, remains the appropriate entity to approve such size standards…  While the legislation permits the SBA to continue to approve size standards for its enabling statutes, it removes SBA's authority to do so for other statutes  The result would be to create a duplicate size standard authority in both the SBA and the Office of Advocacy  Both the SBA and the Office of Advocacy would have personnel who would analyze and evaluate size standards  Through the bifurcation of these responsibilities, taxpayers would effectively be forgoing the economies of scale that are currently enjoyed by the operation of a single Office of Size Standards in the SBA…  Having two such entities that have the same mission is not a transfer of function, but an inefficient and duplicative reorganization … Instead of having one central office, there will now be two—further muddling small businesses' relationship with the federal government  Two bills were introduced during the 114 th Congress ( H R  3714 , the Small Agriculture Producer Size Standards Improvements Act of 2015, and H R  4341 , the Defending America's Small Contractors Act of 2016) to authorize the SBA to establish size standards for agricultural enterprises not later than 18 months after the date of enactment  The size standard for agricultural enterprises was, at that time, set in statute as having annual receipts not in excess of $750,000  H R  4341 , among other provisions, would have also limited an industry category to a greater extent than provided under the North American Industry Classification codes for small business procurement purposes if further segmentation of the industry category is warranted  H R  4341 was introduced on January 7, 2016, and ordered to be reported with amendment by the House Committee on Small Business on January 13, 2016  H R  3714 was introduced on October 8, 2015, considered by the House under suspension of the rules on April 19, 2016, and agreed to by voice vote  P L  114-328 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, includes a provision which authorizes the SBA to establish different size standards for agricultural enterprises using existing methods and appeal processes  Also, as mentioned previously, P L  115-324 , the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018, directs federal agencies proposing a size standard (and, based on report language accompanying the act, presumably the SBA as well) to use the average annual gross receipts from at least the previous five years, instead of the previous three years, when seeking SBA approval to establish a size standard based on annual gross receipts  The SBA has not announced if it will continue to use the average annual gross receipts over three years to determine receipts-based size standards or if it will use the average annual gross receipts from the previous five years  Historically, the SBA has relied on economic analysis of market conditions within each industry to define eligibility for small business assistance  On several occasions in its history, the SBA attempted to revise its small business size standards in a comprehensive manner  However, because (1) the Small Business Act provides leeway in how the SBA is to define small business; (2) there is no consensus on the economic factors that should be used in defining small business; (3) federal agencies have generally opposed size standards that might adversely affect their pool of available small business contractors; and (4) the SBA's initial size standards provided program eligibility to nearly all businesses, the SBA's efforts to undertake a comprehensive reassessment of its size standards met with resistance  Firms that might lose eligibility objected  Federal agencies also objected  As a result, in each instance, the SBA's comprehensive revisions were not fully implemented  The SBA's congressionally mandated requirement to conduct a detailed review of at least one-third of the SBA's industry size standards every 18 months was imposed by P L  111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, to prevent small business size standards from becoming outdated  More frequent reviews of the size standards were expected to increase their accuracy and, generally speaking, result in (1) increased numbers of small businesses found to be eligible for SBA assistance and (2) an increase in the number and amount of federal contracts awarded to small businesses (primarily by preventing large businesses from being misclassified as small and by increasing the number of small businesses eligible to compete for federal contracts)  As expected, the SBA's economic analyses during the recent five-year review cycle often supported an increase in the size standards for many industries  However, the SBA's economic analyses also occasionally supported a decrease in the size standards for some industries  Despite the SBA's decision to, in most circumstances, make no changes when their economic analyses indicated that a decrease was warranted, it could be argued that the increased frequency of the reviews has generally prevented the SBA's size standards from becoming outdated  This, in turn, has, at least to a certain extent, improved the accuracy of the size standards (as measured by the extent to which the size standard is in alignment with the SBA's economic analyses)  In a related matter, the SBA continues to adjust its receipts based size standards for inflation at least once every five years, or more frequently if inflationary circumstances warrant, to prevent firms from losing their small business eligibility solely due to the effects of inflation  The most recent adjustment for inflation took place on July 14, 2014  Prior to that, the last adjustment for inflation took place in 2008  The SBA also continues to review size standards within specific industries whenever it determines that market conditions within that industry have changed  Congress has several options related to the SBA's ongoing review of its size standards  For example, as part of its oversight of the SBA, Congress can wait for the agency to issue its proposed rule before providing input or establish a dialogue with the agency, either at the staff level or with Members involved directly, prior to the issuance of its proposed rule  Historically, Congress has tended to wait for the SBA to issue proposed rules concerning its size standards before providing input, essentially deferring to the agency's expertise in the technical and methodological issues involved in determining where to draw the line between small and large firms  Congress has then tended to respond to the SBA's proposed rules concerning its size standards after taking into consideration current economic conditions and input received from the SBA and affected industries  Waiting for the SBA to issue its proposed rule concerning its size standards before providing congressional input has both advantages and disadvantages  It provides the advantage of insulating the proposed rule from charges that it is influenced by political factors  It also has the advantage of respecting the separation of powers and responsibilities of the executive and legislative branches  However, it has the disadvantage of heightening the prospects for miscommunication, false expectations, and wasted effort, as evidenced by past proposed rules concerning the SBA's size standards that were either rejected outright, or withdrawn, after facing congressional opposition  Another policy option that has not received much congressional attention in recent years, but which Congress may choose to address, is the targeting of the SBA's resources  When the SBA reviews its size standards, it focuses on the competitive nature of the industry under review, with the goal of removing eligibility of firms that are considered large, or dominant, in that industry  There has been relatively little discussion of the costs and benefits of undertaking those reviews with the goal of targeting SBA resources to small businesses in industries that are struggling to remain competitive  GAO recommended this approach in 1978 and Roger Rosenberger, then SBA's associate administrator for policy, planning, and budgeting, testified at a congressional hearing in 1979 that it was debatable whether the SBA should provide any assistance to any of the businesses within industries where "smaller firms are flourishing " Revising the SBA's size standards using this more targeted approach would likely reduce the number of firms eligible for assistance  It would also present the possibility of increasing available benefits to eligible small firms in those industries deemed "mixed" or "concentrated" by the SBA without necessarily increasing overall program costs  Perhaps because previous proposals that would result in a reduction in the number of firms eligible for assistance have met with resistance, this alternative approach to determining program eligibility has not received serious consideration in recent years  Nonetheless, it remains an option available to Congress should it decide to change current policy 


Report 2:  actions in Iraq and Afghanistan  Section 571 of the NDAA for FY2015 ( P L  113-291 ) expanded the eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should be considered an attack by a "foreign terrorist organization" for purposes of determining eligibility for the Purple Heart  The law states that an event should be considered an attack by a foreign terrorist organization if the perpetrator of the attack "was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack" and "the attack was inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization " Still, some are opposed to awarding the Purple Heart for terrorist acts that were initially deemed "workplace violence" by the Department of Defense (DOD) or a criminal act, and not earned on a battlefield  This act arguably sets a precedent for the future and could make Purple Heart eligibility more subjective, allowing public sentiment to determine what events are worthy of a Purple Heart  On April 10, 2015, then-Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, 3 rd Corps and Fort Hood commanding general, presented Purple Hearts to the families of the 10 servicemembers killed and to the 26 servicemembers wounded during the attack  Defense of Freedom Medals were also awarded to DOD civilians killed and wounded during the attack  In a memorandum, Secretary McHugh directed the Army to "expedite certain other benefits for which soldiers receiving the Purple Heart are traditionally eligible " In addition to the victims of the Fort Hood shooting, the two victims of the June 2009, shooting at a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, received Purple Hearts on July 1, 2015  Army Private William Andrew "Andy" Long was killed and Army Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded in that attack by Abdulhakim Muhammad, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole  Encouraged by the expanded eligibility provision in the NDAA for FY2015, legislation was introduced during the 114 th Congress to award Purple Hearts to other military victims of domestic terrorism  Section 583 of the House-passed version of H R  1735 , the NDAA for FY2016, would have awarded the Purple Heart to servicemembers who were victims of the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma bombing  Supporters for awarding the Purple Heart to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing refer to the FY2015 NDAA as precedent  However, critics contend that the bombing was an act of domestic terrorism and does not meet the current eligibility requirements of the assailant being inspired by or motivated by an international terrorist organization  The final version of the FY2016 NDAA ( P L  114-92 ) did not include this provision  On July 16, 2015, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot at a Marine Corps recruiting center and Naval Reserve Center in Chattanooga, TN  This incident again raised congressional interest regarding the eligibility for the Purple Heart for servicemembers killed and wounded during an attack inspired by or motivated by international terrorist organizations  Four marines were killed and one was injured during the rampage, and the lone sailor later died from his injuries  The FBI investigation later concluded that Abdulazeez was "motivated by foreign terrorist organization propaganda," but that it was difficult to determine which terrorist group may have inspired him  On December 16, 2015, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the Purple Heart would be awarded to five servicemembers killed and one wounded in the July 2015 shootings at two naval centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee  Secretary Mabus stated that "following an extensive investigation, the FBI and NCIS have determined that this attack was inspired by a foreign terrorist group, the final criteria required for the awarding of the Purple Heart to this Sailor and these Marines " On January 14, 2016, then-Navy Vice Admiral Robin Braun presented the Purple Heart to the family of Logistics Specialist 2 nd Class Randall Smith at the Navy Operational Support Center Chattanooga  Brigadier General Terry V  Williams presented the Purple Heart on January 26, 2016, to Sergeant DeMonte R  Cheeley, who survived the attack, at a ceremony in Chattanooga  On April 20, 2016, Lieutenant General Rex McMillian, then-head of Marine Corps Forces Reserve, presented Purple Hearts to the families of Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Sullivan, Staff Sergeant David Wyatt, Sergeant Carson Holmquist, and Lance Corporal Squire "Skip" Wells in a ceremony at the Hunter Museum of American Art in Chattanooga  U S  Airman 1 st Class Spencer Stone was onboard a train from Amsterdam to Paris with two friends, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, when they subdued a heavily armed gunman who attempted to fire an AK-47 at the passengers  Stone was stabbed in the face and neck by the gunman as the trio restrained him before he could discharge his weapon  The vacationing Americans were hailed as heroes and awarded the French Legion of Honor on August 24, 2015  On September 14, 2015, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James announced that Stone would receive the Purple Heart along with the Airman's Medal, the Air Force's highest noncombat award  At the Pentagon on September 17, 2015, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter presented Stone the Purple Heart and Airman's Medal  During the ceremony, Carter presented the Soldier's Medal to Oregon National Guard Specialist Alek Skarlatos, and civilian Anthony Sadler received the Secretary of Defense Medal for Valor  On June 12, 2016, a security guard, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in an attack inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida  Army Reserve Captain Antonio Davon Brown was one of the 49 people killed and may be eligible for the Purple Heart depending on the outcome of the FBI investigation  According to the FBI, Mateen had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group after his attack in a call to 911  At this time, it is unclear if the Army will make a decision regarding Captain Brown's eligibility for the Purple Heart  On September 28, 2016, H R  6234 was introduced to amend Title 18, U S C , to provide for penalties for the sale of any Purple Heart awarded to a member of the Armed Forces  This legislation would have made selling the medal punishable by fines and up to six months in prison  H R  6234 would have placed the Purple Heart into a new protected category, keeping it away from not just con artists but also memorabilia collectors  The measure was named for Private Corrado Piccoli, a World War II infantryman killed in action in 1944, whose Purple Heart was found for sale at an antique store in 2009  This bill was referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations but saw no further action in the 114 th Congress  This legislation was reintroduced in the 115 th Congress on January 13, 2017, as H R  544 , the Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act of 2017, and a related bill, S  765 , was passed by the Senate on August 3, 2017  Both bills were referred to committee in the House but saw no further action  On January 15, 2019, S  122 , Private Corrado Piccoli Purple Heart Preservation Act, was introduced in the 116 th Congress  The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee  The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2019, H R  5515 , included a provision (Section 629) that would extend certain morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) privileges to certain veterans, including Purple Hearts recipients, and their caregivers  This bill became P L  115-232 on August 13, 2018  Section 621 of the enacted bill adopted House Section 629, which extends eligibility of certain MWR and commissary privileges to certain veterans, including Purple Heart recipients, and their caregivers starting in 2020  For additional information see section, "Defense Commissary System," in CRS Report R45343, FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues   For bill summaries of Purple Heart legislation in the 116 th Congress as introduced, see Table 1   The large number of veterans with invisible wounds returning from Iraq and Afghanistan has the Department of Defense (DOD) reevaluating Purple Heart eligibility for traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and mental conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)  DOD considers some TBIs eligible for the Purple Heart, as many of those injuries can be diagnosed using brain scans and other objective medical tests  However, there is continued debate on the inclusion of mental conditions, such as PTSD, as part of the appropriate criteria for the Purple Heart  Congress, as well as various executive agencies and departments, is funding and conducting studies regarding PTSD  The National Alliance on Mental Illness, a national grassroots advocacy group representing families and people affected by mental illness, is advocating that the Purple Heart be awarded for psychological wounds including PTSD to eliminate stigma and encourage servicemembers to seek care  At this time, DOD does not consider servicemembers with PTSD eligible for the Purple Heart  Army Regulation 600-8-22 allows "concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions" but specifically disqualifies post-traumatic stress disorders  Army guidance emphasizes "the degree to which the enemy caused the injury" when determining eligibility and places PTSD in a column of noneligible injuries  The Marine Corps defines PTSD as a "severe combat stress injury" and says that combat stress injuries are "not directly caused by the enemy's intentional use of an outside force or agent," and thus do not qualify  Servicemembers are divided on this issue  Some servicemembers believe that mental injuries such as PTSD should be eligible for the Purple Heart, while others believe that it would dishonor those who have received Purple Hearts for physical injuries  Proponents argue that some veterans are less likely to seek help for their mental-health injuries because of the stigma associated with PTSD, and that stigma could be lessened by recognizing their injuries as real  Opponents, including some veterans from the Military Order of the Purple Heart and Veterans of Foreign Wars, are resistant to accepting PTSD as grounds for eligibility  A representative of The Military Order of the Purple Heart stated, "We believe strongly in and support the criteria that the wound or death should be sustained in combat at the hands of the enemies of the United States " In addition, the national spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Joseph E  Davis, said, "Medals aren't awarded for illness or disease, but for 'achievement and valor '" Appendix A  Timeline of Purple Heart Eligibility August 7, 1782: George Washington creates the Badge of Military Merit  Awarded to several Continental soldiers but it quickly falls from use  February 22, 1932: Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur revives the Badge of Military Merit as an Army award, renamed "the Purple Heart," and retroactively awarded to wounded WWI veterans  December 3, 1942: Executive Order 9277—President Franklin Roosevelt expands Purple Heart eligibility to include U S  Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard  Retroactively awards Purple Hearts to December 6, 1941  November 12, 1952: Executive Order 10409—President Truman retroactively awards Purple Hearts to U S  Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard veterans after April 5, 1917  April 25, 1962: Executive Order 11016—President Kennedy extends eligibility to civilians serving with military forces  February 23, 1984: Executive Order 12464—President Reagan awards Purple Hearts to those killed and wounded in terrorist attacks after March 28, 1973, or on peacekeeping missions outside the United States  February 10, 1996: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Section 521, P L  104-106 ) includes "prisoners of war wounded before April 25, 1962, while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) in the same manner as a former prisoner of war who is wounded on or after that date while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) " November 18, 1997: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Section 571, P L  105-85 ) limits future Purple Heart awards to members of the Armed Forces  October 17, 2006: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Section 556, P L  109-364 ) includes prisoners of war captured after December 7, 1941  April 30, 2008: Purple Heart Family Equity Act of 2007 ( P L  110-207 ) revises the congressional charter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart to authorize associate membership for the spouse and siblings of a recipient of the Purple Heart medal  December 19, 2014: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Section 571, P L  113-291 ) expands eligibility for the Purple Heart by redefining what should be considered an attack by a foreign terrorist organization, and awards Purple Heart medals to servicemembers wounded or killed during the 2009 shootings at Ft  Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas  Appendix B  Staffer Instructions for Medal Requests Members of Congress are able to directly request that a Service Secretary consider awarding military decorations to individuals or groups  Upon receiving a request from a Member's office, the Service Secretary concerned will review the proposal for the award or presentation of a decoration (or the upgrading of a decoration)  Based on that review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award or presentation of the decoration and other necessary determinations  The Secretary shall submit a notice to the requesting Member, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the House Armed Services Committee with one of the following results: (1) The award or presentation of the decoration does not warrant approval on the merits  A statement explaining the Secretary's reason will be included  (2) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval and a waiver by law of time restrictions prescribed by law is recommended  (3) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval on the merits and has been approved as an exception to policy  (4) The award or presentation of the decoration warrants approval on the merits, but a waiver of the time restrictions prescribed in law is not recommended  A statement explaining the Secretary's reason will be included  Source: Compiled from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 ( P L  104-106 , §526), February 10, 1996 

ground_truth: The Purple Heart is one of the oldest and most recognized American military medals, awarded to servicemembers who were killed or wounded by enemy action. The conflicts 2001 to the present have greatly increased the number of Purple Hearts awarded to servicemembers. Events over the past few years have spurred debate on the eligibility criteria for the Purple Heart. Shootings on U.S. soil and medical conditions such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have prompted changes to the eligibility requirements for the Purple Heart. Some critics believe that these changes may lessen the value of the medal and the sacrifices of past recipients on the battlefield. In the past, efforts to modify the Purple Heart's eligibility requirements were contentious, and veterans groups were vocal concerning eligibility changes. While medal requirements are often left to the military and executive branch to decide, Congress is involved in Purple Heart eligibility, utilizing its constitutional power "To Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 14). The Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291) included language that expands eligibility for the Purple Heart. Previous debates have raised several questions about the Purple Heart. In some respects, how an event is defined can determine eligibility: Is a servicemember the victim of a crime or a terrorist attack? Conversely, arguing that killed or wounded servicemembers "should" be eligible for the Purple Heart can redefine an event: Is the servicemember an advisor to a foreign military or a combatant? Are PTSD and other mental health conditions adequate injuries to warrant the Purple Heart? These are questions that Congress might consider if it chooses to act on this issue.