Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 10997 

or disability. State agencies and school 

food authorities shall comply with the 

requirements of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964; title IX of the 

Education Amendments of 1972; section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 

the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; 

Department of Agriculture regulations 

on nondiscrimination (7 CFR parts 15, 

15a and 15b); and FNS Instruction 113– 

6. 

(b) When accommodating children 

due to medical or special dietary needs, 

schools must follow the applicable 

provisions in § 210.10(g) of this chapter. 

§ 211.22 Program information. 

School food authorities and schools 

desiring information about the Program 

should contact their State educational 

agency or the appropriate FNS Regional 

Office at the address or telephone 

number listed on the FNS Web site 

(www.fns.usda.gov/cnd). 

PART 235—STATE ADMINISTRATIVE 

EXPENSE FUNDS 

1. The authority citation for part 235 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 7 and 10 of the Child 

Nutrition Act of 1966, 80 Stat. 888, 889, as 

amended (42. U.S.C. 1776, 1779). 

2. Section 235.1 is amended by 

adding the phrase ‘‘and the Fresh Fruit 

and Vegetable Program (7 CFR part 

211).’’ to the end of the second sentence. 

Dated: February 10, 2012. 

Kevin W. Concannon, 

Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4181 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0048] 

RIN 1904–AC04 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Distribution Transformers; Correction 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and public meeting; correction. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking on February 10, 

2012, which proposed to amend DOE 

regulations regarding energy 

conservation standards for distribution 

transformers. It was recently discovered 

that values in certain tables of the 

proposed rule are inaccurate or absent. 

This notice corrects these inaccuracies 

as described. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data 

and information regarding this 

correction before and after the February 

23, 2012, public meeting, but no later 

than April 10, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email: 

Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov. 

Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–5709. Email: 

Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

‘‘Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ Part C of Title III of 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) established 

a similar program for ‘‘Certain Industrial 

Equipment,’’ including distribution 

transformers. The Energy Policy Act of 

1992 (EPACT 1992), Public Law 102– 

486, amended EPCA and directed DOE 

to prescribe energy conservation 

standards for distribution transformers. 

(42 U.S.C. 6317(a)) On October 12, 2007, 

DOE published a final rule that 

established energy conservation 

standards for liquid-immersed 

distribution transformers and mediumvoltage, dry-type distribution 

transformers (72 FR 58190). The Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), 

Public Law 109–25, amended EPCA to 

establish energy conservation standards 

for low-voltage, dry-type distribution 

transformers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(y)) On 

February 10, 2012, DOE published a 

proposed rule with amended energy 

conservation standards for liquidimmersed, medium-voltage dry-type, 

and low-voltage, dry-type distribution 

transformers (77 FR 7282). 

Need for Correction 

As published, values in certain tables 

of the proposed rule are inaccurate or 

absent. DOE solicits public comment on 

the changes contained in this document 

as part of the February 10 NOPR. 

Corrections 

In proposed rule FR Doc. 2012–2642 

appearing on page 7282 in the issue of 

Friday, February 10, 2012, the following 

corrections should be made: 

1. On page 7285, Table I.5 is corrected 

to read as follows: 

TABLE I.5—PROPOSED ELECTRICAL EFFICIENCIES FOR ALL LIQUID-IMMERSED DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER EQUIPMENT

CLASSES (COMPLIANCE STARTING JANUARY 1, 2016) 

Standards by kVA and equipment class 

Equipment class 1 Equipment class 2 

kVA % kVA % 

10 .................................................................................. 98.70 15 .................................................................................. 98.65 

15 .................................................................................. 98.82 30 .................................................................................. 98.83 

25 .................................................................................. 98.95 45 .................................................................................. 98.92 

37.5 ............................................................................... 99.05 75 .................................................................................. 99.03 

50 .................................................................................. 99.11 112.5 ............................................................................. 99.11 

75 .................................................................................. 99.19 150 ................................................................................ 99.16 

100 ................................................................................ 99.25 225 ................................................................................ 99.23 

167 ................................................................................ 99.33 300 ................................................................................ 99.27 

250 ................................................................................ 99.39 500 ................................................................................ 99.35 

333 ................................................................................ 99.43 750 ................................................................................ 99.40 

500 ................................................................................ 99.49 1000 .............................................................................. 99.43 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10998 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I.5—PROPOSED ELECTRICAL EFFICIENCIES FOR ALL LIQUID-IMMERSED DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER EQUIPMENT

CLASSES (COMPLIANCE STARTING JANUARY 1, 2016)—Continued 

Standards by kVA and equipment class 

Equipment class 1 Equipment class 2 

kVA % kVA % 

667 ................................................................................ 99.52 1500 .............................................................................. 99.48 

833 ................................................................................ 99.55 2000 .............................................................................. 99.51 

.................................................................................. 2500 .............................................................................. 99.53 

2. On page 7344, Table V.9 is 

corrected to read as follows: 

TABLE V.9—SUMMARY LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR DESIGN LINE 6 REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Efficiency (%) ................................................................... 98.00 98.60 98.80 99.17 99.17 99.44 

Transformers with Net Increase in LCC (%) ................... 0.0 71.5 17.6 36.2 36.2 93.4 

Transformers with Net LCC Savings (%) ........................ 0.0 28.5 82.4 63.8 63.8 6.6 

Transformers with No Impact on LCC (%) ...................... 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Mean LCC Savings ($) .................................................... 0 ¥125 303 187 187 ¥881 

Median PBP (Years) ........................................................ 0.0 24.7 12.8 16.3 16.3 32.4 

3. On page 7346, Table V.20 is 

corrected to read as follows: 

TABLE V.20—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS (YEARS) FOR LOW-VOLTAGE DRY-TYPE DISTRIBUTION

TRANSFORMERS

Design line Rated capacity 

(kVA) 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

6 ................................... 25 0.0 15.9 13.5 15.0 15.0 26.5 

7 ................................... 75 4.2 4.2 4.4 6.4 6.4 14.9 

8 ................................... 300 6.8 6.8 10.4 9.7 20.2 20.2 

4. On page 7363, Table V.39 is 

corrected to read as follows: 

TABLE V.39—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR LIQUID-IMMERSED DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

Standards by kVA and equipment class 

Equipment class 1 Equipment class 2 

kVA % kVA % 

10 .................................................................................. 98.70 15 .................................................................................. 98.65 

15 .................................................................................. 98.82 30 .................................................................................. 98.83 

25 .................................................................................. 98.95 45 .................................................................................. 98.92 

37.5 ............................................................................... 99.05 75 .................................................................................. 99.03 

50 .................................................................................. 99.11 112.5 ............................................................................. 99.11 

75 .................................................................................. 99.19 150 ................................................................................ 99.16 

100 ................................................................................ 99.25 225 ................................................................................ 99.23 

167 ................................................................................ 99.33 300 ................................................................................ 99.27 

250 ................................................................................ 99.39 500 ................................................................................ 99.35 

333 ................................................................................ 99.43 750 ................................................................................ 99.40 

500 ................................................................................ 99.49 1000 .............................................................................. 99.43 

667 ................................................................................ 99.52 1500 .............................................................................. 99.48 

833 ................................................................................ 99.55 2000 .............................................................................. 99.51 

2500 .............................................................................. 99.53 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 10999 

5. On pages 7363 and 7364, Table 

V.41 is corrected to read as follows: 

TABLE V.41—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LOW-VOLTAGE, DRY-TYPE DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS: 

MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (2011$ million) ...... 203 to 236 ....... 200 to 235 ....... 193 to 240 ....... 173 to 250 ....... 164 to 263 ....... 136 to 322. 

Industry NPV (% change) ........... (7.7) to 7.7 ....... (8.9) to 6.8 ....... (12.2) to 9.1 ..... (21.0) to 14.1 ... (25.2) to 20.0 ... (37.9) to 46.4 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2010$) 

Design line 6 ............................... 0 ....................... ¥125 ............... 303 ................... 187 ................... 187 ................... ¥881. 

Design line 7 ............................... 1714 ................. 1714 ................. 1793 ................. 2270 ................. 2270 ................. 270. 

Design line 8 ............................... 2476 ................. 2476 ................. 2625 ................. 4145 ................. ¥2812 ............. ¥2812. 

Consumer Median PBP (years) 

Design line 6 ............................... 0.0 .................... 24.7 .................. 12.8 .................. 16.3 .................. 16.3 .................. 32.4. 

Design line 7 ............................... 4.5 .................... 4.5 .................... 4.7 .................... 6.9 .................... 6.9 .................... 18.1. 

Design line 8 ............................... 8.4 .................... 8.4 .................... 12.3 .................. 11.0 .................. 24.5 .................. 24.5. 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Design line 6 

Net Cost (%) ................................ 0.0 .................... 71.5 .................. 17.6 .................. 36.2 .................. 36.2 .................. 93.4. 

Net Benefit (%) ............................ 0.0 .................... 28.5 .................. 82.4 .................. 63.8 .................. 63.8 .................. 6.6. 

No Impact (%) ............................. 100.0 ................ 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0. 

Design line 7 

Net Cost (%) ................................ 041*1.8 ............ 1.8 .................... 2.0 .................... 3.7 .................... 3.7 .................... 46.4. 

Net Benefit (%) ............................ 98.2 .................. 98.2 .................. 98.0 .................. 96.3 .................. 96.3 .................. 53.6. 

No Impact (%) ............................. 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0. 

Design line 8 

Net Cost (%) ................................ 5.2 .................... 5.2 .................... 15.3 .................. 10.5 .................. 78.5 .................. 78.5. 

Net Benefit (%) ............................ 94.8 .................. 94.8 .................. 84.7 .................. 89.5 .................. 21.5 .................. 21.5. 

No Impact (%) ............................. 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0. 

6. The first sentence on page 7365, 

column 1, paragraph 7 is corrected to 

read as follows: 

‘‘At TSL 3, the average LCC impact 

ranges from $303 for design line 6 to 

$2,625 for design line 8. The median 

PBP ranges from 12.8 years for design 

line 6 to 4.7 years for design line 7’’. 

7. On pages 7379 and 7380, § 431.196, 

the ‘‘%’’ headings in the second row of 

the tables in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

are corrected to read as ‘‘Efficiency 

(%)’’. 

8. On page 7380, § 431.196, 

interchange the tables in paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (b)(2) to read as follows: 

(b) Liquid-Immersed Distribution 

Transformers. 

(1) The efficiency of a liquidimmersed distribution transformer 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010, but before January 1, 2016, shall 

be no less than that required for their 

kVA rating in the table below. Liquidimmersed distribution transformers 

with kVA ratings not appearing in the 

table shall have their minimum 

efficiency level determined by linear 

interpolation of the kVA and efficiency 

values immediately above and below 

that kVA rating. 

Single-phase Three-phase 

kVA Efficiency (%) kVA Efficiency (%) 

10 .................................................................................. 98.62 15 .................................................................................. 98.36 

15 .................................................................................. 98.76 30 .................................................................................. 98.62 

25 .................................................................................. 98.91 45 .................................................................................. 98.76 

37.5 ............................................................................... 99.01 75 .................................................................................. 98.91 

50 .................................................................................. 99.08 112.5 ............................................................................. 99.01 

75 .................................................................................. 99.17 150 ................................................................................ 99.08 

100 ................................................................................ 99.23 225 ................................................................................ 99.17 

167 ................................................................................ 99.25 300 ................................................................................ 99.23 

250 ................................................................................ 99.32 500 ................................................................................ 99.25 

333 ................................................................................ 99.36 750 ................................................................................ 99.32 

500 ................................................................................ 99.42 1000 .............................................................................. 99.36 

667 ................................................................................ 99.46 1500 .............................................................................. 99.42 

833 ................................................................................ 99.49 2000 .............................................................................. 99.46 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Single-phase Three-phase 

kVA Efficiency (%) kVA Efficiency (%) 

2500 .............................................................................. 99.49 

Note: All efficiency values are at 50 percent of nameplate-rated load, determined according to the DOE Test-Procedure. 10 CFR Part 431, 

Subpart K, Appendix A. 

(2) The efficiency of a liquidimmersed distribution transformer 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2016, shall be no less than that required 

for their kVA rating in the table below. 

Liquid-immersed distribution 

transformers with kVA ratings not 

appearing in the table shall have their 

minimum efficiency level determined 

by linear interpolation of the kVA and 

efficiency values immediately above 

and below that kVA rating. 

Single-phase Three-phase 

kVA Efficiency (%) kVA Efficiency (%) 

10 .................................................................................. 98.70 15 .................................................................................. 98.65 

15 .................................................................................. 98.82 30 .................................................................................. 98.83 

25 .................................................................................. 98.95 45 .................................................................................. 98.92 

37.5 ............................................................................... 99.05 75 .................................................................................. 99.03 

50 .................................................................................. 99.11 112.5 ............................................................................. 99.11 

75 .................................................................................. 99.19 150 ................................................................................ 99.16 

100 ................................................................................ 99.25 225 ................................................................................ 99.23 

167 ................................................................................ 99.33 300 ................................................................................ 99.27 

250 ................................................................................ 99.39 500 ................................................................................ 99.35 

333 ................................................................................ 99.43 750 ................................................................................ 99.40 

500 ................................................................................ 99.49 1000 .............................................................................. 99.43 

667 ................................................................................ 99.52 1500 .............................................................................. 99.48 

833 ................................................................................ 99.55 2000 .............................................................................. 99.51 

2500 .............................................................................. 99.53 

Note: All efficiency values are at 50 percent of nameplate-rated load, determined according to the DOE Test-Procedure. 10 CFR Part 431, 

Subpart K, Appendix A. 

9. On pages 7380 and 7381, § 431.196, 

interchange the tables in paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (c)(2) to read as follows: 

(c) Medium-Voltage Dry-Type 

Distribution Transformers. 

(1) The efficiency of a mediumvoltage dry-type distribution 

transformer manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2010, but before January 1, 

2016, shall be no less than that required 

for their kVA and BIL rating in the table 

below. Medium-voltage dry-type 

distribution transformers with kVA 

ratings not appearing in the table shall 

have their minimum efficiency level 

determined by linear interpolation of 

the kVA and efficiency values 

immediately above and below that kVA 

rating. 

Single-phase Three-phase 

BIL* 20–45 kV 46–95 kV ≥96 kV BIL* 20–45 kV 46–95 kV ≥96 kV 

kVA 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Efficiency 

(%) kVA 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Efficiency 

(%) 

15 ................. 98.10 97.86 .......................... 15 97.50 97.18 ..........................

25 ................. 98.33 98.12 .......................... 30 97.90 97.63 ..........................

37.5 .............. 98.49 98.30 .......................... 45 98.10 97.86 ..........................

50 ................. 98.60 98.42 .......................... 75 98.33 98.12 ..........................

75 ................. 98.73 98.57 98.53 112.5 98.49 98.30 ..........................

100 ............... 98.82 98.67 98.63 150 98.60 98.42 ..........................

167 ............... 98.96 98.83 98.80 225 98.73 98.57 98.53 

250 ............... 99.07 98.95 98.91 300 98.82 98.67 98.63 

333 ............... 99.14 99.03 98.99 500 98.96 98.83 98.80 

500 ............... 99.22 99.12 99.09 750 99.07 98.95 98.91 

667 ............... 99.27 99.18 99.15 1000 99.14 99.03 98.99 

833 ............... 99.31 99.23 99.20 1500 99.22 99.12 99.09 

2000 99.27 99.18 99.15 

2500 99.31 99.23 99.20 

*BIL means basic impulse insulation level. 

Note: All efficiency values are at 50 percent of nameplate rated load, determined according to the DOE Test-Procedure. 10 CFR Part 431, 

Subpart K, Appendix A. 

(2) The efficiency of a mediumvoltage dry-type distribution 

transformer manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2016, shall be no less than 

that required for their kVA and BIL 

rating in the table below. Mediumvoltage dry-type distribution 

transformers with kVA ratings not 

appearing in the table shall have their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11001 

minimum efficiency level determined 

by linear interpolation of the kVA and 

efficiency values immediately above 

and below that kVA rating. 

Single-phase Three-phase 

BIL* 20–45 kV 46–95 kV ≥96 kV BIL* 20–45 kV 46–95 kV ≥96 kV 

kVA 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Efficiency 

(%) kVA 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Efficiency 

(%) 

15 ................. 98.10 97.86 .......................... 15 97.50 97.18 ..........................

25 ................. 98.33 98.12 .......................... 30 97.90 97.63 ..........................

37.5 .............. 98.49 98.30 .......................... 45 98.10 97.86 ..........................

50 ................. 98.60 98.42 .......................... 75 98.33 98.13 ..........................

75 ................. 98.73 98.57 98.53 112.5 98.52 98.36 ..........................

100 ............... 98.82 98.67 98.63 150 98.65 98.51 ..........................

167 ............... 98.96 98.83 98.80 225 98.82 98.69 98.57 

250 ............... 99.07 98.95 98.91 300 98.93 98.81 98.69 

333 ............... 99.14 99.03 98.99 500 99.09 98.99 98.89 

500 ............... 99.22 99.12 99.09 750 99.21 99.12 99.02 

667 ............... 99.27 99.18 99.15 1000 99.28 99.20 99.11 

833 ............... 99.31 99.23 99.20 1500 99.37 99.30 99.21 

2000 99.43 99.36 99.28 

2500 99.47 99.41 99.33 

* BIL means basic impulse insulation level. 

Note: All efficiency values are at 50 percent of nameplate rated load, determined according to the DOE Test-Procedure. 10 CFR Part 431, 

Subpart K, Appendix A. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 15, 

2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3987 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Part 121 

RIN 3245–AG30 

Small Business Size Standards: Health 

Care and Social Assistance 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) proposes to 

increase small business size standards 

for 28 industries in North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

Sector 62, Health Care and Social 

Assistance. As part of its ongoing 

comprehensive review of all size 

standards, SBA has evaluated all size 

standards in NAICS Sector 62 to 

determine whether the existing size 

standards should be retained or revised. 

This proposed rule is one of a series of 

proposed rules that will review size 

standards of industries grouped by 

NAICS Sector. SBA issued a White 

Paper entitled ‘‘Size Standards 

Methodology’’ and published a notice in 

the October 21, 2009 issue of the 

Federal Register that the ‘‘Size 

Standards Methodology’’ White Paper 

was available on its Web site at 

www.sba.gov/size for public review and 

comments (74 FR 53940). The ‘‘Size 

Standards Methodology’’ White Paper 

explains how SBA establishes, reviews, 

and modifies its receipts based and 

employee based small business size 

standards. In this proposed rule, SBA 

has applied its methodology that 

pertains to establishing, reviewing, and 

modifying a receipts based size 

standard. 

DATES: SBA must receive comments to 

this proposed rule on or before April 24, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 3245–AG30 by one of 

the following methods: (1) Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov, following the 

instructions for submitting comments; 

or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Size 

Standards Division, 409 Third Street 

SW., Mail Code 6530, Washington, DC 

20416. SBA will not accept comments to 

this proposed rule submitted by email. 

SBA will post all comments to this 

proposed rule without change on 

www.regulations.gov. If you wish to 

submit confidential business 

information (CBI) as defined in the User 

Notice at www.regulations.gov, you 

must submit such information to U.S. 

Small Business Administration, Khem 

R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Size Standards 

Division, 409 Third Street SW., Mail 

Code 6530, Washington, DC 20416, or 

send an email to sizestandards@sba.gov. 

Highlight the information that you 

consider to be CBI and explain why you 

believe SBA should hold this 

information as confidential. SBA will 

review your information and determine 

whether it will make the information 

public or not. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Khem R. Sharma, Ph.D., Chief, Size 

Standards Division, (202) 205–6618 or 

sizestandards@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To 

determine eligibility for Federal small 

business assistance, SBA establishes 

small business size definitions (referred 

to as size standards) for private sector 

industries in the United States. SBA 

uses two primary measures of business 

size: average annual receipts and 

average number of employees. SBA uses 

financial assets, electric output, and 

refining capacity to measure the size of 

a few specialized industries. In 

addition, SBA’s Small Business 

Investment Company (SBIC), Certified 

Development Company (504), and 7(a) 

Loan Programs use either the industry 

based size standards or net worth and 

net income based alternative size 

standards to determine eligibility for 

those programs. At the beginning of the 

current comprehensive size standards 

review, there were 41 different size 

standards covering 1,141 NAICS 

industries and 18 sub-industry activities 

(referred to as ‘‘exceptions’’ in SBA’s 

table of size standards). Thirty-one of 

these size levels were based on average 

annual receipts, seven were based on 

average number of employees, and three 

were based on other measures. 

Over the years, SBA has received 

comments that its size standards have 

not kept up with changes in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS