This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

85852 

Vol. 88, No. 236 

Monday, December 11, 2023 

1See Report on the First Five-Year 

Comprehensive Review of Size Standards at https:// 

www.sba.gov/sites/sbagov/files/2023-09/ 

Report%20on%20the%20First%205- 

Year%20Comprehensive%20Size

%20Standards%20Review-508F.pdf. 2See Report on the Second Five-Year 

Comprehensive Review of Size Standards at https:// 

www.sba.gov/sites/sbagov/files/2023-07/ 

SBA%27s%20Report%20on%20the%20Second%

205%20Year%20Review%20of%20Size%20

Standards_Final.pdf. 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Part 121 

Small Business Size Standards: 

Revised Size Standards Methodology 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of white 

paper on Revised Size Standards 

Methodology for comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA or Agency) advises 

the public that it has revised its white 

paper explaining how it establishes, 

reviews, and modifies small business 

size standards. The revised white paper 

provides a detailed description of SBA’s 

size standards methodology, including 

changes from SBA’s 2019 Revised Size 

Standards Methodology (2019 

Methodology, available at www.sba.gov/ 

size), which guided SBA’s recently 

completed second five-year review of 

size standards as required by the Small 

Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs Act). 

SBA welcomes comments and feedback 

on the 2023 Revised Methodology, 

which SBA intends to apply to the 

forthcoming third five-year review of 

size standards. 

DATES: SBA must receive comments to 

the 2023 Revised Methodology on or 

before February 9, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The 2023 Revised 

Methodology White Paper, titled ‘‘SBA’s 

Size Standards Methodology (December 

2023),’’ is available on the SBA’s 

website at http://www.sba.gov/size and 

on the Federal rulemaking portal at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Comments may be submitted on the 

2023 Revised Methodology, identified 

by Docket number SBA–2023–0015, by 

one of the following methods: (1) 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov (follow the 

instructions for submitting comments), 

(2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S.

Small Business Administration, Khem

R. Sharma, Chief, Office of Size

Standards, 409 Third Street SW, Mail

Code 6530, Washington, DC 20416, or 

(3) Email at sizestandards@sba.gov.

SBA will post all comments on

www.regulations.gov. If you wish to 

submit confidential business 

information (CBI) as defined in the User 

Notice at www.regulations.gov, please 

submit the information to Khem R. 

Sharma, Chief, Office of Size Standards, 

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 the 

information and make the final 

determination of whether it will publish 

the information or not. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Khem R. Sharma, Chief, Office of Size 

Standards, (202) 205–7189 or 

sizestandards@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To 

determine eligibility for Federal small 

business assistance programs, SBA 

establishes small business definitions 

(commonly referred to as ‘‘size 

standards’’) for private sector industries 

in the United States. Under the Small 

Business Act, the SBA’s Administrator 

has authority to establish small business 

size standards for Federal Government 

programs. SBA’s existing size standards 

use two primary measures of business 

size: average annual receipts and 

average number of employees. Financial 

assets and refining capacity are used as 

size measures for a few specialized 

industries. In addition, the SBA’s Small 

Business Investment Company (SBIC), 

7(a), Certified Development Company 

(CDC/504) Programs determine small 

business eligibility using either the 

industry based size standards or 

tangible net worth and net income based 

alternative size standards. Presently, 

there are 102 different size standards, 

covering 978 industries and 14 

exceptions. Of these, 505 are based on 

average annual receipts, 483 on number 

of employees (one of which also 

includes barrels per calendar day total 

refining capacity), and four on average 

assets. 

The Jobs Act (Pub. L. 111–240, 124 

Stat. 2504, Sept. 27, 2010) requires SBA 

to review, every five years, all size 

standards and make necessary 

adjustments to reflect market 

conditions. SBA completed the first 

five-year review of size standards under 

the Jobs Act in early 2016 1 and 

completed the second five-year review 

of size standards in early 2023.2 SBA 

will begin the next (third) five-year 

review of size standards in the near 

future. 

The goal of SBA’s size standards 

review is to determine whether its 

existing small business size standards 

reflect the current industry structure 

and Federal market conditions and 

revise them if the latest available data 

suggests that revisions are warranted. 

The Small Business Act (the Act), 15 

U.S.C. 632(a) (Pub. L. 85–536, 67 Stat. 

232, as amended) requires that the size 

standard varies from industry to 

industry to the extent necessary to 

reflect the differing characteristics of the 

various industries. SBA 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 startup costs and entry 

barriers, the four-firm concentration 

ratio as a measure of industry 

competition, and size distribution of 

firms using the Gini coefficient (13 CFR 

121.102(a)). Besides industry structure, 

SBA also examines the impact of an 

existing size standard as well as the 

potential impact of a revised size 

standard on small business participation 

in Federal contracting as an additional 

primary factor when establishing or 

reviewing the size standards. SBA 

generally considers these five factors— 

average firm size, average assets size, 

four-firm concentration ratio, Gini 

coefficient, and small business 

participation in Federal contracting—to 

be the most important factors in 

determining an industry’s size standard. 

The 2023 Revised Size Standards 

Methodology White Paper provides a 

detailed description of evaluation of 

these factors (including relevant data 

sources) and derivation of size 

standards based on the results. 

SBA also periodically adjusts all 

monetary based standards for inflation. 

In accordance with SBA’s regulations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 236 / Monday, December 11, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85853 

3For a detailed justification for replacement of 

the ‘‘anchor’’ approach to size standards analysis 

with the ‘‘percentile’’ approach and a detailed 

description of the percentile approach, see the 

SBA’s 2019 Size Standards Methodology White 

Paper, available at www.sba.gov/size. 

(13CFR 121.102(c)) and rulemaking (67 

FR 3041; January 23, 2002), an 

adjustment to size standards for 

inflation is made at least once every five 

years. In response to higher than normal 

rates of inflation, some past inflation 

adjustments have been made on more 

frequent intervals. For example, in 

response to ongoing higher than normal 

inflation, SBA issued an out-of-cycle 

inflation adjustment to monetary based 

size standards on November 17, 2022 

(87 FR 69118). The SBA size standards 

methodology also explains how it 

adjusts monetary based size standards 

for inflation. SBA also updates its size 

standards, every five years, to adopt the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) quinquennial NAICS revisions to 

its table of small business size 

standards. Effective October 1, 2022, 

SBA adopted the OMB’s 2022 NAICS 

revisions (86 FR 72277; December 21, 

2021) for its table of small business size 

standards (87 FR 59240; September 29, 

2022). The white paper also explains the 

SBA procedures for adopting updated 

NAICS definitions for the table of size 

standards. 

Section 3(a) of the Act provides the 

SBA’s Administrator (Administrator) 

with authority to establish small 

business size standards for Federal 

Government programs. The 

Administrator has discretion to 

determine precisely how SBA should 

establish small business size standards. 

The Act and its legislative history 

highlight three important considerations 

for establishing size standards. First, as 

stated earlier, size standards should 

vary from industry to industry 

according to differences among 

industries. 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(3). Second, 

a firm that qualifies as small under the 

SBA’s size standard shall not be 

dominant in its field of operation. 15 

U.S.C. 632(a)(1). Third, pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. 631(a), the policies of the Agency 

should assist small businesses as a 

means of encouraging and strengthening 

their competitiveness in the economy. 

These three considerations continue to 

form the basis for the SBA’s 

methodology for establishing, 

reviewing, or revising small business 

size standards. 

The 2023 Revised Methodology, 

available for review and comment on 

the SBA’s website at www.sba.gov/size, 

as well as at www.regulations.gov, 

describes in detail how SBA establishes, 

evaluates, and adjusts its small business 

size standards pursuant to the Act and 

related legislative guidelines. 

Specifically, the document provides a 

brief review of the legal authority and 

early legislative and regulatory history 

of small business size standards, 

followed by a detailed description of the 

size standards analysis. Below, SBA 

provides a brief summary of the 

revisions to SBA’s size standards 

methodology, which are described in 

greater detail in the 2023 Revised 

Methodology. 

Revisions to SBA’s Size Standards 

Methodology 

SBA’s 2023 Revised Methodology 

describes various changes and revisions 

to the 2019 Methodology and provides 

a detailed history of changes to SBA’s 

methodology for evaluating size 

standards over the years. In the past, 

including the first five-year review of 

size standards under the Jobs Act, to 

determine an overall size standard for 

each industry, SBA compared the 

characteristics of each industry with the 

average characteristics of a group of 

industries associated with an ‘‘anchor’’ 

size standard. For example, in the first 

five-year review of size standards, $7 

million (now $9 million due to the 

inflation adjustments in 2014, 2019, and 

2022) was considered the ‘‘anchor’’ for 

receipts based size standards and 500 

employees was considered the ‘‘anchor’’ 

for employee based size standards. If the 

characteristics of a specific industry 

under review were similar to the 

average characteristics of industries in 

the anchor group, SBA generally 

adopted the anchor size standard for 

that industry. If the specific industry’s 

characteristics were significantly higher 

or lower than those for the anchor 

group, SBA assigned a size standard that 

was higher or lower than the anchor. 

In response to public comments 

received during the first five-year 

review of size standards concerning 

SBA’s size standards methodology, 

section 3(a)(7) of the Act that limits the 

SBA’s ability to create common size 

standards by grouping industries below 

the four-digit NAICS level, and its own 

review of the methodology, in the 2019 

Methodology, SBA replaced the 

‘‘anchor’’ approach with the 

‘‘percentile’’ approach, as a basis of 

evaluating industry factors and deriving 

a size standard for each industry factor 

for each industry.3 Under the 

‘‘percentile’’ approach, for each factor, 

an industry is ranked and compared 

with the 20th percentile and 80th 

percentile values of that factor among 

the industries sharing the same measure 

of size standards (i.e., receipts or 

employees). Combining that result with 

the 20th percentile and 80th percentile 

values of size standards among the 

industries with the same measure of size 

standards, SBA computes a size 

standard supported by each industry 

factor for each industry, then computes 

a weighted average of the resulting 

supported size standards to obtain an 

overall size standard for each industry. 

In the 2023 Revised Methodology, 

SBA is maintaining the ‘‘percentile’’ 

approach as a basis of evaluating 

industry factors and deriving size 

standards for each industry factor for 

each industry; however, based on its 

review of the current methodology, SBA 

is proposing two major changes to its 

size standards methodology. 

The first major change is to replace 

the current approach to account for the 

Federal contracting factor with the 

disparity ratio approach. Under the 

2019 Methodology SBA defines the 

Federal contracting factor in terms of 

the difference between the small 

business share of total contract 

obligations and the small business share 

of industry’ receipts. If the small 

business share of an industry total 

receipts exceeds the small business 

share of total contract obligations by ten 

percentage points or more, all else being 

the same, SBA would increase that 

industry’s current size standard by 

certain amount depending on the 

amount of that difference. If that 

difference is less than ten percentage 

points, SBA considers that the current 

size standard is sufficient with respect 

to the Federal contracting factor. 

Under the disparity ratio approach, 

SBA computes a disparity ratio as a 

ratio (instead of the difference) between 

the small business share of contract 

obligations (utilization ratio) and the 

small business share of industry receipts 

(availability ratio). SBA also computes a 

second disparity ratio as a ratio between 

small business share of the number of 

contracts (utilization ratio) and the 

share of small firms in the total 

population of firms that are willing, 

ready, and able to bid on and perform 

Federal contracts (availability ratio). 

If an industry’s disparity ratio is less 

than 0.8, SBA would assume that small 

businesses are either materially 

underrepresented (i.e., the disparity 

ratio is 0.5 or greater and less than 0.8) 

or substantially underrepresented (i.e., 

the disparity ratio is less than 0.5) in the 

Federal market under that industry’s 

current size standard and would 

generally propose to increase the 

current size standard. If an industry’s 

disparity ratio is 0.8 or higher, small 

businesses are considered 

overrepresented (i.e., the disparity ratio 

is 0.8 or higher and less than 1.2) or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85854 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 236 / Monday, December 11, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

4See Small Business Size Standards: Agriculture, 

Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; Mining, Quarrying, 

and Oil and Gas Extraction; Utilities; Construction 

(85 FR 62239; October 2, 2020), Small Business Size 

Standards: Transportation and Warehousing; 

Information; Finance and Insurance; Real Estate and 

Rental and Leasing (85 FR 62372; October 2, 2020), 

Small Business Size Standards: Professional, 

Scientific and Technical Services; Management of 

Companies and Enterprises; Administrative and 

Support and Waste Management and Remediation 

Services (85 FR 72584; November 13, 2020), Small 

Business Size Standards: Education Services; 

Health Care and Social Assistance; Arts, 

Entertainment and Recreation; Accommodation and 

Food Services; Other Services (85 FR 76390; 

November 27, 2020), and Small Business Size 

Standards: Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade (86 

FR 28012; May 25, 2021), Small Business Size 

Standards: Manufacturing and Industries With 

Employee-Based Size Standards in Other Sectors 

Except Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade (87 FR 

24752; April 26, 2022). Comments available at 

www.regulations.gov. 

5Prior to finalizing the 2019 Methodology for 

revising size standards under the second five-year 

review, SBA issued a notification in the April 27, 

2018, issue of the Federal Register (83 FR 18468) 

to solicit comments from the public and notify 

stakeholders of the proposed changes to the 2019 

Methodology. SBA considered all public comments 

in finalizing the 2019 Methodology. For a summary 

of comments and SBA’s responses, refer to the 

SBA’s April 11, 2019, Federal Register notification 

(84 FR 14587). 

6NAICS 112112 (Cattle Feedlots) and NAICS 

112310 (Chicken Egg Production) currently have a 

size standard of $22 million and $19 million, 

respectively, and will be subjected to the $8 million 

minimum and $47 million maximum size standards 

proposed for other industries with receipts based 

size standards. 

7Current employee based size standards for the 

wholesale and retail trade industries range from 100 

employees to 250 employees. However, as in the 

2019 Methodology, SBA is proposing a lower 50- 

employee level as the minimum employee-based 

size standard to account for differences among 

industries more accurately. 

substantially overrepresented (i.e., the 

disparity ratio is 1.2 or higher) in the 

Federal market in that industry under 

the current size standard, and the size 

standard is maintained at the current 

level. 

The second proposed major change is 

to replace the 20th percentile and 80th 

percentile values of industry factors for 

evaluating size standards at subindustry 

levels (‘‘exceptions’’) from those 

calculated based on the Economic 

Census data with those calculated using 

The Federal Procurement Data System— 

Next Generation (FPDS) and The System 

for Award Management (SAM) data. 

SBA is proposing these changes in 

order to refine and improve its analysis 

of Federal contracting data used in the 

evaluation of industry size standards. 

These changes are also in response to 

public comments received during the 

second five-year review of size 

standards that pertained to Federal 

contracting trends generally. Although 

SBA did not specifically seek comments 

to the 2019 Methodology as part of the 

series of proposed rules issued to review 

size standards under the second five 

year review,4 SBA notes that, a number 

of commenters to SBA’s proposed rules 

expressed positions both for and against 

SBA’s proposed size standards based on 

Federal contracting trends, data, or 

analysis.5 Thus, given the demonstrated 

relevance of Federal contracting trends 

to small businesses, SBA believes that it 

is important to continually review and 

adjust its methodology for evaluating 

Federal contracting data to ensure its 

analysis accurately captures the varying 

impact of Federal contracting trends by 

industry. 

To determine how the above changes 

in the methodology would affect size 

standards across various industries and 

sectors, SBA derived the new size 

standards for all industries averaging 

$20 million or more in Federal contract 

dollars annually (excluding Sectors 42 

and 44–45) using the 2019 Methodology 

and the disparity ratio approach of 

defining the Federal contracting factor. 

Overall, the calculated size standards 

were quite similar between the two 

approaches when compared to the 

existing size standards, with size 

standards increasing for some industries 

and decreasing for others under both 

approaches. 

SBA believes that using FPDS–NG 

and SAM data to obtain the 20th 

percentile and 80th percentile values of 

industry factors for evaluating size 

standards for the exceptions, instead of 

using the percentiles from the Economic 

Census, will promote consistency in its 

analysis of the exceptions by ensuring 

that the percentile values and factor 

values for each exception are in 

comparable terms. Specifically, SBA has 

found that for most industries, the 

average firm size of businesses 

participating in Federal contracting is 

generally larger than the average firm 

size of businesses represented in the 

Economic Census. There are also 

inconsistencies in data reporting 

between SAM/FPDS–NG data and the 

Economic Census, which SBA will 

address by adopting the revised 

approach. Thus, SBA believes that using 

FPDS–NG and SAM to obtain the 

percentile values of industry factors for 

the exceptions will better reflect the 

varying economic characteristics of the 

underlying industries. The full results of 

SBA’s impact analysis as well as a 

detailed description of the major 

changes to SBA’s evaluation of size 

standards are included in the 2023 

Revised Methodology. 

In the 2023 Revised Methodology, 

SBA is also updating the minimum and 

maximum size standard levels based on 

current minimum and maximum size 

standard levels. The minimum size 

standard generally reflects the size a 

small business should be to have 

adequate capabilities and resources to 

be able to compete for and perform 

Federal contracts. On the other hand, 

the maximum size standard represents 

the level above which businesses, if 

qualified as small, would cause 

significant competitive disadvantage to 

smaller businesses when accessing 

Federal assistance. SBA will not 

generally propose or adopt a size 

standard that is either below the 

minimum or above the maximum level, 

even though the calculations might 

yield values below the minimum or 

above the maximum level. 

With respect to receipts based size 

standards, SBA is proposing $8 million 

and $47 million, respectively, as the 

minimum and maximum size standard 

levels (except for most agricultural 

industries in Subsectors 111 and 112). 

These levels reflect the current 

minimum and the current maximum of 

receipts based size standards. As in the 

2019 Methodology, the latest industry 

data from the 2017 Census of 

Agriculture suggests that $8 million 

minimum and $47 million maximum 

size standard levels would be too high 

for agricultural industries in Subsector 

111 and Subsector 112. Accordingly, 

SBA is proposing $2.25 million and $5.5 

million, respectively, as the minimum 

and maximum size standard levels for 

agricultural industries in Subsectors 111 

and 112 (excluding NAICS 112112 and 

NAICS 112310). These levels represent 

the current minimum and current 

maximum levels of size standards in 

Subsectors 111 and 112 (excluding 

NAICS 112112 and NAICS 112310).6

Regarding employee based size 

standards for manufacturing and other 

industries that have employee based 

size standards (excluding Wholesale 

and Retail Trade), SBA’s proposed 250- 

employee minimum and 1,500- 

employee maximum are the current 

minimum and maximum employee 

based size standards among those 

industries. For employee based size 

standards for Wholesale Trade and 

Retail Trade industries, the proposed 

minimum and maximum size standards 

levels are 50 employees and 250 

employees, respectively.7

SBA is also updating the percentile 

values, derived from the latest 2017 

Economic Census and other industry 

data, used to evaluate the structure of 

each industry in terms of the four 

economic characteristics or factors, 

namely average firm size, average assets 

size, the four-firm concentration ratio, 

and the Gini coefficient. As explained in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 236 / Monday, December 11, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85855 

the 2023 Revised Methodology, SBA 

ranks industries by size standard types 

in terms of the four industry factors and 

in terms of the existing size standards, 

then computes the 20th percentile and 

80th percentile values for both. SBA 

then evaluates each industry by 

comparing its value for each industry 

factor to the 20th percentile and 80th 

percentile values for the corresponding 

factor for industries under a particular 

type of size standard. The updated 20th 

percentile and 80th percentile values for 

the four factors for receipts based and 

employee based size standards are 

found in Table 5 and Table 6 of the 2023 

Revised Methodology, respectively; the 

updated 20th percentile and 80th 

percentile values of size standards are 

found in Table 7. 

Request for Comments 

SBA welcomes comments from the 

public on a number of issues concerning 

its size standards methodology. 

Specifically, SBA invites feedback and 

suggestions on the following: 

• Should SBA establish size 

standards that are higher than industry’s 

entry-level business size? SBA generally 

sets size standards higher than the 

entry-level business size to enable small 

businesses to compete against others of 

their size and considerably larger 

businesses for Federal contracts set 

aside for small businesses. It is 

important that small businesses be able 

to apply for and be eligible for SBA’s 

various business development programs 

that have additional requirements, such 

as a minimum number of years in 

business to qualify for its 8(a) Business 

Development Program. This precludes 

setting size standards at too low a level 

or at the entry-level size. Additionally, 

establishing size standards at the 

industry entry-level firm size would 

cause small businesses to outgrow their 

eligibility very quickly, thereby lacking 

sufficient cushion or experience to 

succeed outside of the small business 

market. Finally, size standards must be 

above the entry-level size to ensure 

small businesses have necessary 

resources and capabilities to be able to 

perform and meet Federal Government 

contracting requirements. 

• Should there be a ceiling beyond 

which a business concern cannot be 

considered as small? In other words, 

should there be a maximum size 

standard? SBA has not increased its 

employee based standards beyond the 

1,500-employee level. However, receipts 

based size standards have gradually 

increased over time due to inflationary 

adjustments and the highest receipts 

based size standard stands at $47 

million today. This is a policy decision 

that the Agency should make—is there 

a size beyond which a business is not 

small? 

• Should SBA consider adjusting 

employee based size standards for labor 

productivity growth or increased 

automation? Just as firms in industries 

with receipts based standards may lose 

small business eligibility due to 

inflation, firms in industries with 

employee based standards may gain 

eligibility due to improvement in labor 

productivity and technical change. 

• Should SBA consider lowering its 

size standards generally? SBA receives 

periodic comments from the public that 

its standards are too high in certain 

industries or for certain types of Federal 

contracting opportunities. The 

comments generally concern the 

competitive edge that large small 

businesses have over the ‘‘truly small 

businesses’’ (a phrase heard frequently 

from commentators). On the other hand, 

SBA also receives comments from 

advanced small businesses that its size 

standards are too small to qualify for 

Federal contracting opportunities and 

other Federal small business assistance. 

This has always been a challenging 

issue, one that SBA has had to deal with 

over the years. SBA’s size standards 

appear too large to the smallest of small 

businesses while more advanced small 

businesses often request even higher 

size standards. 

• In response to the distressed 

economic environment in the aftermath 

of the 2007–2009 Great Recession, in the 

first five-year review of size standards, 

SBA adopted a policy of not lowering 

size standards even though the data 

supported lowering them. Similarly, in 

response to the COVID–19 pandemic 

and its impacts on small businesses and 

the overall economy, during the second 

five-year review of size standards, SBA 

adopted a similar policy of not lowering 

any size standards even if the analytical 

results supported lowering them. 

Should SBA lower size standards 

regardless of prevailing economic 

conditions when the analytical results 

support lowering them or should it 

consider the prevailing economic 

environment when deciding on whether 

to revise size standards? 

• Should SBA adopt new disparity 

ratio approach to evaluating small 

business participation in the Federal 

market, which will replace the Federal 

contracting factor the Agency used in 

the past. Should SBA adopt the results 

from the power analyses of the disparity 

ratios? Since only a very few industries 

were impacted by the power analyses, 

SBA has decided to not use the results 

from the power analyses. 

• SBA is proposing to use FPDS–NG 

and SAM data to obtain the 20th 

percentile and 80th percentile values of 

industry factors for evaluating size 

standards for the NAICS exceptions, 

instead of using the percentiles from the 

Economic Census. Should SBA continue 

using the Economic Census data to 

obtain the 20th percentile and 80th 

percentile values of industry factors for 

evaluating size standards for exceptions 

or should it start using FPDS–NG and 

SAM data to calculate 20th and 80th 

percentile values of industry factors for 

evaluating exceptions? 

• Should size standards vary from 

program to program? In other words, 

should SBA establish one set of 

standards for SBA financial programs, 

another for Federal procurement, or yet 

another for other Federal programs? 

SBA had, in the 1980s, established 

different size standards for different 

programs. The result had been that some 

firms were small for some programs and 

large for others. Such size standards 

were very confusing to users and caused 

unnecessary and unwanted complexity 

in their application. The statutory 

guidance encourages an industry-byindustry analysis and not a program-byprogram analysis when developing 

small business size definitions. While 

the characteristics and needs of a 

particular SBA program may necessitate 

the deviation from the uniform size 

standards, the Agency will continue its 

general policy of favoring one set of size 

standards for all programs. However, 

SBA has established 14 special size 

standards for some activities (commonly 

referred to as ‘‘exceptions’’) within 

certain industries for Federal 

Government purposes. Similarly, for 

industries in Wholesale Trade and 

Retail Trade, SBA has established 

industry specific size standards for 

SBA’s loan and other Federal 

nonprocurement programs and a 

common 500-employee size standard for 

Federal procurement under the 

nonmanufacturer rule. Additionally, for 

SBA’s SBIC, 7(a), and CDC/504 

Programs businesses can qualify either 

based on industry specific size 

standards for their primary industries or 

based on a tangible net worth and net 

income based alternative size standard. 

• Should size standards apply 

nationally or should they vary 

geographically? The data SBA obtains 

from the Economic Census are national 

data. While the Economic Census does 

publish a Geographic Series of the data, 

application of those data to evaluating 

and establishing size standards would 

be cumbersome and time consuming at 

best, resulting in a very complex set of 

size standards that would likely be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85856 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 236 / Monday, December 11, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

unusable. For example, in Federal 

contracting, how would a contracting 

officer set the size standard on a 

contracting opportunity? Would it 

depend on the contracting officer’s 

location, on the location of the Agency’s 

headquarters, or on the place of delivery 

of the product or service? What about 

multiple delivery locations? On the 

location of the prospective contractor? 

On the location of the prospective 

contractor’s headquarters? What about 

subcontractors, since size standards 

apply to subcontracts as well? The same 

questions could be asked about them, 

which would affect a prime contractor’s 

ability to bid. Would this encourage 

firms to relocate based upon perceived 

favorable size standards? That would 

defeat the purpose behind geographic 

distinctions. The undue complexity and 

resulting confusion would render 

geographically based size standards 

unusable, for all practical purposes. 

• Are there alternative approaches 

that SBA should consider for 

determining small business size 

standards? 

• How have SBA’s latest size 

standards revisions impacted 

competition in general and within a 

specific industry? 

• Are there alternative or additional 

factors or data sources that SBA should 

consider when establishing, reviewing, 

or revising size standards? 

• Does SBA’s current approach to 

establishing or modifying small 

business size standards make sense in 

the current economic environment? 

SBA encourages the public to review 

and comment on the Revised 

Methodology, which is available at 

www.sba.gov/size as well as at 

www.regulations.gov. SBA will 

thoroughly evaluate and consider all 

comments and suggestions when 

finalizing the 2023 Revised 

Methodology, which the Agency will 

apply in the forthcoming, third five-year 

review of size standards as required by 

the Jobs Act. 

Isabella Casillas Guzman, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27053 Filed 12–8–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8026–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2023–2238; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2023–00698–R] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo 

S.p.a. Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Leonardo S.p.a. Model A109C, A109E, 

A109K2, A109S, and AW109SP 

helicopters. This proposed AD was 

prompted by reports of loose tail rotor 

duplex bearing locking nuts, possibly 

caused by improper installation. This 

proposed AD would require 

disassembling certain tail rotor duplex 

bearings and reassembling them in 

accordance with updated service 

information. This proposed AD would 

also prohibit installing certain tail rotor 

duplex bearings. These actions are 

specified in a European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is 

proposed for incorporation by reference. 

The FAA is proposing this AD to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this proposed AD by January 25, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

regulations.gov. Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

AD Docket: You may examine the AD 

docket at regulations.gov under Docket 

No. FAA–2023–2238; or in person at 

Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this NPRM, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for Docket Operations is 

listed above. 

Material Incorporated by Reference: 

• For EASA material identified in this 

NPRM, contact EASA, KonradAdenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, 

Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; 

email ADs@easa.europa.eu; website 

easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA 

material on the EASA website 

ad.easa.europa.eu. 

• You may view this material at the 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood 

Parkway, Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 

76177. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (817) 222–5110. The EASA material 

is also available at regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FAA–2023–2238. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des 

Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238– 

7241; email: sungmo.d.cho@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites you to send any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments about this proposal. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2023–2238; Project Identifier 

MCAI–2023–00698–R’’ at the beginning 

of your comments. The most helpful 

comments reference a specific portion of 

the proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. The FAA will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this proposal 

because of those comments. 

Except for Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) as described in the 

following paragraph, and other 

information as described in 14 CFR 

11.35, the FAA will post all comments 

received, without change, to 

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. The agency 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact received 

about this NPRM. 

Confidential Business Information 

CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this NPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1