68368 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

should bear all costs associated with 

waste disposal. One commenter 

suggested NRC’s descriptions of case 

studies should include a description of 

the financial costs associated with the 

contamination and should indicate the 

party paying the remediation costs. Two 

commenters stated that NRC licensees 

should bear the costs of data collection, 

data reporting, and worker training 

needed to implement any new NRC 

studies or regulations needed to protect 

POTWs from contamination. Two 

commenters expressed the view that 

licensees should pay to have monitoring 

equipment installed at POTWs. 

Response: NRC acknowledges the 

commenter’s suggestion that NRC’s 

descriptions of case studies should 

include information about the economic 

aspects of the contamination and notes 

that some information about 

remediation costs is provided in Section 

1.2 of the ISCORS recommendations on 

management of radioactive materials in 

sewage sludge and ash (EPA 832–R–03–

002B). Comments regarding the costs 

associated with implementation of new 

sewer release restrictions are moot 

because the ANPR is being withdrawn. 

Comment: Six commenters expressed 

opinions about NRC enforcement 

actions. A representative of DOE stated 

that it was unclear whether one or more 

of the incidents described in the ANPR 

involved violations of the regulations, 

and suggested enhanced inspections, 

and not additional rulemaking, would 

be the most appropriate way to 

eliminate contamination of POTWs. 

Three commenters suggested NRC or 

POTWs should verify licensee’s 

reported discharges into sanitary sewers 

and one commenter suggested 

compliance with NRC regulations 

should be demonstrated at the licensee’s 

outfall into the sanitary sewer system so 

that POTWs would not be impacted and 

would not need to implement special 

controls. Two representatives of POTWs 

noted that POTWs routinely sample the 

effluent of major industrial users as part 

of their industrial pretreatment 

programs. Another commenter 

suggested NRC should assist POTWs 

with monitoring of licensee’s effluents 

and enforcement of the discharge limits. 

Response: NRC notes that suggestions 

about inspection and enforcement 

activities are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Comment: Six commenters made 

specific suggestions about monitoring. 

Two commenters suggested licensees’

outfalls and potable water intakes 

should be monitored, and three 

commenters suggested monitoring also 

should occur at POTWs. One of the 

commenters that advocated monitoring 

at POTWs expressed the view that 

monitoring would limit uncertainty in 

model results and would facilitate the 

study of the effects of influent 

radionuclide form and quantity on 

POTW worker doses. The commenter 

also suggested licensees should be 

encouraged to provide dosimetry and 

elementary radiation safety training to 

POTW workers. One commenter 

expressed the opinion that 

radionuclides in licensees’ effluents 

should be monitored to record the 

highest concentrations discharged and 

facilitate a regulator’s ability to link 

discharges with their sources. Three 

commenters suggested the radioactivity 

of sewage sludge should be monitored. 

One commenter expressed concern 

about the radioactivity of an engineered 

wetland used to treat wastewater in his 

town. 

Response: Recommendations 

regarding locations for monitoring a 

licensee’s effluent are beyond the scope 

of the proposed rulemaking. 

Comment: A representative of the 

New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

recommended that the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking for any change to 

the regulation governing the release of 

radioactive material into sanitary sewers 

notice, for public comment, the 

compatibility category NRC intends to 

apply to each provision so that 

Agreement States and other interested 

parties can participate in decisions 

about compatibility requirements. The 

commenter stated that, as of 1994, 

Agreement States were required to 

develop regulations that were 

compatible with the revised 10 CFR part 

20 without NRC having determined 

compatibility requirements and stated 

that this type of situation must not 

recur. 

Response: NRC acknowledges the 

commenter’s recommendation that 

intended compatibility categories be 

included in Notices of Proposed 

Rulemaking. Compatibility categories 

for the options discussed in the ANPR 

are moot because the ANPR is being 

withdrawn. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

a number of concerns about the case 

studies described in the ANPR. 

Concerns raised by the commenter 

included specific exposure pathways 

that may not have been included in the 

dose analyses, the appropriateness of 

NRC’s comparison of doses with 

background radiation, and the concern 

that calculated doses to individuals 

could have been higher if the sludge to 

which they were exposed included 

radiation from multiple sources. The 

commenter expressed the view that 

radioactivity in the environment may 

increase because of human activity, and 

that it would be inappropriate to 

consider manmade contributions of 

radioactivity to the environment in the 

calculation of ‘‘background’’ radiation, 

or to allow releases because they would 

be minimal in comparison to 

background radiation. The commenter 

also remarked that the cases of 

contamination that had occurred in 

Washington, DC, and Cleveland, OH, 

indicated the potential for 

contamination to be significant to large 

populations. In addition, the commenter 

asked specific questions about the 

assumptions used to calculate the doses 

resulting from the case studies 

discussed in the ANPR and what 

sources of radiation NRC included in its 

calculation of ‘‘background radiation.’’

Response: The commenter’s concerns 

about the doses calculated in the case 

studies are no longer applicable because 

more recent studies served as the 

technical basis for the withdrawal of the 

ANPR. NRC acknowledges the 

commenter’s concern regarding 

contamination at POTWs. The 

commenter’s specific questions about 

the modeling assumptions used to 

calculate doses for the case studies 

discussed in the ANPR are addressed in 

NUREG/CR–1548. NRC notes that its 

definition of ‘‘background radiation,’’

provided in 10 CFR 20.1003, excludes 

contributions of radioactivity from 

source, byproduct, or special nuclear 

materials regulated by NRC. 

For the reasons cited in this document, 

NRC withdraws this ANPR. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of October, 2005. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Luis A. Reyes, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 05–22432 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Part 121 

RIN 3245–AF28 

Small Business Size Standards; 

Security Guards and Patrol Services 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) proposes to 

increase the size standard for the 

Security Guards and Patrol Services 

Industry (North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) 561612) 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68369 

from $10.5 million in average annual 

receipts to $15.5 million. The proposed 

revision is being made to better define 

the size of business in this industry 

based on a review of industry 

characteristics. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

SBA on or before December 12, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 3245–AF28 by any of 

the following methods: (1) Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments; 

(2) Fax: (202) 205–6390; or (3) Mail/ 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Gary M. 

Jackson, Assistant Administrator for 

Size Standards, 409 Third Street, SW., 

Mail Code 6530, Washington, DC 20416. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Jordan or Diane Heal, Office of Size 

Standards, (202) 205–6618 or 

sizestandards@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

has received requests from firms in the 

Security Guards and Patrol Services 

Industry (referred to as the Security 

Guards Industry) to review the current 

$10.5 million size standard. This size 

standard was last revised in 2002 to 

incorporate an inflation adjustment to 

receipt-based size standards (67 FR 

3041, January 23, 2002). These firms 

believe that a size standard increase is 

warranted due to the increased costs of 

complying with Federal agency 

requirements for security guards, 

increased number of large security firms 

competing for Federal contracts, and the 

relative success by large firms in 

winning Federal contracts. These firms 

also believe that these industry trends 

would shrink the pool of eligible small 

businesses causing Federal agencies to 

scale back their use of small business 

preferences in Federal procurement. 

Below is a discussion of the 

methodology used by SBA to review its 

size standards, and the analysis leading 

to the proposal to increase the Security 

Guards Industry’s size standard to $15.5 

million. 

Size Standards Methodology: 

Congress granted SBA discretion to 

establish detailed size standards (15 

U.S.C. 632(a)(2)). SBA’s Standard 

Operating Procedure (SOP) 90 01 3, 

‘‘Size Determination Program’’

(available on SBA’s web site at 

http://www.sba.gov/library/ 

soproom.html) describes four factors for 

establishing and evaluating size 

standards: (1) The structure of the 

industry and its various economic 

characteristics; (2) SBA program 

objectives and the impact of different 

size standards on these programs; (3) 

whether a size standard successfully 

excludes those businesses which are 

dominant in the industry; and (4) other 

factors if applicable. Other factors, 

including the impact on other Federal 

agencies’ programs, may come to the 

attention of SBA during the public 

comment period or from SBA’s own 

research on the industry. No formula or 

weighting has been adopted so that the 

factors may be evaluated in the context 

of a specific industry. Below is a 

discussion of SBA’s analysis of the 

economic characteristics of an industry, 

the impact of a size standard on SBA 

programs, and the evaluation of whether 

a firm at or below a size standard could 

be considered dominant in the industry 

under review. 

Industry Analysis: Section 3(a)(3) of 

the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632 

(a)(3)), requires that size standards vary 

by industry to the extent necessary to 

reflect differing industry characteristics. 

SBA has two ‘‘base’’ or ‘‘anchor’’ size 

standards that apply to most 

industries—500 employees for 

manufacturing industries and $6 million 

in average annual receipts for 

nonmanufacturing industries. SBA 

established 500 employees as the anchor 

size standard for the manufacturing 

industries at SBA’s inception in 1953 

and shortly thereafter established a $1 

million average annual receipts size 

standard for the nonmanufacturing 

industries. The receipts-based anchor 

size standard for the nonmanufacturing 

industries has been adjusted 

periodically for inflation so that, 

currently, the anchor size standard is $6 

million. Anchor size standards are 

presumed to be appropriate for an 

industry unless its characteristics 

indicate that larger firms have a much 

greater significance within that industry 

than the ‘‘typical industry.’’

When evaluating a size standard, the 

characteristics of the specific industry 

under review are compared to the 

characteristics of a group of industries, 

referred to as a ‘‘comparison group.’’ A 

comparison group is a large number of 

industries grouped together to represent 

the typical industry. It can be comprised 

of all industries, all manufacturing 

industries, all industries with receiptbased size standards, or some other 

logical grouping. 

If the characteristics of a specific 

industry are similar to the average 

characteristics of the comparison group, 

then the anchor size standard is 

considered appropriate for the industry. 

If the specific industry’s characteristics 

are significantly different from the 

characteristics of the comparison group, 

a size standard higher or, in rare cases, 

lower than the anchor size standard may 

be considered appropriate. The larger 

the differences between the specific 

industry’s characteristics and the 

comparison group’s characteristics, the 

larger the difference between the 

appropriate industry size standard and 

the anchor size standard. SBA will 

consider adopting a size standard below 

the anchor size standard only when (1) 

all or most of the industry 

characteristics are significantly smaller 

than the average characteristics of the 

comparison group, or (2) other industry 

considerations strongly suggest that the 

anchor size standard would be an 

unreasonably high size standard for the 

industry under review. 

The primary evaluation factors that 

SBA considers in analyzing the 

structural characteristics of an industry 

include average firm size, distribution of 

firms by size, start-up costs, and 

industry competition (13 CFR 

121.102(a) and (b)). SBA also examines 

the possible impact of a size standard 

revision on SBA’s programs as an 

evaluation factor. SBA generally 

considers these five factors to be the 

most important evaluation factors in 

establishing or revising a size standard 

for an industry. However, it will also 

consider and evaluate other information 

that it believes relevant to the decision 

on a size standard for a particular 

industry. Public comments submitted 

on proposed size standards are also an 

important source of additional 

information that SBA closely reviews 

before making a final decision on a size 

standard. Below is a brief description of 

each of the five evaluation factors. 

1. ‘‘Average firm size’’ is simply total 

industry receipts (or number of 

employees) divided by the number of 

firms in the industry. If the average firm 

size of an industry is significantly 

higher than the average firm size of a 

comparison industry group, this fact 

would be viewed as supporting a size 

standard higher than the anchor size 

standard. Conversely, if the industry’s 

average firm size is similar to or 

significantly lower than that of the 

comparison industry group, it would be 

a basis to adopt the anchor size standard 

or, in rare cases a lower size standard. 

2. ‘‘Distribution of firms by size’’ is 

the proportion of industry receipts, 

employment, or other economic activity 

accounted for by firms of different sizes 

in an industry. If the preponderance of 

an industry’s economic activity 

attributed by smaller firms, this tends to 

support adopting the anchor size 

standard. A size standard higher than 

the anchor size standard is supported 

for an industry in which the distribution 

of firms indicates that economic activity 

68370 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

is concentrated among the largest firms 

in an industry. 

In this proposed rule, SBA examines 

the percent of total industry sales 

cumulatively generated by firms up to a 

certain level of sales. For example, 

assume for the industry under review 

that 30 percent of total industry sales 

are generated by firms of less than $10 

million in sales. This statistic is 

compared to a comparison group. For 

the nonmanufacturer anchor 

comparison group (used in this 

proposed rule), firms of less than $10 

million in sales cumulatively generated 

49.4 percent of total industry sales. 

Viewed in isolation, the lower figure for 

the industry under review indicates the 

presence of larger-sized firms in this 

industry than firms in the industries in 

the nonmanufacturing anchor size 

standards comparison group and, 

therefore, a higher size standard may be 

warranted. 

3. ‘‘Start-up costs’’ affect a firm’s 

initial size because entrants into an 

industry must have sufficient capital to 

start and maintain a viable business. To 

the extent that firms entering into one 

industry have greater financial 

requirements than firms do in other 

industries, SBA is justified in 

considering a higher size standard. In 

lieu of direct data on start-up costs, SBA 

uses a proxy measure to assess the 

financial burden for entry-level firms. 

For this analysis, SBA has calculated 

average firm assets within an industry. 

Data from the Risk Management 

Association’s Annual Statement 

Studies, 2000–2001, provide average 

sales to total assets ratios. These were 

applied to the average receipts size of 

firm in an industry to estimate average 

firm assets. An industry with a 

significantly higher level of average firm 

assets than that of the comparison group 

is likely to have higher start-up costs, 

which would tend to support a size 

standard higher than the anchor size 

standard. Conversely, if the industry 

showed a significantly lower level of 

average firm assets when compared to 

the comparison group, the anchor size 

standard would be considered the 

appropriate size standard, or in rare 

cases a lower size standard. 

4. ‘‘Industry competition’’ is assessed 

by measuring the proportion or share of 

industry receipts obtained by firms that 

are among the largest firms in an 

industry. In this proposed rule, SBA 

compares the proportion of industry 

receipts generated by the four largest 

firms in the industry—generally referred 

to as the ‘‘four-firm concentration 

ratio’’—to the average four-firm 

concentration ratio for industries in the 

comparison groups. If a significant 

proportion of economic activity within 

the industry is concentrated among a 

few relatively large producers, SBA 

tends to set a size standard relatively 

higher than the anchor size standard in 

order to assist firms in a broader size 

range to compete with firms that are 

larger and more dominant in the 

industry. In general, however, SBA does 

not consider this to be an important 

factor in assessing a size standard if the 

four-firm concentration ratio falls below 

40 percent for an industry under review. 

5. ‘‘Impact of a size standard revision 

on SBA programs’’ refers to the possible 

impact a size standard change may have 

on the level of small business 

assistance. This assessment most often 

focuses on the proportion or share of 

Federal contract dollars awarded to 

small businesses in the industry in 

question. In general, the lower the share 

of Federal contract dollars awarded to 

small businesses in an industry which 

receives significant Federal contracting 

revenues, the greater is the justification 

for a size standard higher than the 

existing one. 

Another factor to evaluate the impact 

of a proposed size standard on SBA’s 

programs is the volume of guaranteed 

loans within an industry and the size of 

firms obtaining those loans. This factor 

is sometimes examined to assess 

whether the current size standard may 

be restricting the level of financial 

assistance to firms in that industry. If 

small businesses receive significant 

amounts of assistance through these 

programs, or if the financial assistance 

is provided mainly to small businesses 

much lower than the size standard, a 

change to the size standard (especially 

if it is already above the anchor size 

standard) may not be necessary. 

Evaluation of Industry Size Standard: 

The two tables below show the industry 

structure characteristics for the Security 

Guards Industry and for two comparison 

groups. The first comparison group is 

comprised of all industries with a $6 

million receipts-based size standard 

referred to as the nonmanufacturing 

anchor group. Since SBA’s size 

standards analysis is assessing whether 

the Security Guards Industry’s size 

standard should be moderately higher, 

or much higher than the 

nonmanufacturing anchor size standard, 

this is the most logical set of industries 

to group together for the industry 

analysis. In addition, this group 

includes a sufficient number of firms to 

afford a meaningful assessment and 

comparison of industry characteristics. 

The second comparison group consists 

of the nonmanufacturing industries with 

the highest receipt-based size standards 

established by SBA. SBA refers to this 

comparison group as the 

‘‘nonmanufacturing higher-level size 

standard group.’’ This group’s size 

standards range from $21 million to $30 

million. If an industry’s characteristics 

are significantly larger than those of the 

nonmanufacturing anchor group, SBA 

will compare them to the characteristics 

of the higher-level size standards group. 

By doing so, SBA can assess whether a 

size standard should be among the 

highest size standards or somewhere 

between the anchor size standard and 

the highest size standards. 

For its analysis, SBA examined 2002 

industry data prepared for SBA’s Office 

of Advocacy by the U.S. Bureau of the 

Census (http://www.sba.gov/advo/ 

research/us_rec02.txt), data from a U.S. 

Bureau of the Census report 

‘‘Investigation and Security Services: 

2002’’, (Report EC02–561–06), and data 

from the Risk Management 

Association’s Annual Statement 

Studies, 2000–2001. SBA also examined 

Federal contract award data for fiscal 

years 2002–2004 from the U.S. General 

Service Administration’s Federal 

Procurement Data Center, and SBA’s 

internal loan database on SBA 

guaranteed loans during fiscal year 

2004. 

Security Guards Industry Structure 

Considerations: Table 1 shows data on 

three evaluation factors for the Security 

Guards Industry and the two 

comparison groups. These factors are 

average firm size, average firm assets, 

and the four-firm concentration ratio. 

TABLE 1.—SELECTED INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS BY INDUSTRY CATEGORY

Industry category 

Average firm 

size receipts 

(millions) 

Average firm 

assets 

(millions) 

Four-firm concentration ratio 

(percent) 

Security Guards and Patrol Services .......................................................................................... $2.81 $0.43 32.7 

Nonmanufacturing Anchor Group ................................................................................................ 1.29 0.60 14.4 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68371 

TABLE 1.—SELECTED INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS BY INDUSTRY CATEGORY—Continued 

Industry category 

Average firm 

size receipts 

(millions) 

Average firm 

assets 

(millions) 

Four-firm concentration ratio 

(percent) 

Higher-level Size Standard Group ............................................................................................... 4.73 2.00 26.4 

For the Security Guards Industry, its 

average firm size in receipts is more 

than twice that of the average firm size 

in the nonmanufacturer anchor group, 

but significantly lower than the average 

firm size in the higher-level size 

standards group. This factor indicates a 

size standard within a range of $13 to 

$15 million may be appropriate, which 

is slightly more than double the $6 

million anchor size standard. The 

average firm assets factor is below the 

nonmanufacturing anchor group and 

does not provide a basis for increasing 

the current size standard. The four-firm 

concentration ratio provides some 

support for a change to the current size 

standard. While the factor is appreciably 

higher than the average industry in the 

two comparison groups, it is not at a 

sufficient level to suggest that larger 

firms in the industry could control the 

industry through pricing or other forms 

of collaboration nor that a very 

substantial increase to the size standard 

should be considered. In relation to the 

higher-level size standards group, the 

four-firm concentration ratio suggests a 

standard higher than $10.5 million is 

reasonable. The level of the size 

standard, however, should be based on 

the consideration of the other evaluation 

factors. 

Table 2 below examines the size 

distribution of firms. For this factor, 

SBA evaluates the percent of total sales 

cumulatively generated by firms at or 

below specific receipts sizes. For 

example, firms in the Security Guards 

Industry with $10 million or less in 

receipts cumulatively obtained 27.1 

percent of total industry sales. Within 

the nonmanufacturing anchor group, 

these size firms captured 49.4 percent of 

total industry sales while similar firms 

in the higher-level size standards group 

captured 21.1 percent. 

TABLE 2.—PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FIRMS BY RECEIPTS SIZE

Industry category 

Percent of industry sales by firm of 

< $1 

million 

< $5 

million 

< $10 

million 

< $50 

million 

Security Guards ............................................................................................. 7.0% 19.4% 27.1% 43.9% 

Nonmanufacturing Anchor Group .................................................................. 16.8% 39.9% 49.4% 63.7% 

Higher-level Size Standard Group ................................................................. 3.8% 13.3% 21.1% 40.4% 

The distribution of sales for the 

Security Guards Industry show the 

presence of larger-sized firms than in 

the nonmanufacturer anchor group, but 

not as large as those in the higher-level 

size standards group. The data for the 

less than $1 million and less than $5 

million size classes support a size 

standard well above the anchor size 

standard, but below the higher-level size 

standards ranges. The other two size 

classes, less than $10 million and less 

than $50 million, support a size 

standard at or near the higher-level size 

standards range. Considering the overall 

distributions across size classes, an 

appropriate size standard appears to be 

near, but below, the higher-level size 

standards group, such as between $18 

million to $20 million. 

SBA Program Considerations: SBA 

also considers the potential impact of 

changing a size standard on its 

programs. Because SBA’s review of the 

Security Guards Industry’s size standard 

was prompted by concerns about the 

application of the size standard to 

Federal contracting, SBA examines the 

pattern of Federal contract awards to 

small businesses as one of the factors in 

evaluating whether the size standard 

should be revised. The findings provide 

mixed support for a change to the 

current size standard. 

Small businesses in the Security 

Guards Industry received 37.2 percent 

of the total dollar value of Federal 

contracts awarded during fiscal years 

(FY) 2003 and 2004. This share is 

moderately higher than the 28 percent 

of sales cumulative generated by firms 

at or below the current $10.5 million 

size standard. This performance 

indicates that small businesses as 

currently defined have not encountered 

substantial difficulties in obtaining 

Federal contracts, and does not provide 

a basis for revising the size standard. 

SBA also evaluated specific contract 

data available for FY 2002 and 2003 to 

assess the concern that Federal contracts 

may be concentrated among a few firms. 

The data revealed some degree of 

concentration may exist. Between 400 

and 500 businesses received security 

guard contracts in those two years. In 

FY 2002, three businesses captured twothirds of the dollar value of Federal 

security guard contracts. However, in 

FY 2003, the top three large businesses 

obtained only 38 percent. Only one 

large business was among the top three 

contractors in both years. These 

contracting patterns indicate that one 

large business is the top contractor for 

Federal security guard contracts, but 

both large and small businesses have 

many opportunities. As with the 

assessment of the factor of industry 

concentration discussed above, the 

distribution of Federal contracts 

suggests that a standard higher than 

$10.5 million is a reasonable change, 

but does not provide a basis to 

significantly depart from the level 

indicated by the analysis of the industry 

evaluation factors. 

SBA also reviewed data on its 

financial assistance to small businesses 

in this industry. In FY 2003 and 2004, 

SBA guaranteed an average of 75 loans 

for $10.8 million in the Security Guards 

Industry. Ninety percent of these loans 

were made to firms less than half the 

current size standard. It is unlikely that 

an increase to the size standard would 

have an appreciable impact on the 

financial programs, and therefore, this 

factor is not part of the assessment of 

this industry’s size standard. 

SBA Proposal: Based on the analysis 

of each evaluation factor, SBA is 

proposing a $15.5 million size 

standard—a $5 million increase (47 

percent) to the current size standard. 

Three of the five evaluation factors 

68372 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

support a size standard higher than the 

current $10.5 million size standard, 

while the other two factors support no 

change. SBA believes the presence of 

large-sized firms in the industry, as 

depicted by the factors of average size 

firm, the distribution of firms by size, 

and four-firm concentration ratio, is 

sufficiently strong to support a moderate 

change to the current size standard. The 

proposed size standard represents an 

average of the lower range of potential 

size standards indicated by the average 

firm size and size distribution factors. 

Dominant in Field of Operation: 

Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act 

defines a small concern as one that is (1) 

independently owned and operated, (2) 

not dominant in its field of operations 

and (3) within detailed definitions or 

size standards established by the SBA 

Administrator. SBA considers as part of 

its evaluation of a size standard whether 

a business concern at or below a size 

standard would be considered dominant 

in its field of operation. This assessment 

generally considers the market share of 

firms at the proposed or final size 

standard, or other factors that may show 

whether a firm can exercise a major 

controlling influence on a national basis 

in which significant numbers of 

business concerns are engaged. 

SBA has determined that no firm at or 

below the proposed size standard for the 

Security Guards Industry would be of a 

sufficient size to dominate its field of 

operation. The largest firm at the size 

standard level generates less than 0.11 

percent of total industry receipts. This 

level of market share effectively 

precludes any ability for a firm at or 

below the proposed size standard from 

exerting a controlling effect on this 

industry. 

Alternative Size Standards: SBA 

considered an alternative size standard 

based on average number of employees 

instead of average annual receipts. This 

approach was considered in a proposed 

rule of March 19, 2004 (69 FR 13130) as 

part of restructuring of size standards. 

Because of the large proportion of parttime employees in this industry, SBA 

has decided to retain average annual 

receipts as the size standard measure. A 

receipts-based size standard treats firms 

more equitably because firms vary on 

the use of part-time employees and 

subcontractors. An employee size 

standard could unintentionally 

influence decisions of some firms to 

alter the use of part-time employees and 

subcontractors to retain their status as 

small businesses. 

SBA welcomes public comments on 

its size standard for the Security Guards 

Industry. Comments on alternatives, 

including the option of retaining the 

size standard at $10.5 million or 

establishing an employee-based size 

standards as discussed above, should 

explain why the alternative would be 

preferable to the proposed size standard. 

Compliance With Executive Orders 

12866, 12988, and 13132, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this 

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant’’

regulatory action for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. For the purpose 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. Ch. 35, SBA has determined that 

this rule would not impose new 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements, other than those required 

of SBA. For purposes of Executive Order 

13132, SBA has determined that this 

rule does not have any Federalism 

implications warranting the preparation 

of a federalism assessment. For 

purposes of Executive Order 12988, 

SBA has determined that this rule is 

drafted, to the extent practicable, in 

accordance with the standards set forth 

in that Order. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), this rule, if finalized, may have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities engaged in the 

Security Guards Industry. As described 

above, this rule may impact small 

entities seeking SBA (7a) and 504 

Guaranteed Loan Programs, its 

Economic Impact Disaster Loans, and 

SBA and other Federal small business 

procurement preference programs. 

Newly defined small businesses would 

benefit from SBA’s 7(a) and 504 

Guaranteed Loan Programs. SBA 

estimates that one or two additional 

loans totaling $1 million or less in new 

Federal loan guarantees could be made 

to these newly defined small businesses. 

Because of the size of the loan 

guarantees, most loans are made to 

small businesses well below the size 

standard. Thus, increasing the size 

standard will likely result in only a 

small increase in small business 

guaranteed loans to businesses in this 

industry, and the $1 million estimate 

may overstate the actual impact. These 

additional loan guarantees, because of 

their limited magnitude, will have 

virtually no impact on the overall 

availability of loans for SBA’s loan 

programs, which have averaged about 

88,000 loans totaling more than $17 

billion in fiscal year 2004. 

The size standard may also affect 

small businesses participating in 

programs of other agencies that use SBA 

size standards. As a practical matter, 

however, SBA cannot estimate the 

impact of a size standard change on 

each and every Federal program that 

uses its size standards. Immediately 

below, SBA sets forth an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) of 

this proposed rule on the Security 

Guards Industry addressing the 

following questions: (1) What is the 

need for and objective of the rule, (2) 

what is SBA’s description and estimate 

of the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply, (3) what is the 

projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other compliance requirements of the 

rule, (4) what are the relevant Federal 

rules which may duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with the rule and (5) what 

alternatives will allow the Agency to 

accomplish its regulatory objectives 

while minimizing the impact on small 

entities? 

(1) What is the need for and objective of 

the rule? 

The revision to the size standard for 

the Security Guards Industry more 

appropriately defines the size of 

businesses in this industry that SBA 

believes should be eligible for Federal 

small business assistance programs. 

SBA reviewed the structure of this 

industry using five factors that were 

compared with averages for two groups 

of industries. A review of the latest 

available data supports a change to the 

current size standard. 

(2) What is SBA’s description and 

estimate of the number of small entities 

to which the rule will apply? 

SBA estimates that 50 additional 

firms out of 4,853 firms in this industry 

would be considered small as a result of 

this rule, if adopted. The firms would be 

eligible to seek available SBA assistance 

provided that they meet other program 

requirements. Firms becoming eligible 

for SBA assistance as a result of this 

rule, if finalized, cumulatively generate 

$790 million in this industry out of a 

total of $13.6 billion in annual receipts. 

The small business coverage in this 

industry would increase by 5.8 percent 

of total receipts. Also, SBA estimates 

that approximately 100 small businesses 

that are within 20 percent of the existing 

size standard could grow and retain 

their small business status if this 

proposed rule were adopted. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68373 

(3) What are the projected reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements of the rule and an estimate 

of the classes of small entities which 

will be subject to the requirements? 

A new size standard does not impose 

any additional reporting, recordkeeping 

or compliance requirements on small 

entities. Increasing size standards 

expands access to SBA programs that 

assist small businesses, but does not 

impose a regulatory burden as they 

neither regulate nor control business 

behavior. 

(4) What are the relevant Federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap or conflict 

with the rule? 

This proposed rule overlaps with 

other Federal rules that use SBA’s size 

standards to define a small business. 

Under § 3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(c), unless 

specifically authorized by statute, 

Federal agencies must use SBA’s size 

standards to define a small business. In 

1995, SBA published in the Federal 

Register a list of statutory and 

regulatory size standards that identified 

the application of SBA’s size standards 

as well as other size standards used by 

Federal agencies (60 FR 57988–57991, 

dated November 24, 1995). SBA is not 

aware of any Federal rule that would 

duplicate or conflict with establishing 

size standards. 

Other Federal agencies also may use 

SBA size standards for a variety of 

regulatory and program purposes. If 

such a case exists where an SBA size 

standard is not appropriate, an agency 

may establish its own size standards 

with the approval of the SBA 

Administrator (see 13 CFR 121.902–

903). For purposes of a regulatory 

flexibility analysis, agencies must 

consult with SBA’s Office of Advocacy 

when developing different size 

standards for their programs (13 CFR 

121.902(b)(4)). 

(5) What alternatives will allow the 

Agency to accomplish its regulatory 

objectives while minimizing the impact 

on small entities? 

SBA considered an alternative size 

standard based on average number of 

employees instead of average annual 

receipts. It also considered a range of 

size standards as part of the assessment 

of each evaluations factor. Because of 

the large proportion of part-time 

employees in this industry, an employee 

size standard could unintentionally 

influence decisions of some firms to 

alter the use of part-time employees and 

subcontractors to remain as small 

businesses. SBA believes that a 

moderate increase to the size standard 

will assist businesses that should be 

included as small businesses and small 

businesses that are growing. In selecting 

the proposed size standard, currently 

defined small businesses will not be 

competitively disadvantaged as 

compared to a much higher size 

standard. 

SBA welcomes comments on other 

alternatives that minimize the impact of 

this rule on small businesses and 

achieve the objectives of this rule. These 

comments should describe the 

alternative and explain why it is 

preferable to this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 121 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Government procurement, 

Government property, Grant programs—

business, Individuals with disabilities, 

Loan programs—business, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, SBA proposes to amend part 

13 CFR Part 121 as follows. 

PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE 

REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632(a), 634(b)(6), 

636(b), 637(a), 644(c), and 662(5); and Sec. 

304, Pub. L. 103–403, 108 Stat. 4175, 4188, 

Pub. L. 106–24, 113 Stat. 39. 

2. In § 121.201, in the table ‘‘Small 

Business Size Standards by NAICS 

Industry,’’ under the heading 

‘‘Subsector 561—Administrative and 

Support Services,’’ revise the entry for 

561612 to read as follows: 

§ 121.201 What size standards has SBA 

identified by North American Industry 

Classification System codes? 

SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS BY NAICS INDUSTRY

NAICS codes NAICS U.S. industry title 

Size standards 

in millions of 

dollars 

Size standards 

in number of 

employees 

* * * * * * * 

Subsector 561—Administrative and Support Services 

* * * * * * * 

561612 ............................................. Security Guards and Patrol Services ........................................................ $15.5 

* * * * * * * 

68374 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: November 3, 2005. 

Hector V. Barreto, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–22430 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 21 

[Docket No. FAA–2003–14825; Notice No. 

05–13] 

RIN 2120–AH90 

Standard Airworthiness Certification of 

New Aircraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing 

language to supplement a proposal 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 15, 2005. This action is 

necessary to include in the proposal a 

provision from the recently enacted 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users. The supplemental 

language allows a person to 

manufacture one new aircraft based on 

a type certificate without holding the 

type certificate or having a licensing 

agreement from the type certificate 

holder, provided the manufacturing 

began before August 5, 2004. 

DATE: Send your comments on or before 

December 12, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA–

2003–14825 using any of the following 

methods: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. For more 

information, see the Privacy Act 

discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to 

Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the 

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Hayworth, Airworthiness Certification 

Branch, AIR–230, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 

telephone (202) 267–8449. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

The docket is available for public 

inspection before and after the comment 

closing date. If you wish to review the 

docket in person, go to the address in 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You may also review the docket using 

the Internet at the web address in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Privacy Act: Using the search function 

of our docket Web site, anyone can find 

and read the comments received into 

any of our dockets, including the name 

of the individual sending the comment 

(or signing the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Before acting on this proposal, we 

will consider all comments we receive 

on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change this proposal in light of the 

comments we receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on this 

proposal, include with your comments 

a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on 

which the docket number appears. We 

will stamp the date on the postcard and 

mail it to you. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and place a note in the docket 

that we have received it. If we receive 

a request to examine or copy this 

information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking.