Comment on FR Doc # 2026-11765

I write to oppose this proposed rule and ask that SBA not finalize it. The current individualized narrative standard under 13 CFR 124.103(c) already requires applicants to substantiate social disadvantage with detailed, verifiable evidence. Replacing it with an unproven group-documentation test narrows access to the program rather than improving it — and, as written, it silently eliminates a recognized basis for eligibility. First, the proposed test would eliminate gender-based social disadvantage. The current standard expressly allows an applicant to establish disadvantage based on gender; the regulation's own text sets out examples of women doing so through gender bias in employment, education, and business. The proposed test instead requires showing discrimination against a "clearly definable racial, ethnic, or cultural group." Sex and gender are none of those. A woman whose disadvantage arises from gender bias — the exact showing the current rule contemplates — would have no way to qualify. SBA's analysis nowhere acknowledges that it is removing this category. That alone is reason not to finalize the rule. Second, SBA's "de minimis impact" conclusion is not supported by the record. The current standard asks an applicant to document their own history. The new one asks them to locate official policies, reports, audits, or rulings establishing that an entire group was systematically disadvantaged. That is an institutional-records search, not a lighter version of the narrative, and SBA's cost-benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses rest on the faulty premise that the two take similar effort. Third, reliance interests weigh against the change. They extend beyond current participants to pending applicants who relied in good faith on the standard in effect when they applied and have already invested the time, documentation, and professional support the process requires. Applying the new test to pending applications would force applicants like me to start over under a standard we had no notice of. For these reasons I ask that SBA not finalize this rule. If SBA nonetheless proceeds, I ask at minimum that it: (a) preserve gender- and sex-based social disadvantage as a cognizable basis for eligibility, consistent with the current regulation; (b) prepare a full Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis based on the rule's actual burden, including the burden of locating institutional-level evidence; (c) publish clear guidance and examples of what evidence satisfies any new standard; and (d) apply any final rule only prospectively, so current participants and pending applicants continue to be evaluated under the standard in place when we applied.