Comment on FR Doc # 2026-11765
Anonymous AnonymousOtherIndividual
Summary: The commenter argues that the proposal fails to provide predictable standards for applicants because experts disagree on the interpretation of the proposed language. They request that the SBA clarify specific requirements regarding evidence, material harm, and personal experiences within the regulation itself.
One of the primary purposes of administrative regulations is to provide predictable standards that regulated parties can understand before acting. This proposal does not yet accomplish that objective. Experienced attorneys, consultants, and former SBA officials have reached materially different conclusions regarding what an applicant must prove under the proposed language. If experts disagree, applicants cannot reasonably be expected to understand the standard. SBA should revise the proposal to answer several straightforward questions: Must an applicant identify a specific policy or practice? What evidence is sufficient? What constitutes material harm? How will personal experiences be evaluated? Those answers belong in the regulation, not in future litigation or internal guidance.