(Lexis Nexis)
I left the following Comments earlier today on a rule proposed by the Small Business Administration that would extend benefits to large businesses that are now available only to small businesses within the SBA's jurisdiction.
Small Business Size Standards: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction; Utilities; Construction
Docket No.: SBA-2020-0049.
RIN: 3245-AG89.
This rule was proposed by the Small Business Administration. It is part of the SBA's statutory review of programs within its jurisdiction that are based on size of revenue or income. However, the reach of the proposed rule exceeds SBA's jurisdiction.
The SBA's summary describes that the proposed rule changes collection information and sources of data regarding intake of income, i.e., receipts of money, as used in SBA "Size Standards Methodology" to determine qualification for low-interest loans and contracts. ‘‘SBA seeks comments on its proposed changes to size standards in the above sectors, and the data sources it evaluated to develop the proposed size standards." 85 FR at 62239.
The proposed rule would affect income limitations the Small Business Administration uses to measure "small businesses" for purposes of low-interest loans and contracting administered by the SBA. Proposed changes would allow the entry of large businesses to the loans and contracting programs reserved by Congress for small businesses. Further, the income limits themselves would remain the same as they were before the pandemic limited receipt of revenue for most businesses and certainly for small businesses. The combination of proposed changes and proposed inaction would have the effect of closing the loans and contracting programs to most small businesses whereas larger businesses would meet the income requirements even after accounting for the pandemic.
The proposed rule is beyond the SBA's jurisdiction and is unauthorized. The proposed rule is contrary to the statutory mandate given to the SBA by Congress in this regard. For all these reasons, whether taken separately or together, the proposed rule should be withdrawn. It should not be issued.
Thank you for your consideration of these Comments.
Please read the disclaimer. This article ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments