Proposed Rule2026-11765
Reforms To Remove SBA's 8(a) Program's Rebuttable Presumption of Social Disadvantage for Individually Owned Firms Only; Reforms Do Not Impact Entity-Owned Firms
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 11, 2026
Issuing agencies
Small Business Administration
Abstract
The U.S. Small Business Administration ("SBA" or "Agency") proposes to amend its regulations to align the Section 8(a) Business Development Program (8(a) BD program) with constitutional requirements and the law. The proposed rule applies only to the 8(a) BD eligibility of small businesses owned and controlled by individuals. It does not in any way amend or affect the eligibility of entity-owned small businesses (i.e., those owned by tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, Native Hawaiian Organizations, or Community Development Corporations). Specifically, the proposed rule would amend SBA's regulations to remove the rebuttable presumption that individuals belonging to certain designated groups are socially disadvantaged and set forth revised standards for individuals establishing social disadvantage.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35433-35437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-11765]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2026 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 35433]]
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 124
[SBA-2026-0133]
RIN 3245-AI75
Reforms To Remove SBA's 8(a) Program's Rebuttable Presumption of
Social Disadvantage for Individually Owned Firms Only; Reforms Do Not
Impact Entity-Owned Firms
AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration (``SBA'' or ``Agency'')
proposes to amend its regulations to align the Section 8(a) Business
Development Program (8(a) BD program) with constitutional requirements
and the law. The proposed rule applies only to the 8(a) BD eligibility
of small businesses owned and controlled by individuals. It does not in
any way amend or affect the eligibility of entity-owned small
businesses (i.e., those owned by tribes, Alaska Native Corporations,
Native Hawaiian Organizations, or Community Development Corporations).
Specifically, the proposed rule would amend SBA's regulations to remove
the rebuttable presumption that individuals belonging to certain
designated groups are socially disadvantaged and set forth revised
standards for individuals establishing social disadvantage.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. SBA-2026-
0133 or RIN 3245-AI75, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> and
follow the instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Mail (for paper submissions): Office of Government
Contracting and Business Development, 409 Third Street SW, Washington,
DC 20416.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. If you wish to submit confidential business
information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, please submit the comments to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9fefafbfdcbdcdecaf9cadbd897ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="246367666056414357645746450a434b52">[email protected]</span></a> and
highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why
you believe this information should be held confidential. SBA will make
a final determination as to whether the comments will be published or
not.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Lambert, Associate Administrator
of Government Contracting and Business Development, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eaada9a8ae988f8d99aa99888bc48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bafdf9f8fec8dfddc9fac9d8db94ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Need for Rule
Congress enacted the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 631 et seq. (the
``Act'') in 1953 to ``aid, counsel, assist, and protect'' small
businesses, to ensure a ``fair proportion'' of government contracts go
to small businesses, 15 U.S.C. 631a(a)-(b), and to ``preserv[e]. . .
the competitive free enterprise system.'' Id. 631a(b). Among other
provisions, the Act established the 8(a) BD program, which creates
contracting preferences for small businesses owned and controlled by
``socially and economically disadvantaged'' individuals. 15 U.S.C. 637.
The Act aims to award at least five percent of the total value of
federal contracts to small disadvantaged businesses each year, and
contracts awarded through the 8(a) BD program contribute to this goal.
To be eligible to participate in the 8(a) BD program, the Small
Business Act requires a small business concern to be at least 51% owned
by (1) one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,
(2) an economically disadvantaged Indian tribe (or wholly owned
subsidiary of a tribe), or (3) an economically disadvantaged Native
Hawaiian Organization (NHO). 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(4)(A). The Small Business
Act also provides that the term Indian tribe specifically includes
Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs). 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(13). In addition,
section 626(a)(2) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law
97-35, codified at 42 U.S.C. 9815(a)(2), authorizes small businesses
that are at least 51% owned by a Community Development Corporation
(CDC) to be eligible for the 8(a) BD program.
This proposed rule applies only to the 8(a) BD eligibility of small
businesses owned and controlled by individuals. It does not in any way
amend or affect the eligibility of entity-owned small businesses (i.e.,
those owned by tribes, ANCs, NHOs, or CDCs). Specifically, the proposed
rule would amend SBA's regulations to remove the rebuttable presumption
that individuals belonging to certain designated groups are socially
disadvantaged and set forth revised standards for individuals
establishing social disadvantage.
For purposes of socially disadvantaged individuals, the Act defines
such individuals as ``those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic
prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a
group without regard to their individual qualities.'' 15 U.S.C.
637(a)(5). SBA regulations over time have added the requirement that
the social disadvantage must have resulted from ``circumstances beyond
[the individual's] control.'' 13 CFR 124.103(a).
The regulations further provide that members of certain designated
groups, including ``Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native
Americans . . . , Asian Pacific Americans . . . , Subcontinent Asian
Americans . . . , and members of other groups designated from time to
time by [the] SBA,'' are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of being
socially disadvantaged individuals (the ``Rebuttable Presumption'').
Id. Sec. 124.103(b)(1). This presumption can be rebutted under the
regulations with ``credible evidence to the contrary.'' Id. Sec.
124.103(b)(3). As for individuals who are not members of such
designated groups, they may show social disadvantage by submitting
evidence that demonstrates individual disadvantage impacting their
entry into or advancement in the business world, among other
requirements. Id. Sec. 124.103(c)(1)-(2).
In July 2023, a federal district court held that the regulatory
Rebuttable Presumption violated the Fifth Amendment's right to equal
protection under the United States Constitution. See Ultima Servs.
Corp. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 683 F. Supp. 3d 745, 774
[[Page 35434]]
(E.D.Tenn. 2023) (``Ultima''). That court thus enjoined the SBA from
continuing to use the Rebuttable Presumption in administering the
program. Id. On November 25, 2025, the Department of Justice advised
the Speaker of the House, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530D, that the
Rebuttable Presumption violates the Constitution and that the
Department of Justice would no longer defend it in court. The Agency
fully agrees that the Rebuttable Presumption is unconstitutional.
Since Ultima, SBA has made all social disadvantage determinations
pursuant to the standard for non-presumptive applicants under 13 CFR
124.103(c). SBA recognizes, however, that from the time the regulatory
Rebuttable Presumption was established in 1986 until its demise in
2023, the 8(a) BD program unconstitutionally categorized and favored
certain individuals solely on the basis of race and ethnicity.
Practically speaking, these regulations, both the text and its
application, rendered white Americans almost totally unable to
participate in the program. Further, this practical reality persisted
until 2025 when certain related practices and policies were terminated.
SBA possesses broad statutory authority to establish and enforce
regulations that govern the 8(a) BD program to ensure it meets its
statutory objectives. Section 5(b)(6) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6),
grants to SBA the authority to prescribe regulations to carry out the
purposes of the Act, which include ensuring that only eligible firms
participate in SBA's various programs and that the programs' intended
purposes are not subverted.
SBA is proposing to promulgate regulations to align the program
with constitutional and statutory requirements and goals.
II. Severability
SBA anticipates that any provision of this proposed rule, or
ultimate final rule, held to be invalid or unenforceable shall be
construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to such
provision as permitted by law, unless such holding is that the
provision of this proposed, or ultimate final rule, is invalid and
unenforceable in all circumstances, in which event the provision shall
be severable from the remainder of this part and shall not affect the
remainder thereof.
III. Analysis
Section 124.103
As discussed above, SBA's regulations contain an unconstitutional
race-based Rebuttable Presumption that was in place from 1986 until its
demise in 2023 when a federal court declared it unconstitutional. See
Ultima. Moreover, an increasing number of voices have begun to question
whether the 8(a) BD program statute is itself a race-based
classification for socially and economically disadvantaged individuals
which should be subject to strict scrutiny. See, e.g., Rothe Dev., Inc.
v. United States DOD, 836 F.3d 57 (2016) (Henderson, J., concurring in
part and dissenting in part). Similarly worded statutes have faced
legal challenges that were only abandoned when the analogous language
was removed. See, e.g., Holman v. Vilsack, 117 F.4th 906 (6th Cir.
2024) (overturned on other grounds).
The benefits of the 8(a) BD program, which for over 37 years were
unconstitutionally distributed as it relates to socially disadvantaged
individuals, are not small. Since its inception, the 8(a) BD program
has been responsible for hundreds of billions of dollars in government
contracts. Based upon the Administrator's authority under the Small
Business Act, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6) and 15
U.S.C. 637(a)(8), the SBA is proposing a number of changes to the
social disadvantage regulatory framework for individuals. These changes
are intended to remedy the previous unconstitutional implementation of
the program, to align the program's implementation with statutory
requirements, and to address concerns about the constitutionality of
the remaining program. SBA proposes amending 13 CFR 124.103 through
four targeted changes.
First, SBA proposes revising 13 CFR 124.103 to align with the
statutory text in 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(5) and the related purpose section.
See 15 U.S.C. 631(f)(1)(B).
Second, SBA proposes replacing the current regulatory tests for
social disadvantage with a new test. Specifically, SBA proposes a test
by which any individual American citizen can establish social
disadvantage by showing that within his or her lifetime, the federal or
a state or local government or a university or corporation, through any
action, policy, rule, regulation, or other practice of any of its
agencies, subsidiaries, or authorized agents, discriminated or was
biased against a clearly definable racial, ethnic, or cultural group of
which the citizen is a member, or favored in any way a racial, ethnic,
or cultural group of which the citizen is not a member, and that the
discrimination, bias, or harm materially harmed the citizen. Examples
of such discrimination would include, but are not limited to: unlawful
diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or policies; unlawful
affirmative action programs or policies; race-based quotas, set-asides,
or hiring targets; or, any government or private entity policies or
programs that favored some groups over others on the basis of race. To
provide two specific examples, an individual American citizen may
establish that his or her group experienced discrimination, bias, or
harm by showing evidence that his or her group experienced a barrier to
accessing a federal program or contract that other designated groups
did not (e.g., was not eligible for the Rebuttable Presumption in
violation of the Constitution), or that that the citizen's racial or
ethnic group was disadvantaged in college or university admissions
decisions or otherwise discriminated against by a private entity in an
unlawful manner as contemplated in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.
v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), Ames
v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) or similar
cases.
To establish the American citizen was himself or herself harmed by
such discrimination, prejudice, or bias, the citizen may self-certify
that he or she was a member of the relevant group at the time of the
government's or private entity's action or during the effective period
of the relevant action, policy, rule, regulation, or other practice,
and that such action, policy, rule, regulation, or other practice
materially harmed the citizen. For example, the individual could have
sought a benefit (e.g., access to a federal, state or local government
program) and have been denied.
Third, SBA proposes revising 13 CFR 124.103(c) by removing the
current non-presumptive test for social disadvantage, rendering the new
test in 13 CFR 124.103(b) the sole test for social disadvantage.
Fourth, SBA proposes removing the process for group inclusion on
the Rebuttable Presumption list under 13 CFR 124.103(d) because SBA
proposes removing the Rebuttable Presumption altogether.
SBA recognizes that its proposed test for social disadvantage is a
departure from the current regulatory test for establishing social
disadvantage. SBA believes that this new test would not only remedy the
federal government's unconstitutional discrimination against members of
groups who were not subject to the Rebuttable Presumption, but will
also allow into the 8(a) BD program a member of any racial, ethnic, or
cultural group who has been targeted
[[Page 35435]]
by any governmental or private entity's discrimination and who has been
harmed by such targeting. SBA believes it is appropriate to require
evidence of government or private entity discrimination or bias so that
program eligibility is underscored by objective criteria. SBA further
believes self-certification of group membership and individual harm
would appropriately balance requiring individual harm while also
preserving the statute's group-based construction and SBA's limited
resources.
In proposing these social disadvantage changes, SBA considered
maintaining the individual test for social disadvantage under the
current 13 CFR 124.103(c) as an alternative means to establish social
disadvantage but rejected that option. SBA believes that its limited
resources are best served through its proposed social disadvantage test
because it does not require an individualized narrative of personal
disadvantage that opens the program to abuses and unconstitutional
discrimination.
SBA seeks comment on its proposed test. While SBA does not
currently intend to apply the new test to current Participants at their
next annual review, SBA requests comment on any reliance interests that
would be implicated by these proposed changes.
Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13132, 13563, and 14192,
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35), and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O.
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
OMB has determined that this rule will be a significant regulatory
action and, therefore, is subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O.
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993, though
it is not an ``economically significant'' action. Accordingly, this
rule has been submitted to OMB for review. SBA invites comments on its
Cost-Benefit Analysis.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
(1) Is there a need for the regulatory action?
This rulemaking is necessary to comply with the court order in
Ultima enjoining SBA from using the Rebuttable Presumption of social
disadvantage in administering the 8(a) BD program for socially
disadvantaged individuals. SBA recognizes that from the time the
regulatory Rebuttable Presumption was established in 1986 until its
demise in 2023, the 8(a) BD program unconstitutionally categorized and
favored individuals from certain groups solely on the basis of race and
ethnicity. This proposed regulation is necessary to align the program
with constitutional and statutory requirements and goals.
(2) What are the incremental benefits and costs of this regulatory
action?
There are no quantifiable costs or benefits associated with this
regulatory change. This rule amends the 8(a) BD regulations to clarify
the manner in which individuals may establish their social
disadvantage. This rulemaking does not affect participants currently
admitted to the 8(a) BD program. Further, the rule has no effect on the
amount or dollar value of any federal contract requirements or of any
financial assistance provided through SBA. Therefore, the rule is not
likely to have an effect on the economy, result in an increase in costs
or prices, or have a significant adverse effect on competition.
This proposed rule only impacts only individually owned applicants
to the 8(a) BD program. Based on FY25 data, SBA estimates that
approximately 4,190 applicants to the 8(a) BD program will be affected
by this rule change annually. This rule will have a de minimis impact
on these applicants. Absent this proposed rule, individual applicants
would continue to be required to submit a narrative to demonstrate they
are socially disadvantaged. Under the proposed revisions, an applicant
will instead self-certify that he or she (a) was a member of a
particular group at the time of the governmental or private entity's
action or during the effective period of the relevant action, policy,
rule, regulation, or other practice; and (b) suffered material harm
because of that action, policy, rule, regulation, or other practice.
The applicant must also show evidence that the government or private
entity's action, policy, rule, regulation or other practice favored
other groups, excluding the citizen's group, or disadvantaged the
citizen's group or that the government or private entity took adverse
actions against or otherwise disfavored the citizen's group. Given that
the applicant had to previously provide a narrative to show social
disadvantage, any change in the burden to comply with the proposed
regulation is expected to be de minimis. It should take an applicant
approximately the same amount of time to prepare a narrative as it
would to self-certify and find and submit evidence. There are no
additional costs, sunk costs, or transition costs for new applicants.
There are two chief benefits to this rule that cannot be
quantified. First, this rule brings SBA's regulations in line with the
Constitution and the court's decision in Ultima, removing any legal
uncertainty surrounding how to establish social disadvantage for
individuals. Second, by updating the regulations, SBA is providing
clarity to potential applicants that the Rebuttable Presumption is no
longer a means for establishing social disadvantage for individuals.
(3) What are the alternatives to this rulemaking?
One alternative is to make no changes to SBA's current regulations.
As a court order has ruled the presumption of social disadvantage for
individuals unconstitutional, it is necessary for SBA to revise the
test for social disadvantage for individuals under its regulations.
Therefore, leaving the regulation in its current form is not a
reasonable alternative to this rulemaking.
SBA considered removing the unconstitutional language from its
regulations while leaving in place the current test for individuals to
establish their social disadvantage. However, SBA feels that the test
in this proposed rule is superior to the existing test requiring the
submission of a social disadvantage narrative because the proposed test
reduces the potential for subjectivity involved in the certification
process.
Executive Order 12988
This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not
have retroactive or preemptive effect.
Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications as defined
in Executive Order 13132. It would not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and
[[Page 35436]]
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in the Executive Order. As such, it does not warrant the preparation of
a Federalism Assessment.
Executive Order 14192
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory
action, because it does not impose any more than de minimis regulatory
costs. SBA is revising one section of the Code of Federal Regulations
to comply with the Constitution. There are no budgetary impacts as a
result of the proposed revision, and pursuant to the above cost-benefit
analysis, the annualized costs attributable to this rule for purposes
of E.O. 14192 accounting are $0. SBA notes that the principal benefits
from this action are qualitative--the removal of unconstitutional
regulatory provisions reduces legal uncertainty and improves regulatory
clarity.
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35
The SBA has determined that this proposed rule, when finalized,
would alter the currently approved reporting and recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
This proposed rule would revise what applicants to the 8(a) BD program
must submit in order to be considered socially disadvantaged. This rule
will not impact the annual burden of the collection.
Summary of Information Collection
SBA proposes to revise the information collection identified below:
OMB Control No.: 3245-0374.
Title: Unified Certification System.
Description of Respondents: Small business concerns applying for
SBA certification.
Form Number: SBA Form 2413.
Total Estimated Annual Responses: 29,329.
Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 39,330.
SBA has submitted this amended collection to the Office of
Management and Budget for review, and invites the public to comment on
the proposed changes, particularly on: (a) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its
functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether
there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of
automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d)
whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information.
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires
administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on
small entities, small nonprofit enterprises, and small local
governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking,
the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, section
605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule in lieu of preparing
an analysis if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule impacts only individually owned applicants to
the 8(a) BD program. In FY25, SBA received approximately 4,190
applicants to the 8(a) BD program and estimates a similar number will
be affected by this rule change annually. While this represents a
substantial number of applicants in the 8(a) BD program, it makes up a
small proportion of the approximately 21,000 applications SBA received
in FY25 for all of its small business certification programs. As
discussed in the cost-benefit analysis, SBA has determined that any
economic impact on small entities will be de minimis. Applicants are
currently required to provide a narrative showing that they are
socially disadvantaged. This new test replaces the existing test
without increasing the burden on participants. This rule does not
change the total dollar amount available to contractors through the
8(a) BD program.
For the reasons discussed, SBA certifies that this proposed rule,
if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBA invites comments from members
of the public on its analysis and certification.
List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 124
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement,
Government property, Small businesses.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA proposes
to amend 13 CFR part 124 as follows:
PART 124--8(a) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT/SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS
STATUS DETERMINATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 124 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 636(j), 637(a), 637(d), 644, 42
U.S.C. 9815; and Pub. L. 99-661, 100 Stat. 3816; Sec. 1207, Pub. L.
100-656, 102 Stat. 3853; Pub. L. 101-37, 103 Stat. 70; Pub. L. 101-
574, 104 Stat. 2814; Sec. 8021, Pub. L. 108-87, 117 Stat. 1054; and
Sec. 330, Pub. L. 116-260.
0
2. Revise Sec. 124.103 to read as follows:
Sec. 124.103 Who is socially disadvantaged?
(a) General. Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have
been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because
of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their
individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from
circumstances beyond their control.
(b) Victims of government and private entity discrimination or
bias. (1) For purposes of this section:
(i) Citizen means citizen of the United States.
(ii) Material harm means loss of access to or diminished
opportunities related to economic advancement.
(2) A citizen may establish social disadvantage by first showing
that during the citizen's lifetime, a governmental or private entity in
the United States, including but not limited to any federal, state or
local government, university or corporation, through any action,
policy, rule, regulation, or other practice of any of its agencies,
subsidiaries, or authorized agents, discriminated or was biased against
a clearly definable racial, ethnic, or cultural group of which the
citizen is a member, or favored in any way a racial, ethnic, or
cultural group of which the citizen is not a member. In addition, the
citizen must establish that such discrimination, bias, or favoritism
conferred material harm on the citizen.
(3) In order to establish his or her social disadvantage, a citizen
must:
(i) Self-certify that he or she:
(A) Was a member of a particular group at the time of the
governmental or private entity's action or during the effective period
of the relevant action, policy, rule, regulation, or other practice;
and
(B) Suffered material harm because of the action, policy, rule,
regulation, or other practice evidenced in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this
section; and
(ii) Show evidence that the government's or private entity's
action, policy, rule, regulation or other practice favored other
groups, excluding the citizen's group, or disadvantaged the citizen's
group or that the government or private entity took adverse actions
against or otherwise disfavored the citizen's group. Such actions,
policies, rules, regulations, or other practices favoring or
disfavoring groups may include, but are not limited to: unlawful
diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or policies; unlawful
[[Page 35437]]
affirmative action programs or policies; race-based quotas, set-asides,
or hiring targets; or, any policies or programs that favored some
groups over others on the basis of race. As two specific examples:
(A) Such actions, policies, rules, regulations, or other practices
include prior iterations of 13 CFR 124.103 that excluded the Citizen's
racial or ethnic group as a group entitled to a rebuttable presumption
of social disadvantage; and
(B) Such actions, policies, rules, regulations, or other practices
also include situations where the citizen's group was disadvantaged in
college or university admissions decisions or otherwise discriminated
against by a private entity in an unlawful manner.
(4) Sufficient evidence under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section
may include, but is not limited to: materials on government, university
and corporate websites; government, university, and corporate policies,
regulations, guidance, procedures or documents; statements by
government, university or corporate officials; government, university,
and corporate reports, audits or findings; court decisions; or,
administrative rulings.
Kelly Loeffler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-11765 Filed 6-10-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 11, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.