Gas cost an average of $1.33 a gallon. “Centerfold” by the J. Geils Band was the number one song in the country. And On Golden Pond, starring Henry Fonda and Katherine Hepburn, was tops at the box office.
But for the preservation community, the big news in February 1982 was the release of President Reagan’s budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year. Zero money for the Historic Preservation Fund, threatening the ability of SHPOs (there were no THPOs yet) to fulfill their obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
This history – and the efforts of the preservation community to fight it and save federal preservation programs – is recounted in an essay by Charles M. Niquette, founding member of ACRA and Chairman of the Board of Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc, in ACRASphere last week.
As Mr. Niquette notes, historic preservation has faced numerous threats over the years, and each time the preservation community has mobilized to remind policymakers and the country of the importance of preserving our history.
The current crisis over the ACHP’s proposed radical overhaul of the 800 regulations that implement Section 106 is the latest in a long series of attempts to undermine preservation. That makes it no less serious. But, to quote Chuck, this isn’t our first rodeo: “when preservationists act separately, we are relatively easy to ignore, but when we act together, we represent a remarkably broad national constituency.”
To that end, the preservation community is taking its arguments directly to the Executive Branch this week, in a series of meetings with the Office of Intergovernmental and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which is reviewing the ACHP’s proposal to determine whether the Council’s plan is in compliance with federal laws and executive orders.
ACRA is up first, meeting with OIRA Monday afternoon, followed by a string of meetings with other national associations, SHPOs, CRM firms and others. At its meeting, ACRA will stress the fact that the ACHP has failed to consider the impact of its proposal on small businesses and that the proposed changes violate the letter and spirit of the rules that agencies must follow when writing regulations.
Any firm can request a meeting with OIRA – if you have not done so, we urge you to consider doing so. It’s easy, and your voice can help make the case that the ACHP is on the wrong track.
ACRA has launched its Section 106 Action Center, which features resources about the proposed rule changes and ways that you and your colleagues can take action. The Action Center will be continually updated with new resources and information, including (but not limited to) action alerts, issue briefs and talking points, and all blog posts related to the issue. Note: the Action Center is members-only, so you will be required to login using your ACRA profile. Non-members: subscribe to the ACRAsphere for the latest as resources for all will be cross-posted.
SBA Proposes Massive Changes to Size Standards
As previously reported in ACRASphere, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has proposed big changes to its size standards, which would redefine many more CRM firms as small businesses.
The SBA’s proposed rule would lead to staggering changes in the standards for small businesses across many NAICS codes, including NAICS codes used by CRM firms. For example, the size standard for NAICS code 541620, Environmental Consulting Services, would increase by 1453 percent, from $19 million to $295 million.
ACRA’s Government Relations Committee is analyzing the proposal. The SBA is accepting comments on the proposal until September 21, 2026. Visit the rulemaking notice for instructions on commenting.
SBA Issues Final Rule on 8(a) Presumption of Social Disadvantage
The SBA published its final rule August 11 to remove from the 8(a) Business Development Program the “rebuttable presumption” of social disadvantage that has historically made members of certain racial and ethnic minority groups automatically eligible for the 8(a) Business Development Program.
The 8(a) program gives socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses, including CRM firms, access to set-aside and sole-source federal contracts along with counseling and training.
Under the SBA’s rule, individuals would no longer be considered “socially disadvantaged” simply because they belong to a racial minority group, nor could anyone be excluded for being white; instead, every applicant would have to prove disadvantage by submitting verifiable, fact-based evidence under what the agency describes as a single standard. The change applies only to individually owned firms; eligibility for entity-owned participants such as those owned by Indian tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, Native Hawaiian Organizations, and Community Development Corporations is unchanged.
The move builds on a 2023 federal court ruling that found the race-based presumption unconstitutional. It echoes changes that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is making that end the use of race- and sex-based presumptions of disadvantage for establishing eligibility under the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concessions DBE (ACDBE) Programs.
In the final rule, the SBA clarified that the new social disadvantage requirements will not apply to firms that are currently in the 8(a) program, but only to new applicants and those who have pending applications to the 8(a) program when the rule takes effect September 10, 2026. ACRA had raised concerns about the ambiguity in the proposed rule about whether the rule would apply to firms already in the program and urged the SBA to make clear that the rule would apply only prospectively.