Senator · D-NV
A likely drafting error inserts an undefined term that creates legal ambiguity: it risks confusing small businesses about program eligibility, raising litigation and legal costs, and forcing federal administrators to divert resources to interpretation or correction.
None identified in the available sections.
Small-business owners could face legal uncertainty about SBA rules and eligibility under §632(k)(2) because the bill inserts an undefined/erroneous term ("smoke.."), which may change whether they qualify for benefits or compliance obligations.
Small businesses and the federal government would likely see increased litigation risk and higher legal costs due to the statutory ambiguity, raising the chance of lawsuits to resolve the meaning of the inserted term.
Federal administrators (e.g., SBA staff) would need to spend time and resources to interpret, correct, or defend the apparent drafting error, diverting staff from program implementation and oversight.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Edits punctuation in an enumerated list in 15 U.S.C. § 632(k)(2) and inserts a new subparagraph containing the single token "smoke..", creating an apparent drafting error.
Amends a clause of the Small Business Act by adjusting punctuation in two existing subparagraphs and inserting a new subparagraph that contains the single, likely erroneous word "smoke..". The change formally expands the enumerated list in 15 U.S.C. § 632(k)(2), but the new text appears to be a drafting mistake rather than a clear substantive policy provision. The practical effect is limited but could create confusion or administrative uncertainty for agencies and small businesses until corrected; it does not create new funding, authorization, or clearly defined new benefits or requirements as written.
Official title: Include smoke in the definition of disaster in the Small Business Act, and for other purposes.
Introduced May 14, 2026 by Catherine Marie Cortez Masto · Last progress May 14, 2026