Opinion ID: 499513
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Regulations in Question

Text: 33 When IMI appealed to the Size Appeals Board the determination that Tombs & Sons was a small business, the regulations then in effect provided for proceedings essentially fact-finding and non-adversarial in nature. Hearings, if provided, were characterized as investigative in nature and not adversary. They were to be conducted informally. 13 C.F.R. Sec. 121.3-6(a), (e)(2)(ii) (1983). These regulations have since been revised to provide for a quasi-judicial hearing process. The purpose of the revision was to avoid scheduling difficulties and delays previously associated with resolution of such appeals by the Size Appeals Board (Board) and to institute procedures that would better satisfy the requirements of due process by providing a more fair and efficient means for obtaining complete and reliable evidence.... 48 Fed.Reg. 55832 (1983). Nowhere in the regulations or in the comments to those regulations is there a statement on preemption. 34 Thus, the process provided at the time of IMI's appeal was administrative rather than quasi-judicial, and the reason given for the later revision does not speak to the availability of state common law remedies. In short, the SBA has been no more explicit on the issue of preemption than has Congress.