H.R. 522 directs that the Small Business Administration’s January 19, 2021 proposed rule titled “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith‑Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Programs” shall have the force and effect of law. The bill does not alter the proposed rule’s text, add enforcement mechanisms, or include funding; it simply declares that that specific proposed rule is legally binding.
That move would require the SBA and program participants to apply whatever substantive provisions are contained in that proposed rule to SBA loan and disaster assistance programs. For compliance officers, lenders, faith‑based service providers, and SBA administrators, the bill creates immediate operational and legal questions about implementation, funding, and litigation risk because it elevates a proposed agency rule to statutory status without engaging typical rulemaking procedures or specifying implementation details.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill declares a named SBA proposed rule (issued Jan. 19, 2021) to “have the force and effect of law,” making the proposed rule’s provisions binding on SBA loan and disaster assistance programs. It does not itself restate or amend the proposed rule’s text.
Who It Affects
The practical effects fall on the Small Business Administration, applicants to SBA loan and disaster assistance programs (including faith‑based organizations and secular entities), intermediaries and lenders that participate in SBA programs, and legal counsel advising those parties.
Why It Matters
Congress is converting an agency’s proposed regulation into binding law, an uncommon route that short‑circuits ordinary notice‑and‑comment rulemaking and raises administrative‑law, constitutional, and operational issues that could reshape how SBA treats faith‑based applicants and service providers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R. 522 does one narrow but consequential thing: it takes a specific proposed SBA regulation from January 19, 2021 and says that the proposed rule now has the force and effect of law. The bill references the proposal by title and date and does not modify its language, attach an effective date, or add implementation funding.
Once enacted, the SBA would be obligated to treat the rule as binding for the loan and disaster assistance programs covered by that proposal.
Because the bill adopts a proposed rule rather than issuing a new statute that replicates or summarizes the rule’s provisions, the exact legal obligations imposed will depend on the text of that January 19, 2021 proposal. Agencies, applicants, and counsel will need to read the proposal’s language to identify changes to eligibility, nondiscrimination rules, application procedures, or other program mechanics that the proposal contains.
The bill does not itself define enforcement remedies, private causes of action, or administrative penalties; those will flow from the rule’s text or from how the SBA implements and enforces the rule once it is treated as law.Operationally, the SBA will face immediate tasks: incorporate the rule into program guidance and application materials, train staff and partner lenders, and determine how to resolve conflicts between the adopted proposed rule and existing statutes or regulations. Because the bill does not appropriate new funds, the agency would need to absorb implementation costs within existing budgets or seek separate appropriations.
Finally, the route Congress uses here—enacting a proposed rule into law—creates predictable litigation pressure: challengers can test whether converting a proposed regulation into binding law without ordinary rulemaking procedures or clearer statutory direction is lawful and whether the substance of the rule complies with the Constitution’s Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill explicitly adopts the SBA proposed rule titled “Ensuring Equal Treatment for Faith‑Based Organizations in SBA’s Loan and Disaster Assistance Programs” issued January 19, 2021.
H.R. 522 gives that proposed rule “the force and effect of law” rather than requiring the SBA to finalize it through notice‑and‑comment rulemaking.
The statutory text contains no appropriation, no explicit enforcement mechanism, and no implementation timeline or effective date beyond enactment.
The scope is limited to SBA loan and disaster assistance programs referenced by the proposed rule’s title; the bill does not change other SBA authorities or unrelated statutes.
Because it elevates a proposed (not final) agency rule into law, the bill is likely to prompt immediate operational changes at SBA and near‑term litigation over both process and substance.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section supplies the Act’s name: the “Fair Assistance and Impartial Treatment of Help In Small Business Act” or “FAITH in Small Business Act.” The short title is purely nominal—it does not affect substantive implementation or legal effect.
Adoption of the SBA proposed rule as binding law
Section 2 is the operative clause: it declares that the SBA’s proposed rule issued January 19, 2021 shall have the force and effect of law. Practically, that means the substantive provisions of that proposal (whatever they state about eligibility, nondiscrimination, or program procedures) become binding on the SBA and program participants. The provision does not restate the rule’s text, does not specify an effective date other than enactment, and does not provide funding, enforcement details, or transitional instructions. Those implementation details will fall to the SBA to resolve when applying the adopted rule within existing program frameworks.
What the agency will have to do next
Although this is not labeled a separate statutory section, the bill’s single directive creates immediate implementation work: the SBA must reconcile the adopted proposed rule with the agency’s current regulations and statutes governing loans and disaster assistance, update application forms and guidance, train staff and partner lenders, and decide how to enforce the rule’s provisions. Because the bill does not provide appropriations or administrative direction, those practical steps will require internal SBA decisions or further congressional action.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Faith‑based organizations seeking SBA loans or disaster assistance — The bill removes regulatory barriers by making the SBA proposal that promises equal treatment binding, potentially easing access for faith‑based nonprofits and service providers.
- Faith‑owned small businesses — If the adopted proposal expands or clarifies treatment for religiously affiliated applicants, faith‑owned for‑profit small businesses may gain clearer pathways to SBA loan and disaster programs.
- Advocacy groups and legal counsel favoring religious accommodations — These stakeholders gain a statutory foundation they can point to when enforcing or defending faith‑based organizations’ program access.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small Business Administration — The agency must implement the adopted proposed rule without additional funding in the bill, absorb administrative and compliance costs, and defend potential litigation challenging the procedure or substance of the adoption.
- Non‑faith‑based applicants and service providers — They may face altered competition or program priorities depending on how the adopted rule is interpreted and enforced, and could see changes in access or prioritization.
- Participating lenders and intermediaries (e.g., microlenders, certified development companies) — These organizations will need to revise intake, eligibility checks, and training to align with the adopted rule, which raises compliance costs and operational disruption.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is procedural legitimacy versus substantive accommodation: Congress adopts a proposed agency regulation to advance religious‑service access in federal small business programs, which strengthens religious organizations’ claims to equal treatment but does so by bypassing ordinary administrative procedures and raising constitutional and statutory fairness questions for secular applicants and the agency charged with implementation.
The bill’s single‑sentence substantive directive creates a number of unresolved implementation and legal questions. First, by elevating a proposed rule to legal force without requiring or detailing notice‑and‑comment or other procedural steps, the bill departs from ordinary administrative practice and squarely invites challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Courts will have to confront whether Congress can effectively convert an unfinalized agency proposal into binding law and, if so, what limits apply to that conversion.
Second, the substance of the adopted proposal—its definitions, standards for “equal treatment,” and operational directives—will determine how significant the change is, but the statute leaves those substantive choices in the text of the proposal rather than in the statute itself. That creates ambiguity for implementers and increases litigation risk over interpretation, scope, and interaction with existing statutory provisions governing SBA programs.
Third, the bill does not fund implementation or specify enforcement mechanisms, so the SBA must carry out operational changes within current budgets or seek further appropriations, and private parties may be uncertain about available remedies if they believe the adopted rule is misapplied.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.