U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Development 

REPORT ON THE DEFINITION OF “RURAL”

Office of the Secretary

United States Department of Agriculture

Thomas Vilsack, Secretary

United States Department of Agriculture
1

Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Assessment of Various Definitions of the Term “Rural” And “Rural Area” That Are Used 

With Respect To Programs Administered By the Secretary...................................................... 2

2. Description of Effects Various Definitions Have on Rural Development Programs ................ 9

3. Recommendations for Ways to Better Target Funds Provided Through Rural Development 

Programs .................................................................................................................................. 13

4. Effect of the Amendment Made by Subsection (a) on the Level of Rural Development 

Funding and Participation in Those Programs in Each State................................................... 20

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 20

Addenda ........................................................................................................................................ 21

Addenda

1. USDA Rural Development Program Authorities

2. February 15, 2011, Testimony on Rural Definition

3. Questions and Answers to February 15, 2011 Hearing on Rural Definition

4. Filtering Criteria Examples 

5. Requests For Rural In Character Determinations

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANPR – Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

BIP – Broadband Initiatives Program

ConAct – Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

ERS – Economic Research Service

HHS – United States Department of Health and Human Services

HRSA – U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration

HUD – United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

NOFA – Notice of Funding Availability

PDA – Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

RD – USDA Rural Development

RBS – Rural Business – Cooperative Service 

REAP – Rural Energy for America Program

RHS – Rural Housing Service 

RUCC – Rural/Urban Continuum Codes

RUCA – Rural/Urban Commuting Area 

RUS – Rural Utilities Service 

SEARCH – Special Evaluation Assistance for Rural Communities and Households

USDA – United States Department of Agriculture
2

Introduction

The impetus for Rural Development (RD) programs is that equivalent National programs and 

private investors and lenders shut out rural areas due to lack of capacity and the need for highest 

returns. To address the unmet needs of rural America, Congress authorized and targeted funds to 

rural areas by limiting eligibility based on total population. 

As population and economies continue to shift within and between states, eligibility criteria 

based on total population warrant a second look. In an effort to identify alternatives, Section 

6018(b) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) required the 

Secretary of Agriculture to report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate 

responding to four specific areas. Per that directive, this document —

1. Assesses the various definitions of the term ‘‘rural’’ and ‘‘rural area’’ that are used 

with respect to programs administered by the Secretary;

2. Describes the effects that the variations in those definitions have on those programs;

3. Makes recommendations for ways to better target funds provided through rural 

development programs; and

4. Determines the effect of the amendment made by subsection (a) on the level of rural 

development funding and participation in those programs in each State.

While this report emphasizes programs authorized through the Farm Bill process, the reporting 

requirement is not exclusive to those programs, which are under the jurisdiction of the House 

Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. 

Accordingly, as appropriate, programs administered by the Secretary but authorized in the 

Housing Act of 1949 under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Financial Services and 

the Senate Committee on Banking are discussed. 

Authorizing statutes currently rely almost exclusively on total population as measured in the 

most recent decennial census as the sole indicator rural. With the Census Bureau having released 

all necessary data, USDA has determined that it will begin to use 2010 figures for total 

population beginning on March 28, 2013. 

1. Assessment of Various Definitions of the Term “Rural” And 

“Rural Area” That Are Used With Respect To Programs 

Administered By the Secretary
3

Of the many programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture across the Department’s 

seven Mission Areas, only those of the Rural Development Mission Area1 have geographic 

limitations that restrict eligibility in most cases to “rural areas”. Rural Development staff never 

reach analysis of an application’s benefits, the management skill of a business owner, the 

repayment ability of a home mortgage applicant, or the economic feasibility of a project unless 

an eligibility determination can be made first.

In testimony before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, 

Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture on February 15, 2011, USDA provided the 

Subcommittee a matrix of current definitions for the 40-plus Rural Development programs 

(Addendum 1 of this report), as well as the actual statutory language for all programs in the 

Rural Development mission area. This matrix provides a comprehensive understanding of the 

complexities associated with determining individual program eligibility. The February 15, 2011 

testimony (Addendum 2), follow-up questions and answers from Members of the Subcommittee 

(Addendum 3), and the above referenced matrix are attached to this report as Addenda. The 

various program definitions also are summarized below. 

In addressing the definitions and role of rurality in the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress took three 

concrete steps:

• For the first time, a “default” definition commonly used in business development 

programs was added to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, or ConAct

applying to any new programs unless Congress specifically provided a different 

definition;

• For the first time, the Under Secretary for Rural Development was authorized to allow 

eligibility for business development programs in places that otherwise would not be 

eligible because of their proximity to municipalities of larger than 50,000 population if he 

determined them to be “rural in character”; and 

• Following a precedent set in the 2002 Farm Bill for cooperatives of agricultural 

producers hoping to establish value-added processing of their commodities, Congress 

either provided no “rural area” eligibility requirement or waived such requirements for 

certain high-priority areas in renewable energy and underserved communities in terms of 

their limited access to fresh healthy food and lack of food security or high rates of 

poverty, commonly called “food deserts”.

Default Definition

Section 6018(a) of the 2008 Farm Bill provided a general “default” definition of the term “rural 

area” for programs authorized by the ConAct. The default definition is the one commonly used 

for most business development programs, such as the Business & Industry Loan Guarantee 

 1 Rural Business – Cooperative Service (RBS), Rural Housing Service (RHS), and Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
4

Program or the Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program2

. It then articulated two different rules 

for Water and Wastewater Disposal and Community Facilities programs, as follows: 

SEC. 6018. DEFINITIONS.

(a) RURAL AREA.—Section 343(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)) is amended by striking paragraph 

(13) and inserting the following:

‘‘(13) RURAL AND RURAL AREA.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraphs (B) through (G), 

the terms ‘rural’ and ‘rural area’ mean any area other than—

‘‘(i) a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 

inhabitants;

And ‘‘(ii) any urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or 

town described in clause (i).

‘‘(B) WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL GRANTS AND DIRECT 

AND GUARANTEED LOANS.—For the purpose of water and 

waste disposal grants and direct and guaranteed loans provided 

under paragraphs (1), (2), and (24) of section 306(a), the terms 

‘rural’ and ‘rural area’ mean a city, town, or unincorporated area 

that has a population of no more than 10,000 inhabitants.

‘‘(C) COMMUNITY FACILITY LOANS AND GRANTS.—For 

the purpose of community facility direct and guaranteed loans and 

grants under paragraphs (1), (19), (20), (21), and (24) of section 

306(a), the terms ‘rural’ and ‘rural area’ mean any area other than a 

city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population of greater 

than 20,000 inhabitants.

Exceptions to the default definition 

Section 6018(a) of the 2008 Farm Bill further amended Section 343(a)(13) of the ConAct with 

new subparagraphs (D) and (E), which provide administrative exception authority to the Under 

Secretary. This authority extends only to programs that employ the default definition of “rural 

area” which, in addition to excluding applications from cities or towns with greater than 50,000 

population also excludes communities adjacent and contiguous to those cities or towns regardless 

of those communities’ own total population. In certain cases, those otherwise excluded areas 

still might be eligible rural areas. The results of this flexibility are discussed in greater detail in 

report Section 4 and Addendum 5. 

 2 One notable exception in RBS is the Intermediary Relending Program, where an application can be accepted from 

anywhere except a city or town greater than 25,000 total population.
5

Because exclusion by reason of proximity to a larger city or town applies only to the default 

definition, which is used solely by Rural Business – Cooperative Service (RBS) for most of its 

programs, the exceptions to exclusion also are limited in practice to RBS programs. There is no 

administrative exception authority for the 10,000 threshold in the Water and Waste Disposal 

Program administered by Rural Utilities Service (RUS) or the 20,000 threshold in the 

Community Facilities Program administered by Rural Housing Service (RHS). 

The exceptions fall into two categories. There is statutory language limiting exclusion of whole 

municipalities when there are areas that appear as narrow “strings” of development at the 

outskirts of urbanized areas, often extending along highways. And, there is statutory language 

retaining eligibility for areas that remain “rural in character”.

For the “strings” exception, Section 6018(a) of the 2008 Farm Bill provided: “Notwithstanding 

any other provision of this paragraph, in determining which census blocks in an urbanized area 

are not in a rural area . . ., the Secretary shall exclude any cluster of census blocks that would 

otherwise be considered not in a rural area only because the cluster is adjacent to not more than 2 

census blocks that are otherwise considered not in a rural area under this paragraph.” In other 

words, once a string of development narrows to the point that it is only two census blocks wide, 

the string should be “snipped”, allowing areas beyond it to be considered eligible for business 

development programs even if adjacent and contiguous.

 

For the “rural in character” exception, Section 6018(a) of the 2008 Farm Bill provided: 

AREAS RURAL IN CHARACTER.—

(i) APPLICATION.—This subparagraph applies to—

(I) an urbanized area described in subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (F) that—

(aa) has 2 points on its boundary that are at least 40 miles apart; and

(bb) is not contiguous or adjacent to a city or town that has a population of greater 

than 150,000 inhabitants or an urbanized area of such city or town; and

(II) an area within an urbanized area described in subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (F) 

that is within 1⁄4-mile of a rural area described in subparagraph (A).

(ii) DETERMINATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, 

on the petition of a unit of local government in an area described in clause (i) or

on the initiative of the Under Secretary for Rural Development, the Under 

Secretary may determine that a part of an area described in clause (i) is a rural 

area for the purposes of this paragraph, if the Under Secretary finds that the part is 

rural in character, as determined by the Under Secretary.

(iii) ADMINISTRATION.—In carrying out this subparagraph the Under 

Secretary for Rural Development shall—

(I) not delegate the authority to carry out this subparagraph;
6

(II) consult with the applicable rural development State or regional director of the 

Department of Agriculture and the governor of the respective State;

(III) provide to the petitioner an opportunity to appeal to the Under Secretary a 

determination made under this subparagraph;

(IV) release to the public notice of a petition filed or initiative of the Under 

Secretary under this subparagraph not later than 30 days after receipt of the 

petition or the commencement of the initiative, as appropriate;

(V) make a determination under this subparagraph not less than 15 days, and not 

more than 60 days, after the release of the notice under subclause (IV);

(VI) submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 

the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate an annual 

report on actions taken to carry out this subparagraph; and

(VII) terminate a determination under this subparagraph that part of an area is a 

rural area on the date that data is available for the next decennial census 

conducted under section 141(a) of title 13, United States Code.

In other words, the law recognizes that there might be very limited instances in which pockets of 

rurality still exist within a municipality that otherwise would be excluded because of being 

adjacent and contiguous to a city or town greater than 50,000. But, those cases are limited to two 

fact patterns: one for large urbanized areas that could encompass multiple municipalities, but is 

not proximate to any city larger than 150,000 total population; the other for places within an 

urbanized area that are within one-quarter mile of an eligible rural area. The decisions, and the 

disposition of any appeals of the decisions, are made solely by the Under Secretary for Rural 

Development who is expressly precluded from delegating the matter to anyone else.

The “rural in character” concept also appears outside of the ConAct in the Housing Act of 1949. 

In general, programs authorized by Title V are available in any town, village, city, or place 

(including the immediately adjacent densely settled area) that is not part of or associated with an 

urban area, and that:

• Is rural in character with a population of less than 10,000; or

• Is not contained within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and has a serious lack of 

mortgage credit with a population between 10,000 and 20,000.

A “grandfather” clause allows communities with populations greater than 10,000 but not more 

than 25,000 to remain eligible after becoming part of an MSA if they are still “rural in 

character”. In the Housing Act programs, the determination of “rural in character” is made by 

the respective state director for Rural Development, who is tasked by regulation with looking at 

population changes and eligibility impacts at least every five years, and every three years in rapid 

growth areas. By contrast, the “rural in character” provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill limit the 

determination to the Under Secretary for Rural Development.
7

No “rural in character” or other administrative flexibility exists for the Water & Waste Disposal 

Program of RUS or the Community Facilities Program of RHS. If a municipality or 

unincorporated area exceeds the 10,000 or 20,000 threshold respectively by even one person, it is 

not eligible absent further action by Congress. Historically, this further action has taken the form 

of a general provision in appropriations legislation declaring the municipality an eligible rural 

area until the Agency adopts data of the next decennial census.

For the Telecommunications Program, Section 201 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 gives 

preference to applicants operating in rural areas, defined in Section 203(b) as anywhere except 

an incorporated or unincorporated area with a total population in excess of 5,000. An updated 

definition reflecting current market conditions for these larger utility loans was included in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for broadband loans, grants, and loan guarantees, as 

follows:

For an additional amount for the cost of broadband loans and

loan guarantees, as authorized by the Rural Electrification Act

of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) and for grants (including for 

technical assistance), $2,500,000,000: Provided, That the cost of 

direct and guaranteed loans shall be as defined in section 502 of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That, 

notwithstanding title VI of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 

this amount is available for grants, loans and loan guarantees for 

broadband infrastructure in any area of the United States: Provided 

further, That at least 75 percent of the area to be served by a 

project receiving funds from such grants, loans or loan guarantees 

shall be in a rural area without sufficient access to high speed 

broadband service to facilitate rural economic development, as 

determined by the Secretary of Agriculture: Provided further, That 

priority for awarding such funds shall be given to project 

applications for broadband systems that will deliver end users a 

choice of more than one service provider: Provided further, That 

priority for awarding funds made available under this paragraph 

shall be given to projects that provide service to the highest 

proportion of rural residents that do not have access to broadband 

service . . . . (Emphasis added.)

Section 13 of the Rural Electrification Act defines “rural” for the Electric programs of RUS by 

linking to the ConAct’s definition for the Community Facilities program of RHS and preserving 

eligibility of existing borrowers, as follows: 

(3) RURAL AREA.—Except as provided otherwise in this Act, the 

term ‘‘rural area’’ means the farm and nonfarm population of—

(A) any area described in section 343(a)(13)(C) of the

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.

1991(a)(13)(C)); and
8

(B) any area within a service area of a borrower for which a 

borrower has an outstanding loan made under titles I through V as 

of the date of enactment of this paragraph.

Thus, while any new Rural Electric Cooperative activity would be subject to the 20,000 

population cap, existing co-ops follow a “once rural, always rural” standard that allows for new 

lending to maintain generation, distribution and transmission facilities. Further, Section 6108 of 

the 2008 Farm Bill, in an effort to encourage adoption of renewable energy technologies, 

authorized the sale of renewable energy financed by RUS into urban as well as rural markets, 

opening the door to placing infrastructure and equipment into non-rural areas.

No “Rural Area” Requirement

In amendments to Title IX of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 

Farm Bill) contained in Title IX of the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress placed no statutory rural area 

eligibility requirement in the newly-authorized programs, recognizing that proximity to 

transportation hubs and consumer markets very well could make projects far more successful and 

far more beneficial to farmers, rural entrepreneurs, and consumers than siting projects solely in 

rural locations. RBS’ rulemaking for the Biorefinery Assistance Program (Section 9003, interim 

final rules were effective March 16, 2011), Repowering Assistance Program (Section 9004, 

interim final rules were effective March 14, 2011), and the Bioenergy Program for Advanced 

Biofuels (Section 9005, interim final rules were effective March 14, 2011) was consistent with 

legislative intent that there not be a “rural area” eligibility criterion. 

The original renewable energy program authorized in 2002, the Rural Energy for America 

Program (Section 9007, or REAP, interim final rules effective April 14, 2011), does have rural 

area eligibility definition requirements for non-farm rural businesses and RBS has chosen to 

apply the general definition for rural area applicable to business programs under the Con Act. 

However, the 2008 bill amended that requirement to allow agricultural producers to be eligible 

irrespective of where their operations are located.

RUS also received new authority to reach beyond rural areas with renewable energy. Section 

6108 of the 2008 Farm Bill amended Section 317(b) of the Rural Electrification Act, authorizing 

RUS loans for electric generation from renewable energy resources for resale to rural and nonrural residents. 

Congress addressed “food deserts” in Section 6015 of the farm bill, which amended Section 

310B of the ConAct to create a target for local and regional food systems3 within the Business & 

Industry Loan Guarantee Program. The target provided for at least five percent of available 

budget authority to be used for such purposes, reserving funds for the first six months of a fiscal 

year. Within the target, priority was given to local and regional food system applications that 

would benefit rural, tribal, or urban underserved communities. 

 3 Local or regional food systems are defined by Section 6015 as within a 400-mile radius or within the same state.
9

Giving priority to projects benefiting food deserts wherever they are follows on the heels of a 

provision of the 2002 Farm Bill, which for the first time allowed certain businesses whose 

lenders were seeking a Business & Industry Loan Guarantee to site their projects in metropolitan 

areas under certain conditions. The applicants must be farmer-owned cooperatives whose 

members are from within an 80-mile radius of the proposed site, the purpose of the project must 

be adding value to agricultural commodities, and the jobs created must go primarily to rural 

people. See Section 7 USC 310B(g)(3)(A)(i) of the Con Act. Staying in the labor vein, RHS 

programs to assist migrant and seasonal farm workers with finding decent housing also provide 

flexibility in where projects are constructed.

2. Description of Effects Various Definitions Have on Rural 

Development Programs

Every loan, grant, or loan guarantee application received by Rural Development staff undergoes 

three initial tests: whether the individual or entity applying is eligible for a particular program; 

whether the activity proposed is an eligible purpose for that particular program; and whether the 

location of the activity proposed in the application is eligible for that particular program. After 

an eligibility analysis is done, staff can begin to evaluate the merits of the application and the 

applicant’s ability to repay any financing.

Applicant eligibility is relatively simple. The Community Facilities Program, for example, is 

available only to municipalities, tribal governments, and non-profit organizations. Direct loans 

for single family home mortgages are available only to those whose income is below 80% of 

county median income. 

Similarly, eligible purposes are articulated in statutes and regulations. For example, the Business 

and Industry Loan Guarantee Program generally cannot finance agricultural production.

The focus of this report is on the relatively complex question of whether the location of the 

proposed activity is eligible for a grant or loan. The many different population thresholds have 

the following effects:

• Arbitrary barriers to regional strategies, perpetuating community isolation and less costeffective economic and community development practices;

• Inability of RD to provide comprehensive, integrated program delivery in any community 

or group of communities larger than the smallest population threshold; 

• State-defined municipalities complicating nationwide definitions relying on “cities,” 

“towns,” and “unincorporated areas”; and
10

• Periods of uncertainty and disruption of program delivery following each decennial 

census.

Arbitrary barriers to regional strategies, perpetuating community isolation and less costeffective economic and community development practices

Both of the last two Farm Bills and section 725 of the 2012 Appropriations law included 

provisions attempting to reposition Rural Development to work on a more multi-jurisdictional 

basis rather than making every decision in the isolation of the particular municipality from which 

an application arises. 

In some places, multi-jurisdictional planning and development requires acknowledging the role 

of more populous areas in providing market opportunities for goods and services provided by 

rural people and job opportunities for rural people willing to commute. For example, regional 

food systems to regional transportation systems depend on fully understanding and taking 

advantage of the interface between rural and more urban communities. Being limited to lending 

solely in “rural areas” which are defined in multiple ways makes putting these strategies into 

practice far more difficult.

To be sure, some state offices of Rural Development have had success with regional approaches 

to services like public water and sewer, but only when every community in the regional project 

was under the cap for that program. If a regional sewer project encounters a municipality of 

greater than 10,000 population, for example, that community cannot be part of the Rural 

Development financing application no matter how much sense it might make to project engineers 

geographically and no matter what the impact of including the larger community might have had 

on end user rates as fixed costs got spread over a larger number of end users.

Many times Rural Development programs have been implemented without regard to regional 

planning. The result is individual communities applying for financing for their own sewage 

treatment plants, their own critical access hospitals, their own emergency services, and so forth, 

rather than partnering with neighboring communities. 

Inability of RD to provide comprehensive, integrated program delivery in any community or 

group of communities larger than the smallest population threshold

The real art in what Rural Development’s staff do is how they do it – through a distributed 

network of state and area offices providing comprehensive “one-stop” service for technical and 

financial assistance in community and economic development. 

Rural communities often are led by volunteer local elected officials who have few if any paid 

staff beyond perhaps a road supervisor. They do not have professional grant writers or 

professional engineers on staff to write their applications for them, and they rely on Rural 

Development loan officers, engineers, architects, and partners receiving Rural Development’s 

technical assistance financing, such as the National Rural Water Association or the Rural 
11

Community Assistance Partnership, for help through an application’s life cycle. Over time, the 

authorities have been approached on an individual ad hoc basis. Communities and individuals 

apply for assistance on a program by program basis. If population definitions were broader, rural 

communities would have the ability to approach the programs in a more coordinated way. 

With multiple “rural area” eligibility standards, Rural Development employees are challenged to 

provide comprehensive financial assistance beyond communities of 10,000 or less, the general 

threshold for housing and water and sewer programs. Instead, they also must be able to bring 

other Federal and state agencies to a project to fill in the gaps left by varying eligibility standards 

for Rural Development’s programs. 

State-defined municipalities complicating nationwide definitions relying on “cities”, “towns”, 

and “ unincorporated areas”

Section 6018(a) of the 2008 Farm Bill provides Section 343(a)(13)(G) of the ConAct making 

special provisions for Puerto Rico and Hawaii where the standards established earlier in that 

section simply do not fit their municipal structures. Use of the words “city” or “town” can create 

certain challenges elsewhere, too. Common sense suggests that “city” or “town” could be 

interpreted as any incorporated municipality, but had Congress intended to mean any 

incorporated municipality, the statutory language also simply could have said so. A literal 

interpretation could exclude nearly all of Pennsylvania, with its 1,000 boroughs and 1,400 

townships in addition to its 57 cities and exactly one town, even though a large majority of those 

boroughs and townships have fewer than 10,000 residents. 

While the majority of states began as unincorporated territories now dotted with incorporated 

municipalities, many Colonial states are entirely incorporated but are dotted with unincorporated 

population clusters within otherwise incorporated municipalities. Several northeastern states –

notably, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania – still recognize in state law the concept of 

a “village”, an unincorporated population cluster lying wholly within an incorporated 

municipality. In MA and NY, villages lie within incorporated towns. In PA, villages lie within 

incorporated townships.

Through the 1990s, these unincorporated population centers within incorporated municipalities 

in the northeast region were treated the same as completely unincorporated areas elsewhere in 

the country – namely, if a water or sewer project actually would serve fewer than 10,000 people, 

or the fire department would serve fewer than 20,000 people, the respective Water & Waste 

Disposal or Community Facilities application could proceed. Thus, a village of fewer than 

10,000 people, where centralized services like water or sewer were more necessary than in the 

outlying farmland, could apply for financing even if the total population of the town or township 

in which the village was located exceeded 10,000.

In the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress adjusted the definitions of “rural area” in a manner suggesting 

that congressional intent was to change this result. The same language was retained in 2008. 

Current practice looks past the unofficial borders of the unincorporated village and instead limits 

eligibility to places where the entire town or township in which the village is sited meets the 

respective eligibility threshold – 10,000 for the Water & Waste Disposal program and 20,000 for 
12

the Community Facilities program. Since 2002, an applicant is the municipality rather than a 

population cluster within a municipality or even a single-purpose sewer or water district. Unlike 

truly unincorporated areas in states like Texas or Iowa, where the standard is still to evaluate the 

total population to be served by the project, unincorporated population clusters in states like 

Massachusetts or New York that lie within incorporated municipalities now are eligible only if 

the total population of the entire municipality falls below the eligibility standard.

Periods of uncertainty and disruption of program delivery following each decennial census

Most Rural Development programs have a “rural area” requirement as a fundamental test of 

program eligibility. The test is defined by total population based on the most recent decennial 

census, irrespective of population density, the predominant types of economic activity and local 

land uses, the extent to which the area might have become a “bedroom community” for a 

neighboring metropolitan area, or any other factors. RD has no authority to waive these 

requirements with the exception of most business programs.

In the absence of administrative waiver authority, Congress historically has created its own 

flexibility on a case-by-case basis by adopting general provisions on USDA appropriations 

legislation declaring communities that otherwise would be over the population limit still rural for 

purposes of a specific program. This has been true particularly with regard to the ConAct’s 

Water & Waste Disposal Program of RUS and the Community Facilities program of RHS. 

Like “rural in character” exceptions made under the provisions of the last Farm Bill, existing 

general provisions from prior appropriations laws expire with the adoption of 2010 Census 

figures, which will happen March 28, 2013. There may be extenuating circumstances reviewed 

on a case-by-case basis in which it would be in the best interests of the taxpayers to continue 

using 2000 Census data, such as a multi-phase sewer project in which an overall project plan was 

approved based on 2000 figures, a majority of phases have been completed, and declaring the 

area ineligible now would leave the project unfinished and the community less able to repay 

existing indebtedness. 

In general, though, hundreds of communities now face exclusion from one or more Rural 

Development programs either because the general provision they relied upon to remain eligible 

after the 2000 Census results were adopted is expiring4 or because the increase in their 

population from 2000 to 2010 has placed them for the first time above one or more population

thresholds. Among them are:

• Municipalities like Pleasant Grove, AL, Batesville, AR, Garden Acres, CA, Sebring, FL, 

Chatham, IL, Waggaman, LA, Alexandria, MN, and Guthrie, OK5

, which increased in 

population from slightly under 10,000 to slightly over 10,000. Without considering 

whether any other characteristics of those communities changed between 2000 and 2010, 

 4 No new general provisions providing exceptions to the 2000 Census figures were enacted in fiscal year 2011 

continuing resolutions or in the 2012 appropriations legislation.

5 Pleasant Grove’s population increased from 9,983 in the 2000 Census to 10,110 in the 2010 Census; Batesville 

increased from 9,445 to 10,248; Garden Acres increased from 9,747 to 10,648; Sebring increased from 9,667 to 

10,491; Waggaman increased from 9,435 to 10,015; and Guthrie increased from 9,925 to 10,191 in that time. 
13

they will no longer be eligible for the Water & Waste Disposal Program even though 

public water and sewer are exactly the types of infrastructure investments that could 

attract new employers to those areas;

• Municipalities like Fountain, CO, Darien, CT, Junction, KS, Independence, KY, Arnold, 

MO, Brandon, MS, West Fargo, ND, Odessa, TX, and Waynesboro, VA6

, which 

increased in population above 20,000, making them no longer eligible for the Community 

Facilities Program after October 1, 2012 even though Congress raised the direct loan 

program level four-fold this fiscal year because the subsidy rate has dropped to zero and 

the only cost to taxpayers are for staff salaries and related costs to administer the 

program; and

• Holt, MI, which saw its population more than double from 11,315 to 23,973. If local 

elected officials were considering meeting the needs of this growing community by 

applying for long-term, fixed rate Community Facilities Program financing for new 

schools, expanded access to health care, expanded emergency services or perhaps a new 

municipal airport, they would find the community is no longer eligible solely because it 

exceeds 20,000 total population. 

Of course, the opposite effect occurs when a community loses population and falls below the 

arbitrary total population threshold of a particular program. Owego, NY, for example, dropped 

from 20,366 residents in the 2000 Census to 19,883 residents in the 2010 Census. Nothing else 

has changed about Owego, but under the ConAct, it will become an eligible rural area for 

purposes of Community Facilities financing on October 1, 2012. Similarly, the 2000 Census 

revealed that Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s capital, had decreased in population below 50,000, 

making that city eligible for business programs. Nothing else about the City of Harrisburg 

changed to suggest it actually had become rural, but that did not matter. Total population 

standards are a blunt instrument, overlooking other factors that perhaps do a better job of 

indicating when an area is rural, such as population density or the prominence of natural resource 

based businesses in the local economy. Perhaps more significantly, when Harrisburg became 

eligible for business programs financing following the 2000 Census, the much smaller 

municipalities adjacent and contiguous to Harrisburg became eligible, too. 

3. Recommendations for Ways to Better Target Funds Provided 

Through Rural Development Programs

The current state of the law puts an inordinate amount of emphasis on the location from where an 

application can be received, while comparatively little statutory attention is paid to the larger

question of which applications (wherever and whoever their source) get funded by Rural 

 6 Fountain’s population increased from 15,197 in the 2000 Census to 25,846 in the 2010 Census; Darien increased 

from 19,607 to 20,732; Junction increased from 18,886 to 23,353; Independence increased from 14,982 to 24,757; 

Arnold increased from 19,965 to 20,808; Brandon increased from 16,436 to 21,705; Odessa increased from 17,799 

to 22,707; and Waynesboro increased from 19,520 to 21,006.
14

Development. With about $2.4 billion of appropriated budget authority to the Mission Area and 

its constituent agencies leveraging over $37 billion in grants, loans, and loan guarantees 

available to the public this fiscal year, Rural Development’s work is a bargain. 

Still, both Members of Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture must be able to assure 

taxpayers and constituents that funds were well invested in projects that helped as many rural 

residents as possible as efficiently and effectively as possible. Complete reliance on arbitrary 

“one-size-fits-all” total population eligibility standards in the definitions section of the ConAct 

needs to give way to a more robust analysis of each application based on a variety of factors that 

lead to the greatest benefit for rural people and places. Such factors also should be flexible 

enough to assist in analyzing applications under authorities beyond the ConAct and should 

facilitate the streamlining of program applications and processes among like types of applicants, 

specifically rural individuals and communities on the one hand and entrepreneurs on the other. 

Finally, such factors should be more transparent and comprehensible to applicants and 

employees than the current system that has grown up over seven decades.

Note that the recommendations below apply only to those programs that are under the 

jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture for the House of Representatives and the committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Recommendation #1: Utilize a common population threshold.

Common population threshold

The current default definition of “rural area” in the ConAct begins at 50,000 total population. 

We recommend that Rural Development accept as location eligible an application for any 

program from anywhere with a total population of less than 50,000, which would allow staff to 

move quickly into more substantive review of the application’s merits and whether it should be 

funded. This would require amending the ConAct, as well as the Rural Electrification Act of 

1936, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.

This common starting point allows communities to come together on more regional 

infrastructure projects. It allows the Mission Area to market programs in a simple streamlined 

fashion, facilitating staff sharing outreach responsibilities. The common definition would also 

substantially reduce the number of communities affected by the decennial census, thus reducing 

confusion and increasing the predictability of RD programs.

Critics of this approach may suggest that the change would move the focus of some programs 

away from serving the most rural communities. Furthermore, some may say that the most 

programs are already oversubscribed, so by broadening eligibility, those communities that are 

currently eligible would be less likely to receive RD program support. With these concerns in 

mind, this proposal suggests that the definition provides the Secretary the discretion to serve 

areas of greatest need and where the resources can make the greatest economic impact.

Competitive application scoring to target funds
15

Every application should be considered on a variety of factors that drive available funding to the 

most rural people and places, investing where there is both greatest need for Federal resources 

and greatest opportunity for economic or community development. 

Section 306 of the ConAct basically authorizes community-based programs in Rural Housing 

Service (Community Facilities loans in Section 306(a)(1) and Rural Utilities Service (Water & 

Waste Disposal in Section 306(a)(2)). Currently, this section of law does include targeting 

language for both that places the greatest emphasis for funding on the smallest communities. 

The section also includes consideration of poverty indicators for determining both the interest 

rate offered on loans and the degree to which grant funds might be made available in 

combination with loans to keep the total project cost affordable. Unfortunately, while trying to 

accomplish the same things using the same indicators, Section 306 actually uses slightly different 

iterations of these standards that treat these two basic community-based programs differently, 

needlessly adding complexity for applicants and staff.

Instead, we recommend amending Section 306 to provide Rural Development the ability to 

evaluate a common range of factors for all community-based applications, taking into 

consideration total population and awarding higher scores to less populated areas. The Secretary 

should also have the ability to consider in regulation:

• Population density, with higher scores awarded to less densely populated areas (see map 

below for examples);

• Economic conditions, comparing project area incomes to statewide or national data, with 

lower loan interest rates and higher grant levels awarded to projects serving those with 

least capacity to help themselves, as per current law; 

• The degree to which the project is consistent with local or regional economic strategies;

• The degree to which the project serves a geographic area or demographic group that 

historically has been underserved by Rural Development;

Targeting could also look to communting patterns, which provide a more objective yardstick 

than the “adjacent and contiguous urbanized area” for identifying when a community has lost its 

independent identity. (See map below for details). Authority could also be provided to consider 

ecological impacts of projects, with higher scores awarded to projects that address threats to air 

or water quality, or redevelop existing sites rather than convert prime farmland.

RUS developed a successful model for utilizing such criteria in their application review criteria 

developed under the second Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for the Broadband Initiative 

Program (BIP). The first NOFA provided the highest levels of grant funding to the most remote 

rural areas that had been hardest to reach with prior programs that offered solely loan funds. 

While that objective certainly was worthwhile, reaching it required defining not just “rural” but 

also “remote”. By contrast, the second NOFA offered greater flexibility by considering a variety 

of factors to drive the greatest level of subsidy to the communities most in need. For instance by 

applying additional criteria such as population density, median household income and 

unemployment, a community could become eligible for a greater amount of grant funds. 

Feedback on this second approach was very supportive compared to the feedback received on the 
16

first NOFA. This same type flexibility can be applied to this recommendation to ensure the 

greatest support to those most in need of any Rural Development assistance.

Similarly, we recommend amending Section 310B of the ConAct to provide a single set of 

targeting tools for supporting job creation and entrepreneurship in rural areas. RD could be 

provided the flexibility to consider factors in regulation such as:

• Areas with lower total population; 

• Economic conditions, including unemployment rates in the project area compared to 

statewide rates;

• General economic impacts of a project, creating high quality jobs; and

• The project’s consistency with local and multi-regional strategic objectives.
17
18

Example of Rural-Urban Commuting Areas

(provided through the Center for Applied Research and Environmental Systems)

 
19

Recommendation #2: Further remove barriers to regional strategies by retaining the ability of 

by standardizing policies Congress has adopted in past Farm Bills with regard to occasionally 

siting a project in a metropolitan area when proximity to transportation or other infrastructure 

and consumer markets are needed to ensure the best results for consumers and rural applicants. 

For example:

• Farmers markets, food hubs, and other types of value-added agricultural activities that 

facilitate increasing total farm income opportunities should be permitted in metropolitan 

areas, whether owned by a farmer-owned cooperative as current law provides, or owned 

by a single farmer, farm partnership, or other farm business type. Such permission 

should continue to hinge on rural people benefiting from job creation, as Section 310B 

currently provides.

Additional clarity is needed on language in Section 6015 of the 2008 Farm Bill providing that 

within the process of providing Business & Industry Loan Guarantee Program funds to local and 

regional food system projects, “the Secretary shall give priority to projects that have components 

benefitting underserved communities.” An underserved community is defined to include urban, 

rural, or tribal communities that the Secretary has determined have both limited access to 

affordable healthy foods and a high rate of hunger or poverty. Additional language clarifying 

whether “benefiting” these types of urban areas includes being able to site a project in an urban 

area or is limited to instances such as financing a refrigerated truck to transport fresh foods 

produced in a rural area into an urban community.

Recommendation #3: Remove barriers to providing comprehensive, integrated program 

delivery by deleting the provisions of Section 6018(a)(D) and (E) of the 2008 Farm Bill. The 

language provides exceptions to areas “adjacent and contiguous” to cities and towns greater than 

50,000 being excluded from eligibility along with the larger community. The language is 

sometimes difficult for applicants to follow, and all but requires that they retain some type of 

legal or other professional assistance to comply with the process of requesting an exception from 

the Under Secretary. 

To ensure communities and residents in the most rural and areas of greatest need are provided 

priority funding consideration under the 50,000 population threshold, USDA proposes

incorporating a series of scoring criteria for evaluating the merits of applications into relevant 

statutes and regulations (see Addendum 4 for additional information). 

Recommendation #4: Amend Section 343(a)(13) of the ConAct replacing the words “city or 

town” with “any incorporated municipality”. With each state and territory defining its own 

municipal structure, words like “city or town” can be unintentionally limiting if taken literally. 

Taken with Recommendation #1, the default definition of “rural area” would become, “anywhere 

except an incorporated municipality or unincorporated area greater than 50,000 total population”.
20

4. Effect of the Amendment Made by Subsection (a) on the Level 

of Rural Development Funding and Participation in Those 

Programs in Each State

Section 6018(a) provided certain exceptions to allow Business & Industry Loan Guarantees to be 

made on projects in urbanized areas that might otherwise be excluded as “adjacent and 

contiguous” to cities and towns greater than 50,000 total population.

USDA Rural Development implemented the discretionary portion of the 2008 Farm Bill known 

as the “rural in character” provisions. A determination under this provision allows an area to be 

considered eligible for rural businesses programs, provided that the area is determined to be 

“rural in character” and is within: (1) an urbanized area that has two points on its boundary that 

are at least 40 miles apart, which is not contiguous or adjacent to a city or town that has a 

population of greater than 150,000 inhabitants or the urbanized area of such a city town; or (2) an 

area within an urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town of greater than 50,000 

population that is within 1⁄4 mile of a rural area. 

Rural Development also implemented language requiring that exclusions of adjacent and 

contiguous urbanized areas be limited as they diminish beyond two census blocks in width. 

Referred to as “strings,” this provision recognized that development often follows the major road 

out of an urban area, without extending much beyond the road frontage as the road extends into 

the surrounding countryside. To date, there have been 219 approved uses of this language with 

33 additional requests that were not statutorily eligible. Attached is a listing of determinations 

made under these provisions since their adoption received to date (Addendum 5). 

Conclusion

The USDA Rural Development mission area provides financial and technical assistance through 

40-plus programs to support economic and community development for rural residents and their 

communities. Simplifying the eligibility determination for these communities is a key step in 

streamlining program implementation and providing a more transparent process for accessing 

financial and technical assistance from the Mission Area. Having a 50,000 population limit for 

all programs would remove confusion over what constitutes a rural area and would encourage 

more multi-jurisdictional collaboration. The convergence of new 2010 Census data adoption and 

new Farm Bill development offer a unique opportunity for a long-term solution on how best to 

ensure that resources appropriated to Rural Development are appropriately targeted to rural 

people and places of greatest opportunity and greatest need.

Submitted February 2013
21

Addenda

1. USDA Rural Development Program Authorities

2. February 15, 2011, Testimony on Rural Definition

3. Questions and Answers to February 15, 2011 Hearing on Rural Definition

4. Filtering Criteria Examples 

5. Request For Rural In Character Determinations
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 1 of 54 

 September 23, 2010 

USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AUTH

QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE 

FY2010 

Important Budget Note: This spreadsheet is a "snapshot in time". The Budget columns are sourced from a ProSum Sp

reprogramming, recissions or other adjustments have occurred that are reflected in the edits received from individual 

Program edits that reflect MAJOR differences from the April source document are noted in ITALICS. Additional changto press at FY 2010 year end. The regulation and legislative columns are updated through September 15, 2010. All coProvision special earmarks are not listed. The FY2010 Available Funding Column is not intended to be additive. WherFinally, "carryover" is the catch-all term used in ProSum to capture all categories of availability other than FY2010 app

carryover. In most cases, relevant obligation entries had yet to be processed, and, accordingly, the "carryover" numbe

Guide” was last edited by Robin Meigel and reflects contributions from Ivor Lunking and Jeff McWilliams in RUS. It haor additions at 202.720.9452. Links to external web pages are provided as a convenience but may not be current, or ac

BUSINESS PROGRAMS 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

BUSINESS PROGRAMS AUTHORITIES 

http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?state=us
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 2 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

1 

Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program 

 7 CFR 4279

RD Instructions 4279-A, 

4279-B, and 4287-B

CFDA 10.768 

E-page 34: § 310B(a) 

CONACT

7 USC 1932(a) 

Most legal entities engaged in rural business and industry. 

Any area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 50,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

Fobueqwosoref

2 

North American Development Bank Guaranteed Loans 

MOU dated June 23, 1997 1993 NAFTA 

Implementation Act 

Most legal entities engaged in rural business and industry 

Businesses in communities with significant levels of workers adversely impacted by NAFTArelated trade as designated by NADBank and areas outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 50,000 population and urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. 

Fobueqwosoref
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 3 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

3A 

Rural Business Enterprise Grants (RBEG) 

7 CFR 1942.301

(Subpart G) RD Instruction 1942-G

[Editor QUERY – No NOFAs found other than a 2009 ARRA grant announcement] Included in Omnibus NOFA for ARRA Stimulus Monies published 7/23/2009  at 74 FR 36448 CFDA 10.769 CFDA 10.783 (ARRA-Stimulus) 

E-page 35: § 310B(c) 

CONACT

7 USC 1932(c) 

Public bodies, private non-profits, and Indian Tribes. 

Any area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 50,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

Esloatecwoloarearef

3B 

Rural Business Enterprise Grants (RBEG) Congressional mandates 

See 3A above for regulations Congressional RBEG mandates: 

 Tech Assist Transportation 

Grants 

 Mississippi Delta 

 Native American Tribes 

 Native AmericanTransportation 

See also the Anticipatory NOFA published 10/13/2009 ( for FY 2010) at 74 FR 52445 FR Search

Pub L. 111-8 FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations §310B(c)(2) 

CONACT

Qualified national organization Delta Regional 

Authority 

See 3A above See 3A above 

To passistransSee Must Tranto tri
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 4 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

4 

Delta Regional Authority Grant FY 2009 Performance Report

MOA dated Feb. 14, 2003 Delta Regional 

Authority Act of 2000 E-page 144: § 382A 

CONACT

7 USC 2009aa et

seq. 

42 USC 3121 note 

Lower Mississippi region as defined by the Delta Development Act, plus Alabama (Mississippi River border states from southern Illinois to New Orleans, plus areas in Alabama) 

5 

Intermediary Relending Program  (Rural Development Loan Fund) 

7 CFR Part 4274

Subpart D RD Instructions 4274-D and 

1951-R

CFDA 10.767 

§ 1323 of the Food Security Act of 1985, Pub L. 99-198 7 USC 1932 note

see also 42 USC 9812

Private non-profit corporations; public agencies; Indian Groups; or cooperatives having the legal authority to carry out proposed loan purposes and for obtaining, giving security for, and repaying the proposed loans. 

Areas outside the boundaries of a city or town of 25,000 or more. 

Buacpueqleaimmaintescaloarelbuopwofeadereachinsmoanfac
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 5 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

6 

Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants (REDLG) 

7 CFR 4280, Subpart A 

 A Notice Inviting Preapplications for  FY 2010 was published 10/14/2010 at 74 FR 52736 (it sets forth quarterly deadlines for applications with the last being 6/30/2010) FR Search

CFDA 10.854 

E-page 30 : §313 of the 

Rural Electrification Act of 1936 7 USC 940c 

RUS electric and telephone borrowers and persons eligible to be RUS borrowers (not delinquent on any Federal debt or in bankruptcy proceeding) and certain electric utilities that have prepaid. § 722 of the Ag Division of the 2009 Omni Approps (GPO access not avail – link is to the enrolled version): As enrolled

Any rural area for which the RUS borrower, or RUSeligible entity, elects to submit an application with priority to those of 2,500 or less. 

Reprocodeteccoimpumaeqwo
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 6 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

7 

Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (Loans and Grants) 

Interim Final Rule published 5/28/2010 at 75 FR 30114, subsequently corrected on 7/19/2010 at 75 FR 416957 CFR Part 4280 Notice inviting applications published 6/3/2010 at 75 FR 31413, corrected on 7/29/2010 at 75 FR 44757 FR Search

E-page 133: § 379E 

CONACT

7 USC 2008s 

Microenterprise Development Organizations 

Any area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 50,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

Lomiorgintin teccaasen
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 7 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

8 

BioRefinery Assistance Program 

Proposed Rule published 4/16/2010 at 75 FR 20047 7 CFR 4279 Subpart C 7 CFR 4287 Subpart D NOFA published 3/12/2010 at 75 FR 11840 (deadline for applications is 6/1/2010) seeking to deploy the balance of FY 2009 funds NOFA published 5/6/2010 at 75 FR 25075 for FY 2010 funds (deadline for applications is 8/4/2010) 

FR Search

CFDA 10.865 

§9003 of the 2002 Farm Bill as amended, restated and renumbered by §9001 of Pub L. 110-246 (2008 Farm Bill) Pub L. 110-246 7 USC 8103 E-page 2072: 2008 Farm Bill

Individual, Entity, Indian tribe, unit of State or local  gov't (including a corp), farm cooperative, farmer coop org, assoc of ag producers, National Lab, Institution of higher education,  rural electric cooperative,  public power entity, or consortium of any of those entities Per Proposed Rule –majority foreign ownership not allowed 

Per Proposed Rule: Project must be located in any area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 50,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

GuBioLodecocobioretfac
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 8 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

9 

Repowering 

Assistance 

 Proposed rule published 4/16/2010 at 75 FR 20073 7 CFR 4288 NOFA published 3/12/2010 at 75 FR 11841 seeking to deploy balance of FY 2009 funds NOFA dated 5/6/2010 at 75 FR 24873 for FY 2010 funds (deadline is 7/20/2010) 

FR Search

CFDA 10.866 [Pending]

§9004 of the 2002 Farm Bill as amended, restated and renumbered by §9001 of Pub L. 110-246 (2008 Farm Bill) Pub. 110-246 7 USC 8104 E-page 2075: 2008 Farm Bill

Biorefineries in existence when the 2008 Farm Bill was enacted Per proposed rule: majority foreign ownership excluded 

Per Proposed Rule: Refinery must be located in a rural area (outside a city or town with 50,000 population or otherwise in an area determined to be rural in character by the Secretary.) 

ReAs Rurepusheopbio
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 9 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

10 

Advanced Biofuel Payment Program 

Proposed rule published 4/16/2010 at 75 FR 20085 7 CFR Part 4288 Subpart B NOFA published 3/12/2010 at 75 FR 11836 seeking to deploy balance of FY 2009 funds Notice of Contract Proposal published May 6, 2010 at 75 FR 24865 However, NOTE: 

Notice published August 18, 2010 at 75 FR 50986 allows applications from majority owned foreign entities and nonrural projects (previously excluded) 

FR Search

CFDA 10.867 [Pending] 

§9005 of the 2002 Farm Bill as amended, restated and renumbered by §9001 of Pub L. 110-246 (2008 Farm Bill) Pub. 110-246 7 USC 8105 E-page 2075: 2008 Farm Bill

Producers of advanced biofuels One producer per refinery Per proposed rule majority foreign ownership would not be allowed, however, trade press indicates expectation that the Final Rule will allow foreign ownership] 

Rural as well as urban Pa

anexproad
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 10 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

11 

Rural Energy for America (REAP) (successor to the "9006" program") Grants 

 7 CFR 4280 Subpart B 

 Notice Inviting applications for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements published 4/26/2010 at 75 FR 21584 

The NOFA inviting applications for energy audits and renewable energy development assistance grantspublished 5/27/2010 at 75 FR 29706 also confirms the intent of the Agency to publish a proposed rule that will revise current program to conform to 2008 Farm Bill amendments, to be followed by a final rule in FY 2011 The NOFA inviting grant applications for Renewable Energy Feasibility Studies was published 8/6/2010 at 75 FR 47525. FR Search

CFDA 10.868 

§9007 of the 2002 Farm Bill (Title IX) as amended, restated and renumbered by §9001 of the 2008 Farm Bill (Title IX) E-page 2077 in the following hyperlink:2008 Farm Bill

 Grants: 

§9007(c)(1) 

 Feasibility  Studies: 

 §9007(c)(3)  Energy Audits 

 & Tech  Assistance: 

 §9007(a)(1) 

For energy auditsand renewable energy development assistance: units of 

State, tribal or local government, landgrant colleges, universities, or other institutions of higher education (including 1994 Land Grant (Tribal Colleges) and 1890 Land Grant Colleges and Historically Black Universities), rural electric cooperatives, and public power entities For feasibility studies and regular REAP: agriculture producers and rural small businesses 

Project must be located in any area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 50,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

Grendeaseffimpuenfunseusfea
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 11 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

12 

Rural Energy for America (REAP) (successor to the "9006" program") Guaranteed Loans 

7 CFR 4280 Subpart B NOSA published 4/26/2010 at 75 FR 21584 announcing a FY 2010 application window FR Search

CFDA 10.868 

§9007 of the 2002 Farm Bill (Title IX) as amended, restated and renumbered by §9001 of the 2008 Farm Bill (Title IX) E-page 2077 in the following hyperlink:2008 Farm Bill

Gteed Loans: 

§9007(c)(1) 

 Ag producers and rural small businesses 

Project must be located in any area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 50,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(A) 

CONACT

Guto rensyseleto effim

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS:

13 

Health Care Services 

No RBS activity at this time 

§6024 of the 2008 Farm Bill E-page 136: § 379G 

CONACT

7 USC 2008u 

Consortium of regional institutions of higher education, academic health and research institutes, and economic development entities located in the Delta region that have experience in addressing the health care issues in the region 

Lower Mississippi region and Alabama 

To Heheprohetraanexrelthe 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 12 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

14 

Rural Energy Self –Sufficiency Initiative Grants 

To be determined §9009 of the 2008 

Farm Bill (Title IX) 2008 Farm Bill

Rural Communities, preferably in collaboration with university, fed or state agency, local utility or gov't entity with responsibility for water or natural resources 

 Gr

enforreden& iinten

15 

Rural Business Investment Program 

7 CFR 4290

See SBA website at: RBIP

CFDA 10.860 

E-page 169: Subtitle H 

CONACT

7 USC 2009cc et seq.

Smaller and small enterprises primarily located in rural areas that have raised $10 MM in equity 

Outside a SMSA or within a community having a population of 50,000 or less 

EnBuCodeveinvsm

16 

Business and Industry (B&I) Direct Loan Program 

7 CFR 1980

RD Instructions 1980-A and E

E-page 34: § 310B 

CONACT

7 USC 1932(a)

Most legal entities engaged in rural business and industry. 

Areas outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 50,000 population and urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. 

Fobueqwosoref
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 13 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

COOPERATIVE SERVICES PROGRAM AUTHO

CONTACTS: Washington, DC: 202.690.4730; State: http://offices.sc.egov.us

1 

Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) 

7 CFR Part 4284

Subparts A & F See NOFA dated 6/25/2010 at  75 FR 36349 

FR Search

CFDA 10.771 

E-page 37: § 310(B)(e)

CONACT

Non-profit corporations or Institutions of Higher Learning 

United States in Rural Areas 

To opasenstaor imcobualsedres

1A 

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) 

E-page 44: § 310B(i) CONACT

(First USDA funding authorized in the Food Security Act of 1985) (Note: authorization is separate from RCDG) 

National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) See www.ncat.org

United States Pro

suag
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 14 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

1B 

Research on National Economic Impact of Cooperatives (RCDG Mandate) 

Request for Proposals published 8/4/2010 at 75 FR 46904 

FR Search

 CFDA 10.778 

E-page 40: § 310B(e)(10) 

CONACT

Qualified academic institution 

United States 

Reof naimcoorg

1C 

Small Socially Disadvantaged Producer Grant (RCDG mandate) 

See NOFA dated 4/28/2010 at 75 FR 22358 

FR Search

CFDA 10.771 

E-page 40: § 310B(e)(11) 

CONACT

Minority Cooperatives or Minority Associations of Cooperatives. 

Areas outside towns having a population greater than 50,000 and any adjacent urbanized area, or, an urbanized area that is nevertheless rural in character. 

Teto othdispro

2 

Value-added Agricultural Market Development Producer Grants (VAPG) 

Proposed Rule published 5/28/2010 at 75 FR 29920 7 CFR Part 4284

Subpart J RD Instruction 4284-A and 4284-J 

FR Search

CFDA 10.352 

§231(b) of the Ag Risk Protection Act of 2000, as amended by § 6202 of the 2008 Farm Bill E-page 1967: 2008 Farm Bill

7 USC 1632a See 7 USC 1621 note 

Independent agriculture producers, farmer and rancher cooperatives, agriculture producer groups and majority controlled producer based business groups 

United States 

PlaCavaagma
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 15 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

2A Value-added 

Agricultural Market Development, Ag Marketing Resource Center Grant 

NOFA for pilot  was published  March 6, 2001 at 66 FR 13487 FR Search

CFDA not established 

§231 of the Ag Risk Protection Act of 2000 7 USC 1632a(c)(1)

Consortium of universities 

United States De

eleinfcoadpro

 2B 

Value-added Agricultural Market Development Producer Grants (VAPG) Reservation of funds 

CFDA 10.352 

§231(b) of the Ag Risk Protection Act of 2000, as amended by §6202 of the 2008 Farm Bill E-page 1967: 2008 Farm Bill

7 USC 1621 note 

Beginning farmers or ranchers and/or; Socially disadvantaged producers Entities that propose to develop Mid-Tier Value Chains 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 16 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

3A 

Rural Business Opportunity Grants (RBOG) 

7 CFR 4284

Subparts A & G RD Instruction 4284-G

See NOFA published 3/29/2010 at 75 FR 15406 

FR Search

CFDA 10.773 

E-page 93: § 306(a)(11) 

CONACT

7 USC 1926(a)(11)

Public bodies, nonprofits, Indian Tribes, and cooperatives. 

Any area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 50,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town.. E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

Tefor deecdepla

3B 

Rural Business Opportunity Grants (RBOG) Congressional mandates 

See 3A above for regulations  Congressional RBOG mandates:  Native American Tribes  Mississippi Delta 

Pub L. 111-8 FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations E-page 93: § 306(a)(11) 

CONACT

 See 3A  Delta Regional 

Authority 

See See 

4 

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities 

7 CFR Part 25

THIS PROGRAM SUNSETTED ON DECEMBER 31, 2009 CFDA 10.772 

Original legislation:P.L. 103-66 107 Stat. 543 26 USC 1391

Communities designated by the Secretary having high poverty rates or outmigration rates. Currently no applications are being accepted; there is no expectation that additional designations will be authorized by Congress. 

Cannot exceed 30,000 population in aggregate, nor 1000 square miles 

Modesoac
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 17 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

5 

Grant Program for Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities in Rural Areas 

New Program -- in the process of promulgating regulations Public Meeting held 1/26/2009 to hear comments & suggestions for implementation. See Notice published 1/21/2009 at 74 FR 3550 FR Search

E-page 136: § 379F 

CONACT

7 USC 2008t 

Non-profit organizations or consortium of same (see above) with a significant focus on serving the needs of individuals with disabilities; demonstrated knowledge and expertise in employment of [the disabled]; advising private entities on accessibility issues involving [the disabled]; expertise in removing barriers to employment for [the disabled] and self employment and entrepreneurship for people with disabilities 

Any area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 50,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

GrMaexemopinddisarenaasedto buareacemwitseenopinddisare

6 

1890 Land-Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach and Development Initiative 

This is more accurately characterized as an initiative rather than a formal program; there are no program specific regulations NOFAs are no longer issued for this initiative; the institutions are contacted directly FR Search

CFDA 10.856 

Section 607(b)(4) of the Rural Development Act of 1972, as amended by § 759A of the 1996 Farm Bill (P.L. 104-127) 

7 USC 2204b(b)

and E.O. No. 13256 (Feb. 12, 2002) 

1890 Land Grant Universities and Tuskegee University

Small rural American communities that have the most economic need. 

OururanprodeenbuAma wpathe an
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 18 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

7 

Agriculture Innovation Center 

 7 CFR 4284 Subpart K Authorized by §6402 of the 2002 

Farm Bill Reauthorized by §6203 of the 2008 Farm Bill E-page 426: 2002 Farm Bill

7 USC 1621 note 

8 Technical Advisory 

Service to Cooperatives 

N/A CFDA 10.350 

Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 

7 USC 453

Agricultural Cooperatives 

United States To 

anacbu

cothe

9 

Technical Advisory Service to Producers Desiring to Form a Cooperative 

N/A CFDA 10.350 

Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 

7 USC 453

Agricultural Producers 

United States 

To witproecanfacpromaagproasha
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 19 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

10 

Cooperative Education 

N/A CDFA 10.350 

Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 

7 USC 453

N/A World 

To kncopripracoproknedmacoasoth

11 

International Assistance 

N/A Cooperative 

Marketing Act of 1926 

7 USC 453

N/A World To 

disinffinusdepraco
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 20 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

12 

Provide Technical Assistance to rural communities 

Community Development Technical Assistance Handbook 

Pub. L. 92-419, Rural Development Act of 1972 7 USC 2204b

Non-metropolitan communities in the 50 States including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and, to the extent the Secretary determines it to be feasible and appropriate, the Freely Associated States and the Federated States of Micronesia. 

Less than 50,000 Co

deproac

13 Coordination within 

the Executive Branch for community development 

Community Development Technical Assistance Handbook 

Pub. L. 92-419, Rural Development Act of 1972 

(7 U.S.C. 2204b)

Non-metropolitan communities 

Less than 50,000 Co

deproac
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 21 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

14 

National Rural Development Partnership 

CFDA 10.353 

E-page124: § 378 

CONACT

7 USC 2008m

[§ 6019 of the 2008Farm Bill mandates that the Secretary continue the NRDP. The NRDP was originally an executive initiative funded by S&E] 

Eligible SRDCs must meet the following requirements: 1) Be composed of representatives of Federal, State, local and tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, regional organizations, the private sector, and other entities committed to rural advancement; 2) Operate with a nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory membership that is broad and representative of the economic, social, and political diversity of the state; 

The 50 States including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and, to the extent the Secretary determines it to be feasible and appropriate, the Freely Associated States and the Federated States of Micronesia. 

As 20enrecagUSmu1) cofedangothe nothe impropoimare2) anpoproadadof the . 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 22 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entitites) Eligible Areas (Population) 

14 

(cont.) 

National Rural Development Partnership (continued) 

3) Have a structure such that the membership is responsible for the governance and operations of the SRDC; and 4) Provide matching funds, or in-kind goods or services, to support the activities of the SRDC, as more fully described below. 

3) witfacdestror coduadregreqFeango4) NRplapeme5) NRrepproSRthe meesan
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 23 of 54 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

NOTE: ON MARCH 4, 2010 at 75 FR 9867 RURAL HOUSING PUBLISHED A NOTICE SAYING THAT NOFA PUBLICATIONPROGRAMS 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM AUTHORITI

CONTACTS: Washington, DC: 202.690.1533; State: http://offices.sc.egov.usda
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 24 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

1 

Community Facilities Direct Loan Program 

7 CFR 1942

RD Instruction 1942-A

RD Administrative Announcement (AN) No. 4356 applicable to 7 CFR 1942-A, 3570-B and 3575-A (Definition of Rural and Rural Area for Community Facilities Loans and Grants) Included in Omnibus NOFA for ARRA Stimulus Monies published 7/23/2009 at 74 FR 36448 FR Search

CFDA 10.776 

E-page 10: § 306(a)(1) 

CONACT

7 USC 1926(a)(1) 

Public bodies, nonprofits, and Federally recognized Indian tribes 

Rural Areas with a population up to 20,000 E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

Funds may construct, improve cofacilities focare, publiand public 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 25 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

2 

Community Facilities Guaranteed Loan Program 

7 CFR 3575

RD Instruction 3575-A

CFDA 10.776 

E-page 10: § 306(a)(1) 

CONACT

7 USC 1926(a)(1) 

Public bodies, nonprofits, and Federally recognized Indian tribes 

Rural Areas with a population up to 20,000 Funds may 

construct, improve cofacilities focare, publiand public 

3 

Community Facilities Grant Program 

7 CFR 3570

RD Instruction 3570-B

CFDA 10.776 

E-page 16: § 306 (a)(19) CONACT

7 USC 1926(a)(19) 

Public bodies, nonprofits, and Federally recognized Indian tribes 

Rural Areas with a population up to 20,000 Funds may 

construct, improve cofacilities focare, publiand public 

4 

Rural Community Development Initiative Grant Program (RCDI) 

NOFAs The most recent NOFAwas published 6/26/2009 at 74 FR 30510 (FY2009)FR Search

CFDA 10.446 

RCAP earmark FY2009 Approp P.L. 111-8

RCAP earmark under §306(a)(19) CONACTPage H1684 

Congressional Record 2/23/2009 

Public bodies, for profits, private nonprofits, and Indian Tribes. . 

Areas outside the boundaries of a city of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized area 

To build caprovide tecassistance undertake areas of hocommunity or communeconomic developme
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 26 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

5 

Rural Coop Home Based Health Care Demo 

The most recent NOFA was published 12/15/03 at 68 FR 69649 FR Search

CFDA 10.446 

The Home Care demo pilot first appeared as a $1MM earmark within RCDI for FY2003. RCDI is itself an earmark within RCAP P.L. 108-7

117 Stat. 27 

6 

Tribal College Grant Program 

RD Instruction 3570-B

7 CFR 3570

 Subpart B RD Administrative Announcement (AN) No. 4356 

E-page 19: § 306 (a) (25) CONACT

7 USC 1926(a)(25) 

31 Tribal Colleges under the Equity in Education Act of 1994 

31 Tribal Colleges under the Equity & Education Act of 1994 

Eligible CF for Tribal Cwhich inclueducation libraries, a
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 27 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

7 

Economic Impact Initiative Grant Program 

RD Instruction 3570-B

RD Administrative Announcement (AN) No. 4356 

FY2010 Approp Pub. L. 111-80 RCAP earmark under §306(a)(19) §306E(d)(1) CONACT

Public bodies, nonprofits, and Federally recognized Indian tribes 

Rural areas with a population up to 20,000 that have a not-employed rate greater than 19.5% 

Funds may construct, improve cofacilities focare, publiand public 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM AUTHORITI

CONTACTS: Washington, DC: 202.690.1533; State: http://offices.sc.egov.usda

1 

Rural Rental Housing Direct Loan Program 

7 CFR 3560

See NOFA dated 4/14/2010 at 75 FR 19348 for new construction set aside info FR Search

CFDA 10.415 

§ 515 of the  Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1485 

Individuals, trusts, associations, partnerships, limited partnerships, Forprofit organizations, nonprofit organizations, limited equity cooperatives, Native American tribes, public agencies 

Eligible rural communities of populations of 20,000 or less. 

New constmulti-family housing folow, and mincome famelderly, anwith disabiFunds may used for reof existing 515 units afacilitate saproperties receiversh
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 28 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

2 

Rural Rental Housing Guaranteed Loan Program 

7 CFR 3565

Proposed Rule published 1/29/2010 at 75 FR 4707 proposes one gtee to cover construction plus permanent Final Rule is expected to be published September 2010 Notice of $10MM demo for continuous gtee published 5/10/2010 at 75 FR 25829 – corrected at 75 FR 33573 NOFA for FY 2010 published 2/26/2010 at 75 FR 8896 FR Search

CFDA 10.438 

§ 538 of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1490p-2 

Individuals, nonprofit organizations, public agencies, American Indian tribes, forprofit corporations, partnerships 

Eligible rural communities of 20,000 population or less. 

Developmeaffordable housing fomoderate-ihouseholdincomes up percent of median inc
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 29 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

3 

Farm Labor Housing Loan and Grant Program 

7 CFR 3560

 See NOFA published May 10, 2010 at 75 FR 25833, as corrected per notice published 6/17/2010 at 75 FR 34421 

FR Search

CFDA 10.405 

§§ 514 and 516 of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1484 42 USC 1486 

Loans are made to farmers, associations of farmers, family farm corporations, Native American tribes, nonprofit organizations, limited partnerships with a nonprofit general partner, public agencies, associations of farmworkers. Grants are made to farmworker associations, nonprofit organizations, Indian tribes, and public agencies. 

No population limit. Farm Labor Housing funds may be used in urban areas to house nearby farm workers. 

To build afrental housrelated facboth migrayear-round workers. Ube off-farm available to farm workefarming opon-farm hofarm emploFunds may used for reexisting prounits. 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 30 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

4 

Rental Assistance 

7 CFR 3560

FR Search

CFDA 10.427 

§ 521 of the  Housing Act of 1949 See also §502 of the Housing Act of 1949 (Single Family) 42 USC 1490a 

Available with the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program and the Section 514 and Section 516 Farm Labor Housing Program 

Provides a based rentfor qualifyin

5 

Multifamily Voucher Demo Program 

See NOFA published 4/14/2010 at 75 FR 19353 – as corrected by Notice published 8/25/2010 at 75 FR 52303 FR Search

See “Rural Development Voucher Program Guide” available via State Offices Applicable HUD regs at 24 CFR, Vol. 4, Part 

982

See also interagency agreement dated  March 1, 2006 

Earmark under FY 2010 Ag Approp Pub.L. 111-80 (10/21/2009) § 542 of the Housing Act of 1949 (w/out regard to § 542(b)) 42 USC 1471 et seq 

Low Income families residing in 515 properties where the loan is prepaid after 9/30/05 

See Section 515 Tenant-bas

assistance 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 31 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

6 

Multifamily Demo for Preservation and Revitalization/ Restructuring 515 Properties 

7 CFR 3560

7 CFR 3015 (grants) 

Earmark under FY 2010 Ag Approp Pub.L. 111-80 (10/21/2009) § 542 of the Housing Act of 1949 

Owners of property financed under Section 515 

See Section 515 

Debt servicforbearancsavings to in physical 515 proper

7 

Multifamily Preservation Demo Revolving Loan Fund 

NOFA is expected to be published in September 2010 See NOFA published  Aug. 19, 2008  at 73 FR 48368 FR Search

Earmark under FY 2010 Ag Approp Pub.L. 111-80 (10/21/2009) 

Qualified financial intermediaries 

See Section 515 Loans to fi

intermedialending to owners for preservatiorevitalizatioproperties 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 32 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

8 

Housing Preservation 

Grants 

RD Instruction 1944-NSee NOFA published 4/27/2010 at 75 FR 22096  as corrected 5/21/2010  at 75 FR 28542 

FR Search

CFDA 10.433 

§ 533 of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1490m

Nonprofits, local governments, and Native American tribes. 

Rural areas of 20,000 population or less. 

Repair or rdeterioratinand rental for very-low income res

9 

Processing Labor Demo Housing Grants 

FY 2001 processing 

worker housing 

FY 2004 processing 

worker housing 

NOFAs See NOFA published Feb. 12, 2001 at 66 FR 9820

See NOFA published  April 6, 2004 at 69 FR 18040

Earmark in the FY2001 Appropriations Act, P.L. 106-387

Earmark in the FY 2004 Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-199

Private and public nonprofit agencies, nonprofit cooperatives, state and local governments and tribal organizations (same for both NOFAs) 

FY2001 Demonstration was limited to Arkansas and Mississippi FY2004 Demonstration project was limited to AK, MS, UT and WI (not limited to rural areas)

Developmeaffordable housing foagricultureaquaculturseafood prand/or fishworkers. Pworkers areligible to lLabor Hou (same for NOFAs) 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 33 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

10 Labor Force Grants 

(Section 14204 of 2008 Farm Bill) 

Note: Per the USDA Delegation of Authority published July 23, 2010 this grant program is administered by the Director, Office of Advocacy and Outreach 75 FR 43390 

Section 14204 of the 2008 Farm Bill 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 34 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM AUTHORIT

CONTACTS: Washington, DC: 202.690.1533; State: http://offices.sc.egov.usda

1 

Section 502 Direct Loans 

7 CFR Part 3550

Proposed Rule published 3/5/2010 at 75 FR 10194 Included in Omnibus NOFA for ARRA Stimulus Monies published 7/23/2009 at 74 FR 36448 CFDA 10.410 and 10.445 

§ 502 of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1472

Very-low & low income households 

Eligible rural areas, cities, and towns of less than 20,000 population. 

Purchase, improve mhome for presidence. 100% finan No down prequired. Also, funds used for reof existing 502 units afacilitate saproperties receivershi
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 35 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

2 

Section 502 Guaranteed Loans 

7 CFR Part 1980

Final Rule published 8/26/2010 at 75 FR 52429 RD Instruction 1980-D

Included in Omnibus NOFA for ARRA Stimulus Monies published 7/23/2009 at 74 FR 36448 Notice dated 11/2/2009 at 74 FR 56571 prioritizes $400 MM for refinancing of existing borrowers – both direct & gteed – with gteed loans 

§ 502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1472(h)

Low and moderate income households 

Eligible rural areas, cities and towns of less than 20,000 population. 

Purchase nexisting SF No mortgainsurance A 3.5% gufor purchastransactioncharged th(may be paborrower) Refinance transactionpermissible cases Guarantee refinance twill increasin FY 2011 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 36 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

3 Section 502 Payment Assistance 7 CFR Part 3550.68 § 502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1472 4 

Section 504 Housing Repair Direct Loans 

7 CFR Part 3550

Subpart C Proposed rule under development that amends budget requirement – clearance expected in Spring of 2011 . CFDA 10.417 and 10.444 

§ 504 of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1474

Very-low income households 

Eligible rural areas, cities and towns of less than 20,000 population. 

Make geneand improvmodest resremove hesafety haza

5 

Section 504 Housing Repair Grants 

7 CFR Part 3550

Subpart C Proposed Rule published 3/5/2010 at 75 FR 10194 Proposed rule under development that amends budget requirement – clearance expected in Spring of 2011CFDA 10.417 and 10.444 

§ 504 of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1474

Elderly (age 62 or older) Very-low income households. 

Eligible rural areas, cities and towns of less than 20,000 population. 

Make esserepairs and improvemeremove hesafety hazamake propaccessible useable fomembers wdisabilities
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 37 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

6 Section 509 

Construction Defect Compensation 

RD Instruction 1924-F

CFDA 10.442 

§ 509 of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1479(c)

Section 502 Direct loan borrowers who built new homes and file a claim within 18 months of final inspection. 

Eligible rural areas, cities and towns of less than 20,000 population. 

Compensa502 borrowstructural dwhich the cwill not cor

7 

Section 523 Mutual and Self-Help Grants &Technical Assistance 

RD Instruction 1944-I

See Proposed Rule published 5/18/2007 at 72 FR 27988 FR Search

 NOTE: No final rule found but: 

See Notice of Intent to hold public forum published 2/2/2010 at 75 FR 5281; extension of deadline to 7/15/2010 for written comments was published 4/19/2010 at 75 FR 20325 CFDA 10.420 

§ 523 of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1490c

State, political subdivision, public non-profit or private non-profit. 

Eligible rural areas, cities and towns of less than 20,000 population. 

Provide tecassistance very low-infamilies whbuilding horural areas help metho

8 

Section 523 Self-Help Site Loans 

RD Instruction 444.8

CFDA 10.411 

§ 523 of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1490c(b) 

Public or private non-profit organizations. 

Eligible rural areas, cities and towns of less than 20,000 population. 

To buy and building sitincluding cof roads, sutilities. (Limutual selfparticipant
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 38 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

9 

Section 524 Site Development Loans 

RD Instruction 444.8

CFDA 10.411 

§ 524 of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1490d

Private or public non-profit organizations 

Eligible rural areas, cities and towns of less than 20,000 population. 

To buy and building sitincluding cof roads, sutilities for moderate-ifamily. 

10 

Section 525 Technical & Supervisory Assistance 

RD Instruction 1944-K

CFDA 10.441 

§ 525 of the Housing Act of 1949 42 USC 1490e

Public & private non-profits, agencies, institutions, Indian tribes and other associations 

Eligible rural areas, cities and towns of less than 20,000 population. 

To help lowrural reside obtain or madequate hprovide coand outreareduce delfor applicaborrowers. 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 39 of 54 

UTILITIES PROGRAMS

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

ELECTRIC PROGRAM AUTHORITIES 

CONTACTS: Washington, DC: 202.720.9540; State: http://offices.sc.egov.usda

1 

Hardship Loan Program 

7 CFR 1710

7 CFR 17147 CFR 1717CFDA 10.850 

E page 16: §305(c)(1) of the Rural 

Electrification Act 1936, As Amended, 7 USC 901 et. seq. (RE Act) 

 7 USC 935(c)(1) 

Corporations, States, Territories, and Subdivisions and Agencies, Municipalities, People’s Utility Districts, and Distribution Cooperatives, nonprofit and limiteddividend, Or Mutual Associations 

Service to rural areas where rural area = area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 20,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. E-page 8: RuralElectrificationAct

E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

Electric disand sub-trfacilities 

2 

Municipal Rate Loan Program 

7 CFR 1710

7 CFR 17147 CFR 1717CFDA 10.850 

E page 16: §305(c)(2 

RE Act 7 USC 935(c)(2) 

Corporations, States, Territories, and Subdivisions and Agencies, Municipalities, People’s Utility Districts, and Cooperatives, nonprofit and limiteddividend, Or Mutual Associations 

Service to rural areas where rural area = area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 20,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. E-page 8: RuralElectrificationAct

E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

Electric disand sub-trfacilities 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 40 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

3 

Treasury Rate Loans 

7 CFR 1710

7 CFR 17147 CFR 1717CFDA 10.850 

E-page 4: §2(a)

RE Act 7 USC 902 

Corporations, States, Territories, and Subdivisions and Agencies, Municipalities, People’s Utility Districts, and Cooperatives, nonprofit and limiteddividend, Or Mutual Associations 

Service to rural areas where rural area = area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 20,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. E-page 8: RuralElectrificationAct

E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

Electric disand sub-trfacilities 

4 

FFB Guaranteed Loan Program 

7 CFR 1710

7 CFR 17147 CFR 1717CFDA 10.850 

E page 21: §306

RE Act 7 USC 936 

Corporations, States, Territories, and Subdivisions and Agencies, Municipalities, People’s Utility Districts, and Cooperatives, nonprofit and limiteddividend, Or Mutual Associations 

Service to rural areas where rural area = area outside the boundaries of a city or town of more than 20,000 population and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town. E-page 8: RuralElectrificationAct

E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

Electric dissub-transmbulk transmand generfacilities, eefficiency and renewsystems 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 41 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

5 

Renewable Loan Program 

Draft Workplan for OMB under program review 

E page 34: §317

RE Act 7 USC 940g 

Corporations, States, Territories, and Subdivisions and Agencies, Municipalities, People’s Utility Districts, and Cooperatives, nonprofit and limiteddividend, Or Mutual Associations 

No rural restriction For electri

generation renewable for resale 

6 

Bond and Note Guarantee Program for publicly issued securities 

7 CFR 1720

Final Rule published 7/22/2010 at 75 FR 42571 

E page 30: §313A

RE Act 7 USC 940c-1 

Bank or other lending institution organized as a private, not-for-profit coop or otherwise non profit 

N/A 

Proceeds to make loelectric or borrowers purposes 1720 or to bonds or npreviously such purp
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 42 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

7 

High Energy Cost Grants & Loans Programs 

 High Energy Cost 

Grants 

 Denali Commission 

Grants 

 Grants to State 

Revolving Funds for Bulk Fuel Purchases 

7 CFR 1709

Most recent NOFA was published August 9, 2010 at 75 FR 47756 FR Search

CFDA 10.859 Memoranda of Understanding on file CFDA 10.858 CFDA 10.857 

E page 9: Section 19

RE Act 7 USC 918a(1)  7 USC 918a(2) 7 USC 918a(3) 

Persons, For Profit and Not For Profit Businesses, State & Local Governments, and FederallyRecognized Indian Tribes & Tribal entities Denali Commission State Entity existing as of 11/9/2000 

Extremely high energy cost communities – where avg. residential expenditure is 275% of national average Extremely high energy cost communities in Alaska Rural areas where fuel cannot be shipped by surface means 

Energy distransmissienergy gefacilities (ienergy effrenewable serving elicommunitiEnergy distributiontransmissienergy gefacilities (ienergy effrenewable serving elicommunitiFuel PurchRevolving 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 43 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM AUTHOR

CONTACTS: Washington, DC: 202.720.9540; State: http://offices.sc.egov.usda
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 44 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

1 

Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loans and Grants 

7 CFR Part 1780

Included in Omnibus NOFA for ARRA Stimulus Monies published 7/23/2009 at 74 FR 36448 FR Search

CFDA 10.760 

E-page 10: § 306 

CONACT

7 USC 1926(a) 

Public body, not-forprofit organization, and Indian tribes 

Rural areas and towns with a population of 10,000 or less. E-page 93: § 343(a)(13)(C) 

CONACT

Construct improve wwaste faci
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 45 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

2 Water and Waste 

Disposal Guaranteed Loans 

7 CFR 1779

CFDA 10.760 

E-page 10: § 306 

CONACT

7 USC 1926(a) 

Public body, not-forprofit organization, and Indian tribes 

Rural areas and towns with a population of 10,000 or less. 

Construct improve wwaste faci

3 

Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants (ECWAG) 

7 CFR 1778

CFDA 10.763 

E-page 20: § 306A 

CONACT

7 USC 1926a 

Public body, not-forprofit organization, and Indian tribes 

Rural areas and towns with a population of 10,000 or less with acute water problems; up to 50% of funds targeted to areas 3,000 and under. 

Improve qquality of w

4 

Water and Wastewater Revolving Fund Grants 

7 CFR 1783

 See Notice published November 5, 2008 at 73 FR 65826 FR Search

CFDA 10.864 

E-page 11 §306(a)(2)(B) 

CONACT

7 USC 1926(a)(2)(B) 

Private, not-profit organizations 

Rural areas and towns with a population of 10,000 or less 

Establish a loan fund tloans to elentities seeligible arepredeveloand small improvem
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 46 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

5 

Solid Waste Management Grants 

7 CFR 1775

Subpart J CFDA 10.762 

E-page 34 §310B(b) 

CONACT

7 USC 1932 

public body, private nonprofit organizations and Indian tribes 

Rural areas and towns with a population of 10,000 or less 

technical ato local angovernmereducing oeliminating pollution aor mgmt owaste dispfacilities 

6 

Section 306C Water and Waste Disposal Grants to alleviate health 

 risks 

7 CFR Part 1777

CFDA 10.770 

E-page 22 §306C 

CONACT

 7 USC 1926c 

Colonias and Native American Indian tribes 

Colonias and tribal lands Construct 

water and facilities 

7 Section 306D Water and Waste system 

Grants for Alaskan Villages, incl. technical assistance 

7 CFR 1780 E-page 23 

§306D 

CONACT

7 USC 1926d 

State of Alaska for rural or native villages 

Rural or native Alaskan villages 

Developmconstructioand waste improve hsanitation 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 47 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

8 

Section 306E Grants for the Construction, Refurbishment and Servicing of Low or Moderate Income Household Water Well Systems 

7 CFR Part 1776

 NOFA published March 26, 2010 at 75 FR 14559 FR Search

CFDA 10.862 & 10.864 [Editor query as to duplicate CFDA entries] 

E-page 24 §306E 

CONACT

7 USC 1926e 

Private, non-profit organizations that are tax exempt. 

Projects must be located in rural areas with population of 50,000 or less. 

Developmrevolving lfor construrefurbishinservicing ohousehold systems in rural areas

9 

Technical Assistance and Training Grants for Rural Waste Systems 

7 CFR Part 1775

CFDA 10.761 See NOFA published 12/10/2009 at 74 FR 65509 (ARRA Stimulus) 

FR Search

E-page 15 §306(a)(14) CONACT

7 USC 1926(a)(14) 

Public, private, and non-profit organizations 

Rural areas and towns with population of 10,000 or less. 

Provide teassistance training 

10 

Circuit Rider – Technical Assistance for Rural Water Systems 

Terms established in service contract issued through RD Procurement Included in Omnibus NOFA for ARRA Stimulus Monies published 7/23/2009 at 74 FR 36448 

E-page 15 §306a(14) 

CONACT

7 USC 1926(a)(14) 

Public, private, and non-profit organizations 

Rural areas and towns with population of 10,000 or less 

Provide teassistance training 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 48 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

11 

Predevelopment Planning Grants 

7 CFR Part 1780

See staff instruction 1780-5 for more detail 

E-page 10: §306(a) CONACT

7 USC 1926(a) (Prior to FY2005 this purpose was the object of express earmarks) 

Rural communities that do not have resources to pay predevelopment expenses 

Rural area must be either below the poverty line or below 80 percent of the statewide nonmetropolitan median house-hold income. 

Costs assthe develocomplete a

12 

SEARCH Grants 

 7 CFR Part 1774  Final rule published on June 24, 2010 at 75 FR 35962 CFDA 10.759 

E-page 11 §306(a)(2)(C) CONACT

7 USC 1926(a)(2)(C) 

Public body such as a municipal, county, district, authority, state or commonwealth Not for profit organization Native American Tribe 

Rural areas with population of 2,500 or fewer inhabitants Must also be financially stressed as well as rural 

To fund prdevelopmegrants for studies, deassistance assistance waste dispprojects 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 49 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM AUTHORITI

CONTACTS: Washington, DC: 202.720.9540; State: http://offices.sc.egov.usda

1 Telecom Hardship Loan 

Program (Direct) 

7 CFR Part 1735

CFDA 10.851 

E-page 16 §305 (d)(1) of the 

Rural Electrification Act 1936, as Amended, 7 USC 901 et. seq 7 USC 935(d)(1) 

For-profit and nonprofit corporations that do or will provide voice and data telecom service 

Areas outside incorporated or unincorporated cities with population over 5,000 

To build, aextend, imrefinance tinfrastruct

2 Telecom Treasury Rate 

Loan Program 

7 CFR Part 1735

CFDA 10.851 

E-page 16 §305(d)(2)

Rural Electrification Act 7 USC 935 

For-profit and nonprofit corporations that do or will provide voice and data telecom service 

Areas outside incorporated or unincorporated cities with population over 5,000 

To build, aextend, imrefinance tinfrastruct

3 

Telecom Guaranteed Loan Program (FFB) 

7 CFR Part 1735

CFDA 10.851 

E-page 21 §306

Rural Electrification Act 7 USC 936 

For-profit and nonprofit corporations that do or will provide voice and data telecom service 

Areas outside incorporated or unincorporated cities with population over 5,000. 

To build, aextend, imrefinance tinfrastruct
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 50 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

4 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans 

7 CFR 1703

Subparts D and G 

 CFDA 10.855 

§704 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-127 April 4, 1996), as amended 7 USC 950aaa et seq.

Public body, Indian tribe, cooperative, nonprofit, limited dividend or mutual association, municipality, libraries, corporations and other legallyorganized entities. 

Areas outside incorporated or unincorporated cities with population over 20,000. 

In addition CombinatiGrant Progpurposes, be used fobroadcastoperationaexcept saladministraexpenses 

5 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program 

7 CFR 1703

 NOFA published March 19, 2010  at 75 FR 13245 

FR Search

CFDA 10.855 

§704 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-127,April 4, 1996), as amended 7 USC 950aaa et seq.

Public body, Indian tribe, cooperative, nonprofit, limited dividend or mutual association, municipality, libraries, corporations and other legallyorganized entities. RUS electric and Telephone Loan borrowers not eligible. 

Areas outside incorporated or unincorporated cities with population over 20,000. Smaller communities receive more points. 

To provide equipment programmdelivers dilearning atelemediciinto eligibl
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 51 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

6 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Combination LoanGrant Program 

7 CFR Part 1703

Subparts D and F CFDA 10.855 

§704 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-127, April 4, 1996), as amended 7 USC 950aaa et seq.

Public body, Indian tribe, cooperative, nonprofit, limited dividend or mutual association, municipality, libraries, corporations and other legallyorganized entities. RUS electric and Telephone Loan borrowers not eligible. 

Areas outside incorporated or unincorporated cities with population over 20,000. 

In addition Grant Progpurposes, provide DLsingle faciprovide nespace, incbuildings, constructiotelecommutransmissi

7 Public Television Digital Transition Grant 

Program (Part of the larger DLT Program appropriation)) 

7 CFR 1740

 NOFA published April 26, 2010 at  75 FR 21579 FR Search

CFDA 10.861 

Annual appropriation 

earmarks since 2003 Earmark in Pub. L. 111-8 Omnibus FY2009 Appropriations 

Public digital television stations that serve rural areas 

Areas outside incorporated or unincorporated cities with population over 20,000 – station applicants must demonstrate core rural coverage 

Grant fundused to aclease, andfacilities anecessary transition tsignal 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 52 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

8 

Delta Health Care Services Grant Program (Part of the larger DLT Program appropriation) 

Pub. L. 111-80 2010 Ag Approps E-page 136 §379G CONACT

7 USC 2008u 

Consortium of regional institutions of higher education, academic health and research institutes and economic development entities located in the Delta region 

The distinct northwest section of the state of Mississippi, known as the Delta Region, consisting of 18 counties Further limited to include only those areas in the Delta Region (a) not included within the boundaries of any incorporated or unincorporated city, village, or borough having a population greater than 50,000 and (b) any urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town described in (a). 

The develhealth carhealth eduprograms, job training and the deand expanpublic heafacilities 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 53 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

9 

Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program(as established by the 2002 Farm Bill) 

7 CFR 1738

 A revision to this regulation is currently in the clearance process; publication of an interim rule is expected by the end of calendar year 2010 FR Search

CFDA 10.886 

E-page 47 §601

Rural Electrification Act [Initially enacted May 13, 2002, Title VI of Pub. L. 107-171 

 Earmark in 

Pub. L. 111-8 Omnibus FY2009 Appropriations7 USC 950bb 

RUS makes broadband loans and loan guarantees to legally organized entities providing, or proposing to provide, broadband services in eligible rural communities. Types of eligible entities include: cooperative, nonprofit, limited dividend or mutual associations, limited liability companies, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and commercial organizations. Individuals or partnerships are not eligible. 

An eligible rural area means 

any area, as confirmed by the latest decennial census of the Bureau of the Census, which is not located within  (1) a city, town, or incorporated area that has a population of greater than 20,000 inhabitants; or (2) an Urbanized Area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants.  The proceeds of a loan may be used to carry out a project only if, as of the date on which the application is submitted  (i) not less than 25 percent of the households in the proposed service territory is offered broadband service by not more than 1 incumbent service provider; and (ii) broadband service is not provided in any part of the proposed service territory by 3 or more incumbent service providers. 

Finance the constructionimprovemenacquisition oand equipmeprovide broaservice in elicommunitiesFinance broafacilities leasthe terms of lease, as defgenerally acaccounting pfinancing wito 5 years of costs; Finance the by an eligiblanother systfacilities if thacquisition is and incidentfurnishing or rural broadb(can not excpercent of reloan amountRefinance an outstanding on another telecommunloan made u

Act. The ref

cannot excepercent of thamount. 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 54 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

10 

Broadband Initiatives 

Program 

(STIMULUS)

FIRST ROUND NOFA(Joint with NTIA) Published 7/9/2009 at 74 FR 33104 SECOND ROUND NOFA (RUS only) Published 1/22/2010 at 75 FR 3820 Request for Proposals: [Satellite & Libraries & Tech Assist] Published 5/7/2010 at 75 FR 25185 

 Pub. L. 111-5, Feb. 17, 2009 Recovery Act supplemental appropriations (Stimulus) 

Eligibility is listed in the NOFAs

Generally speaking, a rural area that lacks service at 5 Mbps (upstream and downstream) 

Distinct requirements are 

listed in each NOFA The relevant statutory language is as follows:

 [At least 75 percent of the area to be served by a project receiving funds from such grants, loans 

or loan guarantees shall be in a rural area without sufficient access to high speed broadband 

service to facilitate rural 

economic development, as determined by the Secretary of 

Agriculture] 

Please seNOFAs fopurposes 
RD Authorities Matrix – September 15, 2010 

Note: Copies of this Matrix which are not password protected may not be reliable Page 55 of 54 

Index Program Regulation Citation Legislative Citation Eligibility (Entities) Eligible Areas (Population) Elig

Purp

11 

Weather Radio Transmitter Grant Program 

NOFA published on April 4, 2001  at 66 FR 17857 FR Search

See also a clarification Notice published  Oct. 16, 2001 at  66 FR 52571 CFDA 10.766 

 E page 132:  Section 379B 

CONACT

non-profit corporations or associations, units of local or state government, Federallyrecognized Indian tribes 

city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population of 50,000 inhabitants or less, other than an urbanized area immediately adjacent to a city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population in excess of 50,000 inhabitants 

To purchainstall NOARadio tranand anten

12 

Community Connect Grant Program 

7 CFR Part 1739

FY 2009 NOFA published 4/20/2009 at 74 FR 17941 FY 2010 NOFA not yet published FR Search

CFDA 10.863 

Historically appeared as an annual earmark in appropriations bills. 

Public body; an Indian tribe; a cooperative, nonprofit, limited dividend or mutual association; municipality; corporations and other legally organized entities 

A single community outside incorporated or unincorporated cities with population over 20,000 which does not have broadband 

To build binfrastructestablish a center whifree public broadband years. 
1 

Statement of 

Cheryl Cook 

Deputy Undersecretary for Rural Development 

Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, 

Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture 

February 15, 2011 

Rural Definition 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Costa and Members of Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to 

be with you today to discuss one of the most fundamental, and vexing questions we face in 

USDA Rural Development –how “rural” is defined, and what role rurality should play in how we 

function on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

These are fundamental questions for USDA , as we exist to provide economic and community 

development to overcome obstacles based on rurality. Rural areas have experienced economic 

stress from long-term poverty and decades of population decline. Federal assistance from USDA 

is essential to these communities as they often don’t have access to private capital markets and 

have limited access to assistance from other departments in the Federal Government. Moreover, 

they do not have the total population to support repayment of a bond to finance critical 

infrastructure needs or their population is so widespread that such a system would be 

prohibitively expensive. 

 

These questions are vexing because, under current law, rurality is used to determine a project’s 

basic eligibility for most of our programs and is defined almost solely in terms of total 

population thresholds. As a result, a single standard for program eligibility is applied equally in 

New Jersey and New Mexico, in Alabama and Alaska, in Virginia and the Virgin Islands. Given 

that each state has the right to determine its own municipal structures, a single standard that may 

sound simple in theory can be difficult to apply in practice. For example, Congress added 

language in the 2002 Farm Bill limiting the universe of eligible applicants for the Water and 

Waste Disposal program of Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Community Facilities program 

of Rural Housing Service (RHS) to “cities, towns, and unincorporated areas” whose populations 

did not exceed the previously established population limits. Such language does not properly 

account for the variety of local forms of government including townships, boroughs, and other 

municipalities that in many states describe the very less-populated municipalities those programs 

are intended to reach. It also overlooks some of the structural uniqueness of several of the 

original colonies – in the role of a town and the status of a village, for example – dating back to 

the original Plymouth settlement in the 17th Century. 

Further, relying almost solely on total population as the definition of rural leaves out other 

obvious characteristics of a rural area compared to a metropolitan area. Those characteristics 

might help direct USDA Rural Development’s resources to areas of greatest need and 

opportunity. Every state and territory have areas that are more rural than others, certainly based 

on total population, but also based on other factors such as population density, the presence of 
2 

natural assets like lakes and forests, zoning regulations and land uses that might be covered in 

local ordinances, the prevalence of production agriculture and its infrastructure in the area’s 

gross domestic product and workforce, whether a community qualifies for its own share of 

Community Development Block Grant funds from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development or Community Services Block Grant funds from the Department of Health and 

Human Services or has to compete for some of the remainder after urban centers have taken their 

share, and so forth. USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) has done extensive work on 

rurality, as have the other witnesses you will hear from today. Much of ERS’ work is available 

on line through virtual briefing rooms found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/. ERS also is 

about to release a new interactive atlas looking at many characteristics of rural areas. I believe it 

will be a very useful tool for Congress, USDA, and our private sector partners in rural economic 

and community development. Mr. Chairman, I’m sure that my colleagues in ERS would gladly 

do a demonstration of the new atlas for Subcommittee Members and staff. 

Applying a single standard to determine rural eligibility along with the variety of standards that 

exist in current law has been challenging for Rural Development staff and exasperating for 

applicants and lenders. 

Apparently, it also has been a source of frustration for Members of Congress. In recognition of 

the problems created by the rural area definitions, the 2008 Farm Bill provided the Under 

Secretary with limited authority to determine areas that do not meet the rural area definition as 

“rural in character” and thus an eligible rural area. While helpful, this authority has proven far 

too limited to fix the problems with the current definitions of rural area. In addition, each year 

Congress adds a series of general provisions to the agriculture appropriations legislation 

declaring that a certain municipality is deemed to be rural even though its population exceeds the 

statutory eligibility standard for that program. 

Given that those general provisions largely expire with the release of new decennial census data, 

the timing of today’s hearing is even more important. Many communities that have been eligible 

by reason of a general provision will not be after the new 2010 census data is released. Further, 

the census data will show that other communities no longer are eligible rural areas for certain 

programs, while still others that have experienced population loss might become eligible for the 

first time in decades. Now is an incredibly important time to review rurality and begin 

determining the best way to achieve our shared objectives of helping to create economic 

opportunities for rural citizens and helping them improve their quality of life. Mr. Chairman, I 

congratulate you and the other members of the Committee for digging into these questions now. 

USDA Rural Development administers over 40 different programs through its three agencies – 

Rural Utilities Service, Rural Housing Service, and Rural Business – Cooperative Service – 

delivered through 47 Rural Development state offices and nearly 500 area offices. These 

programs were authorized by several different laws. A complete set of all of our statutory “rural 

area” definitions is attached to my testimony as Appendix 1. I would like to focus the balance of 

my testimony today on three of those laws: the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 

or CONACT; the Rural Electrification Act; and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, 

which was amended by the Energy title of the 2008 Farm Bill. 
3 

Section 343(a)(13) of the CONACT defines “rural” and “rural area” for programs of USDA 

Rural Development authorized therein, principally business programs and community-based 

programs. In general, the Act provides a definition of “rural” or “rural area” that is, “any area 

other than – (i) a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants; and (ii) 

any urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town described in clause (i)”. This 

definition would act as a default definition for new CONACT programs, and is historically the 

definition applied to the business programs of Rural Business – Cooperative Service (RBCS). 

The CONACT provides separate definitions for two additional program areas. For the Water 

and Waste Disposal direct loans, guaranteed loans, and grants of Rural Utilities Service, the Act 

defines “rural” and “rural area” as a, “city, town, or unincorporated area that has a population of 

not more than 10,000 inhabitants”. For the Community Facilities direct loans, loan guarantees, 

and grants of Rural Housing Service, the Act defines “rural” and “rural area” as a, “city, town, or 

unincorporated area that has a population of not more than 20,000 inhabitants”. 

The Rural Electrification Act’s definition of eligible “rural area” for Rural Utilities Service’s 

electric loan and loan guarantee programs was changed in the 2008 Farm Bill from “any area of 

the United States not included within the boundaries of any city, village, or borough having a 

population exceeding 1500”, to instead align with the Community Facilities program definition 

in Rural Housing Service, i.e. municipalities with a total population not more than 20,000. 

However, those Rural Electric Cooperatives which still had an outstanding loan with RUS at the 

time and had been eligible under the prior definition retained their eligibility – once rural, always 

rural. 

With the exception of Section 9007, the Rural Energy for America Program, the portions of Title 

IX of Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 assigned to Rural Development do not 

have a statutory requirement that projects be financed in a rural area. Proposed rules nonetheless 

including a “rural area” eligibility requirement comparable to other business programs were 

published by Rural Business – Cooperative Service (RBCS) for the Biorefinery Assistance 

Program (§9003), the Repowering Assistance Program (§9004), and the Bioenergy Program for 

Advanced Biofuels (§9005) on April 16, 2010 with a 60-day public comment period. Our intent 

was to have these programs mirror other types of business financing programs available from 

RBCS. Interim final rules for all three programs have been published. 

Rural Development staff administering these loans, loan guarantees, and grants must ensure that 

funds are invested only in eligible areas. Once basic eligibility is determined, both the CONACT 

and agency regulations provide additional tools for targeting resources, particularly grant funds, 

to communities with the smallest populations and the lowest median household incomes. For 

examples: 

 The RUS Special Evaluation Assistance for Rural Communities and Households 

(SEARCH) program makes predevelopment planning grants for feasibility studies, design 

assistance, and technical assistance, to financially distressed communities in rural areas 

with populations of 2,500 or fewer inhabitants for water and sewer projects (§306). 
4 

 The RUS technical assistance grants for water and sewer projects provide highest priority 

to communities with fewer than 5,500 residents (§306). 

 The RHS Community Facilities Grant program directs the Secretary to provide higher 

Federal grant shares for facilities in communities that have lower community population 

and income levels, and creates a separate grant program for rural communities with 

extreme unemployment and severe economic depression (§306). 

 The RBCS Rural Business Enterprise Grant program gives highest priority to projects in 

communities with fewer than 5,000 residents (§310B). 

These additional priorities are applied as applications are scored or evaluated by Rural 

Development staff. Our success in targeting in loans, loan guarantees, and grants was one of 

several things discussed in Economic Information Bulletin Number 65 published by ERS in 

April 2010. This study found, among other things, that USDA’s rural development programs 

provide more funding per capita to totally rural areas (non-metro counties with less than 2,500 

census-defined urban residents) and to distressed non-metro areas (persistent poverty, low 

employment, and population loss counties) than to non-metro areas in general. The study is 

available on line at www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/ruraldevelopment/eib65. 

The Rural Development Mission Area is often asked why USDA offers programs that offer 

assistance for home ownership, business and community development, public and waste water 

projects and electrical and biofuel ventures given that there are a number of other agencies that 

provide similar services. USDA provides these services specifically to rural communities that 

might not otherwise receive this funding. Moreover, our field structure allows our applicants to 

rely on Rural Development staff in state and area offices and assist them in the application 

process. However, the problem is that we only have the ability to bring our entire tool box to 

municipalities of fewer than 10,000 residents that are not adjacent to an urbanized area. 

Elsewhere, our role involves helping to find other partners to do what we are prevented from 

doing ourselves because of eligibility standards. 

Rural Development also plays a somewhat unique role as the primary economic development 

arm of the Department of Agriculture. Eligibility standards for our loan, grant, and loan 

guarantee programs can lead to conflict with the Department’s other priorities and missions, 

particularly in states that have been grappling with significant urban sprawl. By eliminating 

from the CONACT eligibility definition for business programs not just those cities and towns 

larger than 50,000 inhabitants but also the adjacent urbanized areas, Rural Development focuses 

financing in projects outside the incorporated area on surrounding farmland and open spaces

Prior to returning to USDA in March 2009, I served for six years as Deputy Secretary for 

Marketing and Economic Development in the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA). 

One of my duties was to chair the Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Board, whose 

approval was required before State or local government entities could condemn preserved 

farmland for road improvements or other public uses. Our standard was to allow the conversion 

of farmland only when there was no reasonable and prudent alternative. 
5 

My PDA experience now stands in stark contrast to an eligible rural area standard for USDA’s 

business programs that makes conversion of farmland the attractive first choice rather than the 

last resort for siting a business project. In several states, rapid sprawl has created urbanized areas 

in locations that were rural by anyone’s measure only a decade ago. Congress took its first steps 

towards acknowledging sprawl problems in the 2008 farm bill by creating the potential for 

exceptions in the business programs. Projects could be sited in urbanized areas if, on a case-bycase basis, the Under Secretary for Rural Development determined that the site remained “rural 

in character”. Attached to my testimony as Appendix 2 is a spreadsheet showing how RBCS has 

administered that new flexibility in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, Congress has acknowledged that there are circumstances in which the 

best economic opportunities for rural people – no matter how “rural” is defined – can be realized 

by financing projects located in urban areas with access to infrastructure and markets. The 

CONACT, for example, allows cooperatives to finance agricultural value-added processing 

ventures in urban areas through the Business & Industry Loan Guarantee program, provided the 

purpose of the co-op is help producers within an 80-mile radius of the facility and that jobs 

created would go primarily to rural residents. 

The 2008 farm bill added three additional examples. In addition to the new programs in the 

Energy title, Section 6015 created a carve-out in the CONACT of at least five percent of funding 

in the Business & Industry Loan Guarantee program for local and regional food systems, with 

priority for projects that benefit urban, rural, or tribal underserved areas, often called food 

deserts. Also, section 6108 amends the Rural Electrification Act to authorize electric loans for 

renewable energy (solar, wind, hydropower, biomass, or geothermal sources) for resale to rural 

and non-rural residents. 

Just as Congress has recognized in these programs that people in rural communities sometimes 

benefit from the economic activity that occurs in neighboring non-rural areas, USDA has been 

working with its current programs to respond to many rural communities’ efforts to organize on 

a more regional basis. This work recognizes that USDA has the responsibility to utilize our 

programs in such a way that best supports the hard work and ingenuity of those who live in rural 

communities. As this work progresses, we believe that it may also inform this important 

discussion around rural definition. 

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to receiving new census information over the coming months 

and with it a clear view of how rural America has changed over the last decade. We also look 

forward to continued discussions with this Subcommittee as to how best to meet evolving needs 

of rural citizens, helping them seize opportunities for economic growth that will help rural 

communities thrive. Thank you for holding today’s hearing, and I would be happy to address 

any questions at this time. 
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD TO: 

MS. CHERYL COOK, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, RURAL 

DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

HEARING TO REVIEW THE VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF RURAL 

APPLIED UNDER PROGRAMS OPERATED BY THE U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUTLURE 

February 15, 2011 

Committee on Agriculture Staff 

Majority—Mike Dunlap 

(202) 226-1188 

Minority—Scott Kuschmider 

(202) 225-1496 

Questions Submitted by: 

Chairman Timothy V. Johnson, Illinois 

Q: Ms. Cook, your testimony indicates you feel USDA should have more flexibility in 

deciding where rural development projects are deployed, and that the current definitions 

are too prescriptive. Yet, the results of the 2008 Farm Bill debate on this topic are due in 

large part to projects being cited near urban areas. What is unique about the flexibility 

you are contemplating that would address concerns this Committee might have about 

funds being used near urban areas? 

Response: The provisions of Section 343(a)(13) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act (CONACT) address simply the area considered eligible to apply for 

Rural Development’s community and business programs. Other sections of that law, 

specifically Sections 306 – 306E and 310B address congressional priorities in funding 

applications received, and target our funds – particularly grant funds – to the smallest, 

poorest areas. Changes made to the former would not affect the latter. 

For example, the Rural Business Enterprise Grant program is subject to the eligible rural 

area standard of 343(a)(13)(A) – anywhere except a city or town greater than 50,000 and 

adjacent urbanized areas. However, Section 310B provides that priority consideration be 

given to applications for this program from municipalities, tribes, or non-profit 

organizations in communities of under 5,000. Similarly, a municipality of 9,500 

residents would be eligible to apply for Water & Waste Disposal funding since they 

would be below the standard in Section 343(a)(13)(B) of 10,000; however, priority for 

grant funds and technical assistance goes to applicants with fewer than 5,000 residents 

under Section 306. 

Changing standards for eligibility to apply for Rural Development programs to provide 

commonality for our customers or to account for features beyond total population does 
not affect prioritization provided elsewhere in the Act for the smallest, neediest 

communities. 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) made no changes with 

respect to areas eligible to apply for community-based programs. The Water & Waste 

Disposal program and the Community Facilities program remain at 10,000 and 20,000 

respectively. The flexibility in Section 6018(a) of the farm bill, which provided for areas 

remaining “rural in character”, applies only to 50,000 population definition of rural that 

predominately applies to the business programs, like the Rural Business Enterprise Grant 

program described above. . What is unique about the possibilities discussed during the 

hearing and in my written testimony is the broader applicability to all programs in terms 

of the places from which an application could be accepted. 

Representative Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota 

Q: Ms. Cook, in your testimony you note that some communities currently eligible for 

USDA rural development programs because they currently meet the population 

thresholds may not be eligible in the future depending on the results of the next Census. 

If a multi-year loan award was made when the recipient fit within the population limit 

pre-Census, does that loan stay active post-Census? Can you elaborate on any other 

effects the Census would have on active borrowers? 

Response: Rural Development generally does not make multi-year loan awards, though 

once obligated, appropriations law generally allows a period of five years from the end of 

the fiscal year in which funds were awarded to fully use the funding. In the few cases 

where a multi-year grant can be awarded, e.g., the Rural Business Opportunity Grant and 

the Rural Cooperative Development Grant, both of which allow for two-year grants, the 

entire amount is obligated the first year. If an applicant was in an eligible rural area at 

the time the loan or grant was obligated, that status would continue as the project moves 

forward and funds are drawn down. 

In prior years, new census data created challenges for applicants with large communitybased projects that required a series of applications in order to fund multiple project 

phases over multiple fiscal years. When the only standard for eligibility is total 

population, a change in that population could affect eligibility for later project phases. 

Q: Ms. Cook, can you describe your points system when evaluating applicants? What 

criteria are used, and what do you place the highest value on? 

Response: Currently, each program regulation identifies the exact evaluation process for 

that program, drawing from statutory requirements and priorities where provided. 

Additionally, programs administered by a single nationwide competition normally 

identify scoring criteria in their regulation or in the body of a Notice of Funds 

Availability, or NOFA. 
In the case of most loan programs under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, once the 

applicant and the area in which the applicant wishes to receive financial assistance are 

determined eligible, evaluating an application generally turns to: (1) the strength of the 

idea for which financial assistance is being sought; and (2) whether a particular 

application is entitled to priority consideration. 

With regard to the former, most regulations evaluate various aspects of feasibility. Does 

the idea use proven technologies? Does the applicant have the management experience 

to operate successfully (and, if not, do we have technical assistance programs that could 

be brought to bear)? Does the applicant have a reasonable chance of repayment ability 

based on financial projections? Is there a market study to suggest sufficient demand for 

the goods or services to be financed? Is the applicant also financially invested in the 

project or is the Federal Government being asked to shoulder all the risk? Is the 

workforce able to meet the needs of this project without jeopardizing the success of 

others? In the case of community-based programs, does the project as proposed lead to a 

reasonable end user rate for public services? 

With regard to the latter, statutory language in the CONACT especially provides 

additional prioritization for certain applications in certain programs based on total 

population size and median household income. Other statutes, such as the Farm Security 

and Rural Investment Act of 2002, also articulate evaluation criteria and provide 

priorities for funding for projects offering the best energy “bang for the buck”. 

My testimony suggested that perhaps other factors could be considered in this evaluation 

process to ensure that Rural Development’s programs benefit the rural people who need 

them most. In so doing, perhaps Congress could reevaluate the single eligibility standard 

of total population to also consider other factors that lead to higher priority applications. 

The model I had in mind was the second NOFA under the Broadband Initiatives 

Program, or BIP. 

The first BIP NOFA, issued in 2009, attempted to invest the largest share of grant funds 

in those most isolated communities that we had been unable to reach with the regular 

Broadband program created in the 2002 farm bill, and that were the hardest for the 

private sector to reach alone. That program offers only loan funds, and applicants 

generally have come from more populous, economically stronger areas that can afford the 

debt service rather than sparsely populated isolated communities. In the Water & Waste 

Disposal program, where projects regularly exceed $10 million in cost, Rural Utilities 

Service has been able to assist smaller, poorer communities by supplementing loans with 

grant funds. In the Broadband program, where projects have exceeded $100 million, no 

grant funds are available. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act authorized the 

BIP program, and for the first time enabled the Agency to pair loan and grant funds 

together to arrive at more affordable subscription rates. In the first NOFA, applicants 

generally could expect to receive up to 50% grant and 50% loan toward their total 

project, but remote rural areas could receive 100% grant funds. 
While the policy objective of the first BIP NOFA was sound, the implementation of a 

NOFA that limited availability of full grant funding to applicants in remote rural areas 

proved challenging. As if defining “eligible rural area” weren’t difficult enough, then we 

had to define “remote”. By contrast, the second BIP NOFA offered most applicants a 

mix of up to 75% grant, 25% loan, but considered a range of factors and took a more 

flexible approach in determining when the Administrator could waive that general rule 

and fully fund a project with grant funds. The NOFA provided that: 

The Administrator may grant a request for waiver for a 

larger grant component based on the following factors: 

1. Distance From Non-Rural Areas – The Administrator 

will consider the distance from the focus of the proposed 

funded service areas from the closest non-rural area. 

2. Rural Area Targeting – The Administrator will consider 

the percentage of the proposed funded service area that is 

above the 75 percent [of the service area being rural] 

requirement. 

3. Density – The Administrator will consider the density of 

the proposed funded service area, calculated from the 

population and area totals of all proposed funded service 

areas taken from the mapping tool. 

4. Median Household Income – The Administrator will 

consider the median household income of the proposed 

funded service area, comparing the county median 

household income to that of the State median income level. 

For applications serving multiple counties, the 

Administrator will weigh the percentages of all counties. 

5. Unemployment – The Administrator will consider the 

state unemployment level compared to the National 

Unemployment Level in the state of the proposed funded 

service area. For applications serving multiple states, the 

Administrator will weigh the percentages in each State. 

Using this multi-faceted methodology, the Administrator was able to target remaining 

BIP grant funds to the most rural areas with the greatest need. Again, the CONACT 

already provides for some of these types of priority considerations in some, but not all, of 

our programs. I think this sort of potential exists throughout Rural Development, and 

look forward to further discussion with the Subcommittee as to how this sort of 

prioritization could be incorporated to consistently target our resources. 
Q: Ms. Cook, what is the reasoning for the “once rural, always rural” policy as it relates 

to rural electric cooperatives with a long, continuous borrowing history in some 

programs? Are there any such borrowers that now primarily serve urban or suburban 

areas? 

Response: The policy you mention is a statutory requirement of the Rural Electrification 

Act of 1936. While Rural Development seeks to protect taxpayers’ investments by 

enabling borrowers to meet their existing obligations, our mission is to ensure that the 

program benefits the rural borrowers who need them most. 

Rural electric cooperatives were established to deliver electric power to rural areas 

because there was no profit for investor-owned utilities to deliver service. The business 

structure of these cooperatives in many cases precludes their use of the financing 

available to investor-owned utilities. 

Fewer than 10 percent of the consumers served by RUS' electric borrowers could be 

considered nonrural based on a study completed in 2005 using census bureau 

delineations. The business structure that rural electric cooperatives employ to provide 

reliable and affordable power to rural consumers is also a consideration in Rural 

Development's mission. 

Representative Larry Kissell, North Carolina 

Q: Ms. Cook, within Rural Development programs both Grants and Loans are often 

available for our Rural Communities. It is my understanding that if a community does not 

qualify for a grant, they often can be considered for a loan. Many of the Rural 

Communities in my district are not eligible for grants, and pursue Rural Development 

loans. Is my assumption correct that part of your evaluation for some loan programs is the 

ability of the applicant to pay back the loan? If so, does this mean you would prioritize a 

rural area that might be in a more secure economic condition versus another? Do you 

feel that USDA’s approach is consistent with the goal of assisting those communities 

most in need? 

Response: USDA’s approach is consistent with the goal of assisting those communities 

most in need. Independent of the discussion of a lack of consistency in the standards for 

eligible rural areas, which apply equally to loans and grants, applicants from the smallest, 

poorest communities receive priority for grant funds and the lowest interest rate for loan 

funds. This is true both for the Water & Waste Disposal program and the Community 

Facilities program. The Rural Business Enterprise Grant also is targeted by Congress to 

the smallest areas, providing priority to applications from municipalities, tribes, and nonprofit organizations in communities below 5,000. 

Further, in our community programs, especially the Water & Waste Disposal program, 

communities, normally, receive a combination of loans and grants for a particular project. 

The mix of loan and grant is generally determined on the ability of the community to 
support the repayment of the loan. Communities that have a stronger economic 

foundation will receive a higher loan to grant mix than communities that are in a more 

fragile economic state. By targeting the loan/grant mix in this manner, Rural 

Development is able to extend its budget authority to serve more communities while still 

prioritizing assistance to those communities with the greatest need. 

Representative Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Madame Secretary, 

As you are aware Connecticut, like other Northeastern states, is unique in that we lack 

unincorporated areas. Additionally, we have townships, villages and other community 

designations which inhibit our ability to be eligible for and receive funding for 

community facilities or water and waste projects. 

As you know, in 2009, an opinion issued by the office of general counsel, which 

overturned a long standing practice at the department to recognize the unique challenges 

we in the northeast face when determining eligibility for rural development. This opinion 

suspended the long standing practice of recognizing villages, townships and boroughs 

common to Northeast states as separate identifiable communities whom are eligible for 

rural development funds based on their own populations, not that of the town in which 

they are encompassed. It should be noted that this was a policy that was in place for more 

than 40 years. 

As you know, I sent a letter in October 2009 cosigned by 17 of my colleagues seeking 

Sec. Vilsack’s support for reversing the decision of the general counsel which he did. I 

have submitted a copy of that my letter and the secretary’s response for the record. 

However I still have some concerns that I would like to ask you about. 

Q: In a letter dated November 12, 2009, Secretary Vilsack wrote that “Rural 

Development will be soliciting public comments through an Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on defining “rural” in an equitable manner across the nation in the 

near future.” It is my understanding that no such proposed rule has been released yet. 

When does USDA expect to release that proposed rule? 

Response: Please see below. 

Q: Also included in that letter was a statement from Secretary Vilsack indicating that 

“Municipalities may be considered separate cities or towns for purposes of population 

thresholds for program eligibility provided that they meet characteristics one might 

expect to find in a municipality, such as separately identifiable village name, a post 

office, or other indicators of a community that will last through the life of the loan that is 

being requested.” Does this remain the policy of USDA in determining eligibility for 

rural development funds for communities in Connecticut today? 
While the majority of states began as unincorporated territories now dotted with 

incorporated municipalities, most states in the Northeast are entirely incorporated. 

However, several northeastern states – notably, Massachusetts, New York, and 

Pennsylvania – recognize in state law the concept of a “village”, an unincorporated 

population cluster lying wholly within an incorporated municipality. In MA and NY, 

villages lie within incorporated towns. In PA, villages lie within incorporated townships. 

When I was a state director in Pennsylvania during the 1990s, the general rule in the 

northeast region was that if a water or sewer project actually would serve fewer than 

10,000 people, the project could proceed. Thus, a village of fewer than 10,000 people, 

where centralized services like water or sewer were more necessary than in the outlying 

farmland, could be considered even if the total population of the township in which the 

village was located exceeded 10,000. 

In the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress added the words “city, town, or unincorporated area” to 

the pre-existing eligibility standards of not more than 10,000 for the Water & Waste 

Disposal program and 20,000 for the Community Facilities program. The legislative 

history of that addition suggests that Congress specifically intended to curb what had 

been common practice in Pennsylvania and other northeastern states. With the new 

language, an applicant is the municipality rather than a portion of a municipality or even 

a single-purpose sewer or water district. The entire population of the municipality 

therefore would be applied to the eligibility standard, even if less than the total 

population would be served. This language was unchanged by the 2008 Farm Bill. 

In 2009, the Office of General Counsel determined that instructions given its Northeast 

regional office in 2004 with respect to this issue had not been fully implemented, and 

addressed that with additional staff instructions. In the same timeframe, policy leaders in 

Rural Development determined that additional guidance for state offices was warranted 

to ensure that we would follow the law as Congress enacted it in 2002 and again in 2008. 

An Administrative Notice was issued to the northeastern state offices explaining the 

current state of the law yet recognizing that an “unincorporated area” in the Northeast 

was something entirely different than in other states. We determined that in using the 

words “city or town” Congress meant any incorporated municipality. We also 

acknowledged that, even though states might not have any unincorporated geographic 

areas, an unincorporated population center within an incorporated municipality might be 

able to apply in its own right if it met the characteristics of a municipality aside from 

formal incorporation, such as providing other services or having a separate zip code or 

separate recognition as a census-designated place. 

That Administrative Notice does remain in effect pending regulatory action on the 

definition of “city, town, or unincorporated area”. The Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) mentioned in the Secretary’s 2009 letter was placed on hold until 

final determination was reached on whether a rural area eligibility standard comparable to 

other business programs of Rural Business – Cooperative Service would or would not be 

included for the new energy programs authorized in title IX of the farm bill. The 
statutory language does not apply a rural eligibility standard to the Section 9003, 9004, or 

9005 programs of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. In an effort to 

gain consistency across the Agency with its CONACT programs, proposed rules 

including that requirement were published in April 2010. Interim final rules reflecting 

public comment in favor of removing the eligibility standard were published in February 

2011, clearing the path to resume work on the ANPR for other programs. 

Q: In 2009, the same year USDA overturned the long standing policy of rural 

development eligibility in my state of Connecticut and others, the Pennsylvania state 

rural development office also issued a contradictory opinion (PA AN No. 1238) 

regarding the state of Pennsylvania. The language in that exemption is as follows “In 

consultation with the National Office, we have determined that areas in townships in 

should not be considered as being “in a city or town.” Therefore all townships in 

Pennsylvania should be considered as rural areas regardless of the population of the 

township.” I recognize that this was a state office opinion but the fact that it was done so 

in consultation with the “national office” concerns me. Can you explain why USDA 

issued this opinion in January 2009 for Pennsylvania and then issued a contradictory 

opinion later that year for Connecticut and other states? Furthermore, if this was a state 

office determination, why did the office of general counsel not overrule this decision 

when they issued a contradictory decision on Connecticut’s eligibility?

 

Response: In 2009, the new Pennsylvania State Director was asked by his staff to reissue 

a specific state Administrative Notice that his predecessor had developed in 2003 in 

response to the “city, town, or unincorporated area” language Congress adopted in the 

2002 Farm Bill. That document attempted to declare all Pennsylvania townships as 

eligible rural areas. Upon my learning of that document in November 2009, it was 

rescinded. Nevertheless, it underscores some of the challenges in trying to have a single 

nationwide eligibility standard when that standard is applied to municipal structures 

created by each state and territory. 

PA has about 100 cities of the 1st through 4th class, with class being determined by total 

population. A few cities of the 4th class would meet the eligible rural area standard of the 

Community Facilities program (20,000) but generally not the Water & Waste Disposal 

program (10,000). Further, Pennsylvania has 2,500 incorporated municipalities, exactly 

one of which is incorporated as a town, the Town of Bloomsburg, a college town whose 

population is about 12,700. Pennsylvania has no unincorporated geography whatsoever, 

just the “village” concept of an unincorporated population center within an incorporated 

township. Pennsylvania has 1,000 boroughs and 1,400 townships, but Congress only 

mentioned “city or town” in the revised eligibility standard. The State Director in place 

at that time interpreted “city or town” literally, and knowing that Pennsylvania had one of 

the largest rural populations not served by public water or sewer, attempted to address 

townships through an Administrative Notice. 

Of the 1,400 townships in Pennsylvania, 1,297 have 10,000 or fewer residents. 

Assuming that Congress simply listed “city” or “town” as examples of incorporated 

municipalities rather than literally meaning only municipalities incorporated as cities or 
as towns could apply, those 1,297 PA townships would meet eligibility standards for the 

Water & Waste Disposal program and the Community Facilities program. The problem 

was with the 103 whose populations are over 10,000 and particularly with the 23 in 

sprawl-affected areas whose populations are over 20,000. A blanket declaration of 

rurality for all townships was inappropriate, and that Administrative Notice is no longer 

in effect. 
Addendum	4	 Filtering	Criteria 

Filtering Criteria to Drive RD Funds to the Most Rural Areas 

Community Infrastructure Programs 

(Points are cumulative) 

Factor Points Explanatory Comments

1 

Total Population Basic eligibility would be extended to any city, 

town, or unincorporated area except those greater 

than 50,000 in total population (unless Congress has 

specifically adopted an exception allowing a certain 

type of project to be sited in an urban area). As with 

current provisions in §306 of the ConAct and 

Agency regulations found at 7 CFR §§1780.17, 

1942.17(f), 1942.305(a) and (b), 3570.63(b), 

preference is given through higher point scores for 

smaller communities. 

1 4,999 10

5,000 10,000 5

10,001 20,000 3

21,000 34,999 2

35,001 50,000 1

2 

Population Density 

In addition to total population, population density 

can be an indicator of rurality. This filtering 

criterion relies on Census Bureau statistics. 

Less than 10 

people per 

square mile 5

Less than 50 

people per 

square mile 3

Less than 

250 people 

per square 

mile 1

3 

Rural/Urban 

Commuting Areas Based on Rural/Urban Commuting Area Codes 

developed by USDA Economic Research Service 

and HHS. This coding system offers a more 

transparent view of places that have become simply 

ancillary bedroom communities for nearby 

metropolitan areas than is available currently from 

provisions of §343(a) of the ConAct regarding 

exclusion of "adjacent urbanized areas and the 

exceptions to those exclusions created in the 2008 

Farm Bill. 

Coded as “rural 

area” 5

Coded as “small 

town” or 

“commuting to 

small town” 3

Coded as “low 

commuting to 

large town” 1

4 

Economic Conditions 

- Poverty 

Project 

MHI ≤ 60% 5

Compares Median Household Income of service area 

to the higher of statewide non-metro Median 
Addendum	4	 Filtering	Criteria 

Project 

MHI ≤ 70% 4

Household Income or poverty threshold for a family 

of four. This is similar to current Agency 

regulations found at 7 CFR §§1780.13, 1780.17, 

1942.17, 1942.305(b)(3), 3570.61. Those 

regulations will be based on a rolling five-year 

average of data from the American Community 

Survey, since the Decennial Census no longer 

collects this data. 

Project 

MHI ≤ 80% 3

Project 

MHI ≤ 90% 2

Project 

MHI ≤ 100% 1

More than 25% of 

children in the school 

district where the 

project is sited receive 

free or reduced cost 

lunches 5

More than 15% of 

children in the school 

district where the 

project is sited receive 

free or reduced cost 

lunches 3

5 

Economic Conditions 

- Unemployment 

This filtering criterion compares the unemployment 

rate of the project service area to the statewide 

unemployment rate, awarding preference through 

higher points to applicants from areas where 

unemployment exceeds the statewide average by 

more than 25%. The concept is drawn from existing 

Agency regulations found at 7 CFR §1942.305(b)(3) 

and, while it generally has not been applied to 

community projects in the past, community 

development can lead to economic development and 

job creation. 

Project area rate is ≥

125% of statewide rate 5

Project area rate is 

100% - 124% of 

statewide rate 3

Project area rate is < 

statewide rate 0

6 

Economic Impacts 

Project contributes to 

development of local or 

regional food systems, 

or improves access to 

food in under-served 

rural, tribal, or urban 

areas 

5

Like filtering criterion #5, this measure also 

recognizes the economic impact of community 

development projects, attempting to give preference 

through higher points to projects that can drive job 

creation. As examples, a Community Facilities 

application to make capital improvements at a 

fairgrounds allowing the site to be used year-round 

for tourism activities that bring new revenues to the 

community could receive extra points, as could a 
Addendum	4	 Filtering	Criteria 

Project can 

demonstrate 

entrepreneurial support 

through new or 

emerging small 

business development 4

municipal airport, a farmers market, or other facility 

that allows local entrepreneurs to have a venue by 

which to reach area consumers. 

Project creates 

construction or other 

jobs on a temporary 

basis 2

Project can lead 

indirectly to creation of 

jobs at other sites 1

7 

Community Impacts 

Project addresses a 

threat to public health 

or safety 5

This factor is drawn from existing Agency 

regulations found at 7 CFR §§1780.13, 1780.17, 

1942.17(f). 

Project contributes to 

lifelong learning 

opportunities for 

service area residents 4

Project contributes to 

lifelong residency 

options in the service 

area, including 

municipal or non-profit 

dependent care and 

assisted living 3

Project facilitates 

making the service area 

more attractive to 

employers 2

Project facilitates an 

improved quality of life 

for residents of the 

service area 1
Addendum	4	 Filtering	Criteria 

8 

Environmental Impacts 

Project addresses water 

quality or air quality 

problems in the service 

area 5

Compare to existing Agency regulations found at 7 

CFR §§1780.13, 1780.17. 

Project reuses developed 

site 5

Project promotes use of 

renewable energy or 

energy conservation 5

Project does not develop 

land in Soil Classes I - IV 3

Project consistent with 

state or local efforts to 

protect agricultural land 

uses 3

Project does not 

negatively impact water 

quality or air quality in 

the service area 1

9 

Need for RD 

financing 

Evaluates both the availability of other credit and the 

potential to leverage RD funds with others' funds 

Compare to existing Agency regulations found at 7 

CFR §§1780.17, 1942.17(f), 1942.305(b)(3), 

3570.63(b). 

Project has other 

financial partners 

contributing 50% or 

more of the total 

project cost 5

Project has no other 

financial partners 

because there are no 

other sources of credit 

at reasonable rates and 

terms 5

Project has other 

financial partners 

contributing 25% or 

more of the total 

project cost 3
Addendum	4	 Filtering	Criteria 

Project could access 

financing from another 

source, but at less 

favorable terms 1

10 

Consistency with 

strategic objectives 

Project sited in a 

county declared a 

disaster area by the 

President or the 

Secretary 5

Compares project location/purpose to regional or 

local planning objectives or USDA/Mission Area 

objectives for rural economic and community 

development 

Project demonstrates 

progress toward 

serving historically 

underserved 

geographic areas or 

demographic groups 

5

There is some regulatory precedent for this concept 

in 7 CFR §1942.305(b)(3). More directly, though, 

this criterion makes real §14218 of the 2008 Farm 

Bill. Congress directed Rural Development to create 

the position of Coordinator for Chronically 

Underserved Rural Areas in order to identify and 

implement strategies to better serve populations and 

places of high need and high poverty. 

Project demonstrates 

progress toward 

objectives of regional 

or local development 

plans 3

Project furthers 

achievement of USDA 

strategic plans at the 

Department, Mission 

Area, Regional, or 

State levels 1
Addendum	4	 Filtering	Criteria 

Filtering Criteria to Drive RD Funds to the Most Rural Areas – 

Entrepreneurship Support Programs 

(Points are cumulative) 

Factor Points Explanatory Comments 

1 

Total Population Basic eligibility would be extended to any city, town, 

or unincorporated area except those greater than 

50,000 in total population. Comparable to current 

provisions in §306 of the ConAct and Agency 

regulations found at 7 CFR §§1780.17, 1942.17(f), 

1942.305(a) and (b), 3570.63(b), preference is given 

through higher point scores for smaller communities. 

1 4,999 10

5,000 10,000 5

10,001 20,000 3

21,000 34,999 2

35,001 50,000 1

2 

Economic 

Conditions - 

Unemployment 

Compares unemployment rate of the project service 

area to statewide unemployment rate. This is 

comparable to current Agency regulations found at 7 

CFR 1942.305(b)(3). 

Project area rate is ≥

125% of statewide 

rate 5

Project area rate is 

100% - 124% of 

statewide rate 3

Project area rate is < 

statewide rate 0

3 

Economic Impacts - 

General 

Evaluates the quality and quantity of jobs created or 

saved by the project, along the lines of criteria used 

in the B&I Recovery Act Notice of Funds 

Availability. 

Project demonstrates 

likelihood to create 

or save high quality 

permanent jobs 

within 2 years 5

Project can 

demonstrate 

entrepreneurial 

support through new 

or emerging small 

business 

development, 

including 

cooperatives 4

Project creates 

construction or other 

jobs on a temporary 

basis 2
Addendum	4	 Filtering	Criteria 

Project can lead 

indirectly to creation 

of jobs at other sites 1

4 

Economic Impacts - 

Promoting Energy 

Independence 

This filtering criterion builds on provisions of the 

several Notices of Funds Availability issued for 

energy programs like the Rural Energy for America 

Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, etc. By 

applying this filter to all economic development 

applications, programs like the Business & Industry 

Loan Guarantee Program would have the ability to 

give additional weight to applications that advance 

America’s energy agenda. 

Project purpose leads 

to increased domestic 

production of 

renewable power 5

Project purpose leads 

to increased domestic 

production of 

renewable fuels 

meeting the RFS 2 

standard 5

Project leads to 

increased domestic 

production of 

renewable 

alternatives to 

heating oil 5

Project is itself 

energy independent 3

Project builds 

capacity for energy 

audits for farmers 

and other rural 

business owners 3

5 

Economic Impacts - 

Supporting 

Agricultural 

Entrepreneurs 

American agriculture in the 20th Century is the 

greatest success story of increasing productivity in 

history. But, as the average age of America's farmers 

and ranchers rose over the last few decades, so has 

the average age of seed and equipment dealers, feed 

mill and grain elevator operators, fertilizer 

manufacturers and dealers, livestock auction 

operators and local butchers, etc. For American 

agriculture to remain strong in the 21st Century, 

Rural Development needs to focus more of its efforts 

on the infrastructure surrounding agricultural 

producers 

Project (re)develops 

infrastructure and 

service providers so 

agricultural 

producers can get 

equipment, livestock 

feed, seed, fertilizer, 

or other inputs 

needed to produce 

agricultural 

commodities 5
Addendum	4	 Filtering	Criteria 

Project (re)develops 

infrastructure needed 

to move agricultural 

commodities (food, 

fiber, or fuel) beyond 

the farm gate for 

processing, 

distribution, or 

retailing to 

consumers 5

Project contributes to 

development of local 

or regional food 

systems, including 

direct marketing 

from farmers to 

consumers 5

Compare these two filtering criteria to §6015 of the 

2008 Farm Bill, which directed RBS to target at least 

5% of available budget authority to local or regional 

food system projects until April 1 of each year. 

Within that current target, preference is given to 

projects that benefit rural, tribal, or urban underserved areas. 

Project contributes to 

alleviating food 

availability 

challenges in rural, 

tribal or urban underserved areas 5

Project alleviates 

regional shortages in 

critical goods and 

services needed for 

farmers and ranchers 

to thrive 3

Examples might include regional shortages in 

large/food animal veterinarians, irrigation equipment 

manufacturers or dealers, sawmills, rendering plants, 

a wide variety of regional needs are facing greater 

urgency in finding new entrants 

Project is consistent 

with state or local 

efforts to protect 

agricultural land uses 3

6 

Economic Impacts - 

Building on 

Broadband 

Infrastructure This criterion recognizes that the full potential of 

increasing rural broadband infrastructure won’t be 

realized until businesses and institutions in rural 

areas actually use it. 

Project purpose(s) 

includes e-commerce 

start-up or expansion 5

Project purpose is 

primarily focused on 

using broadband 

technologies 3
Addendum	4	 Filtering	Criteria 

Project purpose(s) 

includes purchasing 

new equipment that 

can use broadband 

technologies 1

7 

Community Impacts 

Project contributes to 

workforce 

development 

opportunities for 

service area residents 5

Compare to current Agency regulations found at 7 

§§CFR 1780.13, 1780.17, 1942.17(f). 

Project purpose(s) 

includes development 

or expansion of an 

employee-owned 

cooperatively run 

business 5

Project facilitates 

making the service 

area more attractive to 

additional employers 3

Project contributes to 

lifelong residency 

options in the service 

area, including forprofit dependent care 

or assisted living 1

8 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Project improves 

water quality or air 

quality issues 5

Project reuses 

developed site 5

Project complies 

with available 

“green” building 

standards or 

commercializes 

products that help 

other businesses and 

home owners adopt 

green building 

standards 4
Addendum	4	 Filtering	Criteria 

Project does not 

develop land in Soil 

Classes I – IV 3

Project does not 

negatively impact 

water quality or air 

quality in the service 

area 1

9 

Promoting Rural 

Capital Formation 

This filtering criterion evaluates the potential to 

leverage RD funds with others' funds and attract 

equity as well as debt investment vehicles to rural 

America 

Project has other 

financial partners 

contributing 50% or 

more of the total 

project cost 5

Project purpose is to 

create or expand 

availability of 

venture capital in 

rural areas 5

Project leverages 

Federal or State tax 

credit opportunities 3

Project purpose is to 

capitalize a 

Revolving Loan 

Fund 1

10 

Consistency with 

strategic objectives 

Project sited in a 

county declared a 

disaster area by 

either the President 

or the Secretary 5

Project demonstrates 

progress toward 

serving historically 

underserved 

geographic areas or 

demographic groups 5

There is some regulatory precedent for this concept 

in 7 CFR §1942.305(b)(3). More directly, though, 

this criterion makes real §14218 of the 2008 Farm 

Bill. Congress directed Rural Development to create 

the position of Coordinator for Chronically 

Underserved Rural Areas in order to identify and 

implement strategies to better serve populations and 

places of high need and high poverty. 
Addendum	4	 Filtering	Criteria 

Project demonstrates 

progress toward 

objectives of regional 

or local development 

plans 3

Project furthers 

achievement of 

USDA strategic 

plans at the 

Department, Mission 

Area, Regional, or 

State levels 1

Compares project location/purpose to regional or 

local planning objectives or USDA/Mission Area 

objectives for rural economic and community 

development 
Rural Area Exceptions Requests 

State Town Outcome

Date of 

Request

Date of 

Response 

to State

TX Corpus Christi (Deannexation) Approved by Under Secretary under the RIC 1/4 mile from rural area provision. 12/16/2008 1/16/2009PA Scranton Approved by Under Secretary under the RIC 1/4 mile from rural area provision. 12/17/2008 6/18/2010PA Reading Approved by Under Secretary under the RIC 1/4 mile from rural area provision. 1/26/2010 7/19/2010IA Grimes Approved by Under Secretary under the RIC 1/4 mile from rural area provision. 2/3/2010 7/19/2010RI North Smithfield Reconsideration Request Approved by the Under Secretary under the RIC 1/4 mile provision 3/22/2010 10/22/2010TN Church Hill Approved by Under Secretary under the RIC 1/4 mile from rural area provision. 10/19/2010 3/14/2011NY Wading River Approved by Under Secretary under the RIC 1/4 mile from rural area provision. 6/3/2011 12/5/2011NC Spring Lake Approved by Under Secretary under the RIC 1/4 mile from rural area provision. 12/1/2011 2/2/2012FL Homestead Approved by Under Secretary under the RIC 1/4 mile from rural area provision. 2/6/2012 11/1/2012TN Hendersonville Approved by Under Secretary under the RIC 1/4 mile from rural area provision. 2/13/2012 5/17/2012KY Henderson Eligible String 9/10/2008 3/24/2009MI Buchanan Eligible String 1/14/2009 3/24/2009NC Canton/Clyde Eligible String 2/19/2009 3/24/2009OR White City Eligible String 2/27/2009 4/2/2009OR Jacksonville Eligible String 2/27/2009 4/2/2009OR Ashland Eligible String 2/27/2009 4/2/2009OR Coburg Eligible String 2/27/2009 4/2/2009OR Turner Eligible String 2/27/2009 4/2/2009OR Wilsonville Eligible String 2/27/2009 4/2/2009OR Butteville Eligible String 2/27/2009 4/2/2009OR Boring Eligible String 2/27/2009 4/2/2009OR Pleasant Home Eligible String 2/27/2009 4/2/2009AR West Memphis Eligible String 3/2/2009 4/2/2009MO Pevely Eligible String 3/5/2009 4/2/2009IL East Dubuque Eligible String 4/7/2009 5/7/2009IL Beecher Eligible String 4/7/2009 5/7/2009IL Winnebago Eligible String 4/7/2009 5/7/2009IL Belvidere Eligible String 4/7/2009 5/7/2009IL Sugar Grove Eligible String 4/7/2009 5/7/2009IL Yorkville Eligible String 4/7/2009 5/7/2009IL Elburn Eligible String 4/7/2009 5/7/2009NE Plattsmouth Eligible String 4/14/2009 5/7/2009NE South Sioux City Eligible String 4/14/2009 5/7/2009NE Dakota City Eligible String 4/14/2009 5/7/2009TN Gallatin Eligible String 4/15/2009 5/7/2009TN Springfield Eligible String 4/15/2009 5/7/2009RI South Kingstown Eligible String 4/24/2009 6/12/2009CT North Grosvenordale Eligible String 4/27/2009 6/12/2009PA Mahoning Township Eligible String 5/7/2009 6/12/2009PA Lehigton Borough Eligible String 5/7/2009 6/12/2009PA Parryville Borough Eligible String 5/7/2009 6/12/2009PA Towamensing Township Eligible String 5/7/2009 6/12/2009PA Franklin Township Eligible String 5/7/2009 6/12/2009
Rural Area Exceptions Requests 

PA East Penn Township Eligible String 5/7/2009 6/12/2009PA Bowmanstown Borough Eligible String 5/7/2009 6/12/2009PA Palmerton Borough Eligible String 5/7/2009 6/12/2009PA Lower Towamensing Township Eligible String 5/7/2009 6/12/2009MT Bonner Eligible String 5/14/2009 6/12/2009MT West Riverside Eligible String 5/14/2009 6/12/2009RI Burrilville Eligible String 5/14/2009 6/12/2009NV Johnson Lane Eligible String 6/15/2009 8/14/2009NV Moundhouse Eligible String 6/15/2009 8/14/2009NJ Newton Eligible String 6/25/2009 8/14/2009NJ Flemington Eligible String 6/25/2009 8/14/2009RI Exeter Eligible String 7/20/2009 9/28/2009MA Southbridge Eligible String 7/22/2009 9/28/2009NJ Clayton Eligible String 7/24/2009 9/28/2009OR Talent Eligible String N/A 9/28/2009OR Cornelius Eligible String N/A 9/28/2009OR Forest Grove Eligible String N/A 9/28/2009MA Amesbury Eligible String N/A 9/28/2009MI Romeo Eligible String 9/23/2009 11/18/2009MI Washington Township Eligible String 9/23/2009 11/18/2009CA Alpine Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Auburn Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Healdsburg Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Galt Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Exeter Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Durham Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Gilroy Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Cherry Valley Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Beaumont Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Banning Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Graton Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Sebastopol Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Atwater Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010CA Anderson Eligible String 10/21/2009 1/13/2010IL Morton Eligible String 11/9/2009 1/13/2010AR Bryant Eligible String 11/20/2009 1/13/2010AR Benton Eligible String 11/20/2009 1/13/2010AR Jacksonville Eligible String 11/20/2009 1/13/2010AR Cabot Eligible String 11/20/2009 1/13/2010OH Xenia Eligible String 11/23/2009 1/13/2010OH Troy Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/13/2010OH Tipp City Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/13/2010PA New Kensington Eligible String 9/24/2009 1/25/2010PA Green Lane Eligible String 9/24/2009 1/25/2010PA Pennsburg Eligible String 9/24/2009 1/25/2010PA Red Hill Eligible String 9/24/2009 1/25/2010PA East Greenville Eligible String 9/24/2009 1/25/2010
Rural Area Exceptions Requests 

MA Boxford Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Byfield Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Georgetown Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Ipswich Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Topsfield Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Essex Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Gloucester Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Manchester Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Rockport Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Ayer Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Groton Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Shirley Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Upton Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Carver Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Lakeville Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Middleboro Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Paxton Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Rutland Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Charlton Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Leicester Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Spencer Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Northbridge Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Uxbridge Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Whitinsville Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Fairhaven Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Mattapoisett Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Acushnet Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA East Freetown Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Monson Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Palmer Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Three Rivers Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Southwick Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Westfield Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Easthampton Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Northampton Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Hadley Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010MA Hatfield Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010RI Parts of Smithfield Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010RI Parts of North Smithfield Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010RI Parts of North Kingstown Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010RI Tiverton Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010RI Portsmouth Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010RI Middletown Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010RI Newport Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010RI Jamestown Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010CT Durham Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010CT Thomaston Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010
Rural Area Exceptions Requests 

CT Plymouth Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010CT Tolland Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010CT Crystal Lake Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010CT Westbrook Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010CT Essex Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010CT Deep River Eligible String 11/24/2009 1/25/2010CT Woodbury Eligible String 12/3/2009 1/25/2010CT Southbury Eligible String 12/3/2009 1/25/2010NJ Hackettstown Eligible String 12/14/2009 1/25/2010NJ Lebanon Eligible String 12/14/2009 1/25/2010NJ Clinton Eligible String 12/14/2009 1/25/2010NJ Annandale Eligible String 12/14/2009 1/25/2010NJ High Bridge Eligible String 12/14/2009 1/25/2010MI Mason Eligible String 1/5/2010 1/25/2010MN St. Joseph Eligible String 1/29/2010 3/1/2010MN Dilworth Eligible String 1/29/2010 3/1/2010MN La Crescent Eligible String 1/29/2010 3/1/2010IL Lebanon Eligible String 1/29/2010 3/1/2010MI Sparta Eligible String 2/9/2010 3/1/2010PA Shavertown Eligible String 3/1/2010 5/27/2010PA Dallas Eligible String 3/1/2010 5/27/2010MO Wentzville Eligible String 3/11/2010 5/27/2010PA Robesonia Eligible String 3/16/2010 5/27/2010NJ Bloomsbury Eligible String 3/24/2010 5/27/2010FL Gulf Breeze Eligible String 3/30/2010 5/27/2010FL Pensacola Beach Eligible String 3/30/2010 5/27/2010FL Cantonment Eligible String 3/30/2010 5/27/2010FL Pace Eligible String 3/30/2010 5/27/2010FL Milton Eligible String 3/30/2010 5/27/2010FL Bagdad Eligible String 3/30/2010 5/27/2010FL Green Cove Springs Eligible String 3/30/2010 5/27/2010FL St. Cloud Eligible String 3/30/2010 5/27/2010FL Campbell Eligible String 3/30/2010 5/27/2010FL Loughman Eligible String 3/30/2010 5/27/2010MA Millis Eligible String 4/6/2010 5/27/2010IN Alexandria Eligible String 4/20/2010 5/27/2010TN Lenoir City Eligible String 4/21/2010 5/27/2010NJ Andover Borough Eligible String 4/15/2010 6/15/2010NJ Andover Township Eligible String 4/15/2010 6/15/2010NJ Sparta Township Eligible String 4/15/2010 6/15/2010NJ Lake Mohawk Eligible String 4/15/2010 6/15/2010OH Perry Eligible String 4/16/2010 6/15/2010OH Madison Eligible String 4/16/2010 6/15/2010OH North Madison Eligible String 4/16/2010 6/15/2010WI Milton Eligible String 4/23/2010 6/15/2010OH Oberlin Eligible String 5/3/2010 6/15/2010OH South Amherst Eligible String 5/3/2010 6/15/2010
Rural Area Exceptions Requests 

OH Wadsworth Eligible String 5/3/2010 6/15/2010NC Weaverville Eligible String 5/13/2010 6/15/2010PA Mountain Top Eligible String 5/19/2010 6/15/2010PA Bath Eligible String 5/26/2010 6/15/2010PA Nazareth Eligible String 5/26/2010 6/15/2010PA Wind Gap Eligible String 5/26/2010 6/15/2010PA Pen Argyl Eligible String 5/26/2010 6/15/2010PA Bangor Eligible String 5/26/2010 6/15/2010CA Nipomo Eligible String 6/22/2010 8/9/2010WA Gleed Eligible String 7/12/2010 8/9/2010WA Selah Eligible String 7/12/2010 8/9/2010WA the area west of West Valley Eligible String 7/12/2010 8/9/2010WA Moxee Eligible String 7/12/2010 8/9/2010WA the area south of Union Gap Eligible String 7/12/2010 8/9/2010WA Brush Prairie Eligible String 7/12/2010 8/9/2010WA Buckley Eligible String 7/12/2010 8/9/2010WA Monroe Eligible String 7/12/2010 8/9/2010WA Duvall Eligible String 7/12/2010 8/9/2010WA Gig Harbor Eligible String 7/12/2010 8/9/2010WA Sudden Valley Eligible String 7/12/2010 8/9/2010MI Rockford Eligible String 7/19/2010 10/13/2010NM Anthony Eligible String 10/12/2010 11/15/2010MA Bellingham Eligible String 11/5/2010 12/15/2010MA Freetown Eligible String 11/5/2010 12/15/2010NC Hendersonville Eligible String 11/15/2010 12/15/2010MA Granby/Ludlow Eligible String (one string in request was not a string) 11/16/2010 12/15/2010TN Louisville Eligible String 11/22/2010 12/15/2010NC Raeford Eligible String 12/7/2010 2/3/2011NH Londonderry Eligible String 2/23/2011 4/6/2011FL Edgewater Eligible String 3/29/2011 6/17/2011NM Santa Teresa Eligible String 5/31/2011 6/17/2011NM Sunland Park Eligible String 5/31/2011 6/17/2011NH Exeter Eligible String 5/31/2011 6/17/2011CA Boulder Creek Eligible String 5/26/2011 8/5/2011NC Fuquay-Varina Eligible String 7/7/2011 8/5/2011MI Freeland Eligible String 9/30/2011 11/10/2011PA Clarks Summit Eligible String 11/8/2011 12/16/2011CT East Windsor Eligible String 1/19/2012 2/13/2012OH Newton Falls Eligible String 2/7/2012 3/22/2012RI Coventry Eligible String 3/6/2012 3/22/2012LA Central Eligible String 3/27/2012 4/23/2012TN Southern Area of Robertson Co. Eligible String 4/9/2012 4/23/2012MT Billings Eligible String 5/3/2012 6/5/2012PA New Holland Eligible String 10/19/2012 12/21/2012NC Swannanoa Eligible String 11/6/2012 12/3/2012