< Back to Current Version

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Changes from April 7, 2023 to April 24, 2025

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: April 7, 2023
Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
Julie M. Lawhorn
This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of
Analyst in Economic
the eight federal regional commissions and authorities:
Development Policy

 the Appalachian Regional Commission;
 the Delta Regional Authority;

 the Denali Commission;
 the Great Lakes Authority;
 the Northern Border Regional Commission;
 the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority;
 the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission; and the
 Southwest Border Regional Commission.
All eight regional commissions and authorities are modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission
structure, which is composed of a federal co-chair appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate, and the member state governors, of which one is appointed the state co-chair. This structure is broadly
replicated in the other commissions and authorities, albeit with notable variations and exceptions to local contexts.
In addition, the service areas for all of the federal regional commissions and authorities are defined in statute and
thus can only be amended or modified through congressional action. While the exact service areas have shifted
over time, the general areas of service, as well as the services provided, have not changed significantly.
Of the eight federal regional commissions and authorities, five could be considered active and functioning as of
the date of publication: the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali
Commission; Northern Border Regional Commission; and the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission. A sixth
commission—the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC)—is expected to convene members and start
operations in FY2023. The Great Lakes Authority is inactive since it does not have a federal co-chair and has not
yet received appropriations. The funding authorization Northern Great Plans Regional Authority lapsed at the end
of FY2018 and it was not reauthorized.
The regional commissions and Delta Regional Authority each received $20 million to $200 million in annual
appropriations in FY2023 for their various activities. Each of the five functioning regional commissions and
authority engage in economic development to varying extents, and address multiple programmatic activities in
their respective service areas. These activities may include, but are not limited to, basic infrastructure; energy;
ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce; and business development/entrepreneurship.
Though they are federally chartered, receive congressional appropriations for their administration and activities,
and include an appointed federal representative in their respective leadership structures (the federal co-chair and
his/her alternate, as applicable), the federal regional commissions and authorities are quasi-governmental
partnerships between the federal government and the constituent state(s) of a given authority or commission. This
partnership structure includes substantial input and efforts at the sub-state level, and represents a unique federal
approach to economic development.
The federal regional commissions and authorities provide a model of functioning economic development
approaches that are place-based, intergovernmental, and multifaceted in their programmatic orientation (e.g.,
infrastructure, energy, environment/ecology, workforce, business development).
Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 31 link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 34 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................................................ 2
Overview of Structure and Activities ........................................................................................ 3
Commission Structure ......................................................................................................... 3
Strategic Plan ...................................................................................................................... 3
Designating Distressed Areas ............................................................................................. 4
Recent Activities ................................................................................................................. 5
Legislative History .................................................................................................................... 6
Appalachian Regional Development Act ............................................................................ 6
Major Amendments to the ARC .......................................................................................... 6
Funding History ........................................................................................................................ 8
Delta Regional Authority ................................................................................................................. 9
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 10
Authority Structure ........................................................................................................... 10
Strategic Plan ..................................................................................................................... 11
Designating Distressed Areas ............................................................................................ 11
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 12
States’ Economic Development Assistance Program ....................................................... 13
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 14
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 15
Denali Commission ....................................................................................................................... 16
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 16
Commission Structure ....................................................................................................... 17
Annual Work Plan and Strategic Plan ............................................................................... 17
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 17
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 18
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 19
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 20
Great Lakes Authority ................................................................................................................... 21
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 22
Authority Structure ........................................................................................................... 22
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 22
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 22
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 23
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 23
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 23
Northern Border Regional Commission ........................................................................................ 23
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 24
Commission Structure ....................................................................................................... 24
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 25
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 25
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 26
Local Development Districts (LDD)................................................................................. 28
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 28
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 29
Congressional Research Service
link to page 34 link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 37 link to page 37 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 7 link to page 15 link to page 21 link to page 27 link to page 29 link to page 35 link to page 38 link to page 41 link to page 46 link to page 48 link to page 14 link to page 20 link to page 26 link to page 34 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Northern Great Plains Regional Authority .................................................................................... 29
Structure and Activities ........................................................................................................... 30
Overview of Structure and Activities ................................................................................ 30
Activities ........................................................................................................................... 31
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 31
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 32
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .................................................................................... 32
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 33
Commission Structure ....................................................................................................... 33
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 34
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 34
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 34
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 35
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 35
Southwest Border Regional Commission ...................................................................................... 36
Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 36
Commission Structure ....................................................................................................... 36
Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 37
Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 37
Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 37
Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 37
Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 38
Concluding Notes .......................................................................................................................... 38

Figures
Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission ............................................................... 2
Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority ............................................................................. 10
Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission ..................................................................................... 16
Figure 4. Map of the Great Lakes Authority ................................................................................. 22
Figure 5. Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission ...................................................... 24
Figure 6. Map of the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority .................................................. 30
Figure 7. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .................................................. 33
Figure 8. Map of the Southwest Border Regional Commission .................................................... 36

Figure A-1. Structure and Activities of the Commissions and Authorities .................................... 41
Figure B-1. National Map of the Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities ....................... 43

Tables
Table 1. ARC: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023 ....................................... 9
Table 2. DRA: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023 .................................... 15
Table 3. Denali Commission: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023 ............. 21
Table 4. NBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023 ................................... 29
Congressional Research Service
link to page 40 link to page 43 link to page 45 link to page 49 link to page 52 link to page 53 link to page 54 link to page 55 link to page 55 link to page 56 link to page 57 link to page 58 link to page 45 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 52 link to page 58 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Table 5. SCRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023 .................................... 35
Table 6. SBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023 .................................... 38

Table A-1. Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities .......................................................... 40
Table C-1. Historical Appropriations: Federal Regional Commissions (FY1986-FY2023) ......... 44
Table D-1. Statutory Jurisdiction of ARC ..................................................................................... 47
Table D-2. Statutory Jurisdiction of DRA ..................................................................................... 48
Table D-3. Statutory Jurisdiction of Denali Commission .............................................................. 49
Table D-4. Statutory Jurisdiction of GLA ..................................................................................... 50
Table D-5. Statutory Jurisdiction of NBRC ................................................................................... 50
Table D-6. Statutory Jurisdiction of NGPRA ................................................................................ 51
Table D-7. Statutory Jurisdiction of SCRC ................................................................................... 52
Table D-8. Statutory Jurisdiction of SBRC ................................................................................... 53

Appendixes
Appendix A. Basic Information at a Glance .................................................................................. 40
Appendix B. Map of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities ......................................... 43
Appendix C. Historical Appropriations ......................................................................................... 44
Appendix D. Service Areas of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities........................... 47

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 53


Congressional Research Service
link to page 45 link to page 46 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Introduction
Congress authorized eight federal regional commissions and authorities Updated April 24, 2025 (R45997) Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Tables

Summary

This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of the 10 federal regional commissions and authorities. Those commissions are the

  • Appalachian Regional Commission;
  • Delta Regional Authority;
  • Denali Commission;
  • Great Lakes Authority;
  • Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission;
  • Northern Border Regional Commission;
  • Northern Great Plains Regional Authority;
  • Southern New England Regional Commission;
  • Southeast Crescent Regional Commission; and
  • Southwest Border Regional Commission.

Most of the regional commissions and authorities are modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission structure, which is composed of a federal co-chair appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the member state governors, of which one is appointed the state co-chair. This structure is broadly replicated in the other commissions and authorities, albeit with notable variations and exceptions to local contexts. In addition, the service areas for all of the federal regional commissions and authorities are defined in statute and thus can only be amended or modified through congressional action. While the exact service areas have shifted over time, the general areas of service, as well as the services provided, have not changed significantly.

Of the 10 federal regional commissions and authorities, six could be considered active and functioning as of the date of publication: the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; the Northern Border Regional Commission; the Southwest Border Regional Commission; and the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission. The Great Lakes Authority, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission, and the Southern New England Regional Commission are not yet active and they do not have a confirmed federal co-chair. The funding authorization for the Northern Great Plans Regional Authority (NGPRA) lapsed at the end of FY2018 and it was not reauthorized until FY2025. The NGPRA also lacks a confirmed federal co-chair.

Seven regional commissions and authorities each received $5 million to $200 million in annual appropriations in FY2025 for their various activities. Each of the six functioning regional commissions and authorities engage in economic development to varying extents, and address multiple programmatic activities in their respective service areas. These activities may include, but are not limited to, basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce; and business development/entrepreneurship.

Though they are federally chartered, receive congressional appropriations for their administration and activities, and include an appointed federal representative in their respective leadership structures (the federal co-chair and his/her alternate, as applicable), the federal regional commissions and authorities are quasi-governmental partnerships between the federal government and the constituent state(s) of a given authority or commission. This partnership structure includes substantial input and efforts at the sub-state level, and represents a unique federal approach to economic development.

The federal regional commissions and authorities provide a model of functioning economic development approaches that are place-based, intergovernmental, and multifaceted in their programmatic orientation (e.g., infrastructure, energy, environment/ecology, workforce, business development).

Introduction

Congress authorized 10 federal regional commissions and authorities (FRCAs) to address instances of to address instances of
major economic distress in certain defined socioeconomic regions major economic distress in certain defined socioeconomic regions (Table A-1):
 the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC);Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC);
 the Delta Regional Authority (DRA);Delta Regional Authority (DRA);
 the Denali Commission;
 the Great Lakes Authority (GLA);
 the
  • Denali Commission;
  • Great Lakes Authority (GLA);
  • Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission (MARC);
    • Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC);Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC);
     the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA);Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA);
     the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC); Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC); and
     the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC)Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC).
    ; and
  • Southern New England Regional Commission (SNERC).
    • The first such federal regional commission, the The first such federal regional commission, the Appalachian Regional CommissionARC, was founded , was founded
    in 1965. The other commissions and authorities may have roots in the intervening decades, but in 1965. The other commissions and authorities may have roots in the intervening decades, but
    were not founded until 1998 (Denaliwere not founded until 1998 (Denali Commission), 2000 (DRA), 2000 (Delta Regional Authority), and 2002 (the Northern
    Great Plains Regional Authority). The most recent commissions—Northern Border Regional
    Commission, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and Southwest Border Regional
    Commission—were authorized in 2008; the Great Lakes Authority was authorized in 2022.
    Six of the eight), and 2002 (the NGPRA). The NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC were authorized in 2008; the GLA was authorized in 2022.1 The MARC and SNERC are the most recently authorized FRCAs and were authorized in FY2025.2 Seven of the 10 entities currently receive annual appropriations: ARC, DRA, entities currently receive annual appropriations: ARC, DRA, GLA, the Denali the Denali
    Commission, Commission, the NBRC, NBRC, the SBRC, and SBRC, and the SCRC. Both SCRC. Both the SCRC and SBRC were inactive SCRC and SBRC were inactive
    until relatively recently. The SCRC received regular annual appropriations since FY2010, but until relatively recently. The SCRC received regular annual appropriations since FY2010, but
    lacked a Senate-confirmed federal co-chair until December 2021. The SBRC lacked a Senate-confirmed federal co-chair until December 2021. The SBRC was also inactive for
    approximately 15 years, and received its first appropriation in FY2021. In December 2022, the
    Senate confirmed the SBRC’s inaugural federal co-chair. Confirmation of thesereceived its first appropriation in FY2021, and lacked a federal co-chair until December 2022. Confirmation of the SCRC and SBRC federal co-chairs allowed federal co-chairs
    allows these two commissions to convene and begin their activities. these two commissions to convene and begin their activities.
    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to
    establish the GLA.1 The GLA does not yet have a federal co-chair. The NGPRA and GLA are
    currently inactive and have not received appropriations.
    The federal regional commissions The GLA, MARC, NGPRA, and SNERC are currently inactive FRCAs that lack a federal co-chair. The GLA received its first appropriation in FY2024.3 The MARC and SNERC are recently authorized FRCAs that have not received appropriations. The NGPRA has not received appropriations since FY2005. The FRCAs are functioning examples of place-based and intergovernmental are functioning examples of place-based and intergovernmental
    approaches to economic development, which receive regular congressional interest.approaches to economic development, which receive regular congressional interest.2 The federal
    regional commissions and authorities4 The FRCAs integrate federal and state economic development priorities integrate federal and state economic development priorities
    alongside regional and local considerations alongside regional and local considerations ((see Figure A-1). As federally chartered agencies created . As federally chartered agencies created
    by acts of Congress, the by acts of Congress, the federal regional commissions and authoritiesFRCAs depend on congressional depend on congressional
    appropriations for their activities and administration, and are subject to congressional oversight.appropriations for their activities and administration, and are subject to congressional oversight.
    Certain strategic emphases and programs have evolved over time in each of the functioning Certain strategic emphases and programs have evolved over time in each of the functioning
    federal regional commissions and authoritiesFRCAs. However, their overarching missions to address economic distress have not changed, and their associated activities have broadly remained consistent to those goals as funding has allowed. In practice, the FRCAs engage in their respective economic development efforts through multiple program areas, which may include, but are not limited to basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce; and business development/entrepreneurship. This report describes the structure, recent activities, legislative history, and funding history of 10 federally chartered regional commissions and authorities.

    "Subtitle V" Regional Commissions

    The GLA, MARC, NBRC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC are all authorized by 40 U.S.C. Subtitle V, as amended, leading some experts to group them as "Subtitle V FRCAs." These six FRCAs have the most in common with each other in terms of structure, administrative powers, and programs. The four Subtitle V FRCAs authorized prior to the enactment of the EDRA included the GLA, NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC. EDRA amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish two new FRCAs—the MARC and SNERC. Appalachian Regional Commission The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)     . However, their overarching missions to address

    1 Division O, Title IV, Sec. 401 of P.L. 117-328.
    2 See, for example, recent congressional interest and legislative action on new place-based programs such as the
    Department of Commerce Recompete and Technology and Innovation Hub programs (authorized in FY2022 by P.L.
    117-167); Opportunity Zones (CRS Report R45152, Tax Incentives for Opportunity Zones, by Donald J. Marples); and
    New Market Tax Credits (CRS Report RL34402, New Markets Tax Credit: An Introduction, by Donald J. Marples),
    and previous federal and congressional action on “Promise Zones” (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
    Development, Promise Zones Overview, https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/promise-zones/promise-zones-
    overview/); as well as various legislation relating to the federal regional commissions and authorities themselves.
    Congressional Research Service

    1
    link to page 7
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    economic distress have not changed, and their associated activities have broadly remained
    consistent to those goals as funding has allowed. In practice, the functioning federal regional
    commissions and authorities engage in their respective economic development efforts through
    multiple program areas, which may include, but are not limited to basic infrastructure; energy;
    ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce; and business
    development/entrepreneurship. This report describes the structure, recent activities, legislative
    history, and funding history of eight federally chartered regional commissions and authorities.
    Appalachian Regional Commission
    The Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965 to address economic distress in was established in 1965 to address economic distress in
    the Appalachian region.the Appalachian region.35 The ARC The ARC’'s jurisdiction spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia, s jurisdiction spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia,
    Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
    Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West VirginiaVirginia (Figure 1). The ARC was originally created to . The ARC was originally created to
    address severe economic disparities between Appalachia and that of the broader United States; address severe economic disparities between Appalachia and that of the broader United States;
    recently, its mission has grown to include regional competitiveness in a global economic recently, its mission has grown to include regional competitiveness in a global economic
    environment.environment.

    Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission
    ARC service area, by designations of county distress, FY2023

    Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and Appalachian Regional CommissionCompiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and Appalachian Regional Commission, Classifying
    Economic Distress in Appalachian Counties    , https://www.arc.gov/classifying-economic-distress-in-appalachian-
    counties.

    3 40 U.S.C. §§14101-14704.
    Congressional Research Service

    2
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    . Overview of Structure and Activities
    Commission Structure
    According to the authorizing legislation, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as According to the authorizing legislation, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
    amended,amended,46 the ARC is a federally chartered, regional economic development entity led by a the ARC is a federally chartered, regional economic development entity led by a
    federal co-chair, whose term is open-ended, and the 13 participating state governors, of which one federal co-chair, whose term is open-ended, and the 13 participating state governors, of which one
    serves as the state co-chair for a term of serves as the state co-chair for a term of “"at least one year.at least one year.”5"7 The federal co-chair is appointed by The federal co-chair is appointed by
    the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The authorizing act also allows for the the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The authorizing act also allows for the
    appointment of federal and state alternates to the commission. The ARC is a federal-state appointment of federal and state alternates to the commission. The ARC is a federal-state
    partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal government and member partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal government and member
    states, while economic development activities are funded by congressional appropriations.states, while economic development activities are funded by congressional appropriations.
    Strategic Plan
    According to authorizing legislation and the ARC According to authorizing legislation and the ARC code,6Code,8 the ARC the ARC’'s programs abide by a s programs abide by a
    Regional Development Plan (RDP), which includes documents prepared by the states and the Regional Development Plan (RDP), which includes documents prepared by the states and the
    commission. The RDP is comprised of the ARCcommission. The RDP is comprised of the ARC’'s strategic plan, its bylaws, member state s strategic plan, its bylaws, member state
    development plans, each participating statedevelopment plans, each participating state’'s annual strategy statement, the commissions annual strategy statement, the commission’'s annual s annual
    program budget, and the commissionprogram budget, and the commission’'s internal implementation and performance management s internal implementation and performance management
    guidelines.guidelines.
    The RDP integrates local, state, and federal economic development priorities into a common The RDP integrates local, state, and federal economic development priorities into a common
    regional agenda. Through state plans and annual work statements, states establish goals, regional agenda. Through state plans and annual work statements, states establish goals,
    priorities, and agendas for fulfilling them. State planning typically includes consulting with local priorities, and agendas for fulfilling them. State planning typically includes consulting with local
    development districts (LDDs), which are multicounty organizations that are associated with and development districts (LDDs), which are multicounty organizations that are associated with and
    financially supported by the ARC and advise on local priorities.financially supported by the ARC and advise on local priorities.7
    9 There are 74 ARC-associated LDDs. They may be conduits for funding for other eligible There are 74 ARC-associated LDDs. They may be conduits for funding for other eligible
    organizations, and may also themselves be ARC grantees.organizations, and may also themselves be ARC grantees.810 State and local governments, State and local governments,
    governmental entities, and nonprofit organizations are eligible for ARC investments, including governmental entities, and nonprofit organizations are eligible for ARC investments, including
    both federal- and state-designated tribal entities. both federal- and state-designated tribal entities. Notably, stateState-designated tribal entities that are -designated tribal entities that are
    not federally recognized (or not federally recognized (or “"lack federal recognitionlack federal recognition”") are nevertheless eligible to receive ARC ) are nevertheless eligible to receive ARC
    funding. This is rare, as usually federal funding requires federal recognition.9

    4 P.L. 89-4.
    5 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC Code, 2022, https://www.arc.gov/arc-code.
    6 Ibid. The ARC Code reflects ARC decisions and current ARC policy. The ARC Code is a statement of ARC
    decisions adopted through resolutions and motions. Under Section 101(b) of the Appalachian Regional Development
    Act (ARDA), the ARC Code cannot be modified or revised without a quorum of governors.
    7 LDDs are not exclusive to the ARC. The DRA and NBRC also make use of them, and other inactive commissions and
    authorities are authorized to organize and/or support them. Designated LDDs may also be organized as Economic
    Development Administration (EDA)-designated economic development districts (EDDs), which serve a similar
    purpose. They may also be co-located with Small Business Administration-affiliated small business development
    centers (SBDCs).
    8 Appalachian Regional Commission, Local Development Districts, https://www.arc.gov/local-development-districts/.
    9 See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Issues: Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes,
    12-348, April 2012, https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590102.pdf.
    Congressional Research Service

    3
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    ARC’funding. This is rare, as usually federal funding requires federal recognition.11 ARC's strategic plan is a five-year document, reviewed annually, and revised as necessary. The s strategic plan is a five-year document, reviewed annually, and revised as necessary. The
    current strategic plan, adopted in October 2021,current strategic plan, adopted in October 2021,1012 prioritizes five investment goals: prioritizes five investment goals:
    1. 1. entrepreneurial and business development;entrepreneurial and business development;
    2. 2. workforce development;workforce development;
    3. 3. infrastructure development;infrastructure development;
    4. 4. natural and cultural assets; andnatural and cultural assets; and
    5. 5. leadership and community capacity.leadership and community capacity.
    The ARCThe ARC’'s 13 member states also develop four-year plans and annual strategy statements that s 13 member states also develop four-year plans and annual strategy statements that
    outline their statesoutline their states’' funding priorities for ARC projects. funding priorities for ARC projects.11
    13 Designating Distressed Areas
    The ARC is statutorily obligated to allocate at least 50% of funding to distressed areas.The ARC is statutorily obligated to allocate at least 50% of funding to distressed areas.1214 The The
    ARC is also statutorily obligated to designate counties by level of economic distress.ARC is also statutorily obligated to designate counties by level of economic distress.1315 Distress Distress
    designations influence funding priority and determine grant match requirements. Using an index-designations influence funding priority and determine grant match requirements. Using an index-
    based classification system, the ARC compares each county within its jurisdiction with national based classification system, the ARC compares each county within its jurisdiction with national
    averages based on three economic indicators:averages based on three economic indicators:1416 (1) three-year average unemployment rates; (2) (1) three-year average unemployment rates; (2)
    per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a composite per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a composite
    index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress levels. Each index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress levels. Each
    distress level corresponds to a given countydistress level corresponds to a given county’'s ranking relative to that of the United States as a s ranking relative to that of the United States as a
    whole. These designations are defined as follows by the ARC, starting from whole. These designations are defined as follows by the ARC, starting from “worst” distress:15
    "worst" distress:17distressed counties, or those with values in the counties, or those with values in the “worst”"worst" 10% of U.S. counties; 10% of U.S. counties;
    at-risk, which rank between worst 10% and 25%;, which rank between worst 10% and 25%;
    transitional, which rank between worst 25% and best 25%;, which rank between worst 25% and best 25%;
    competitive, which rank between , which rank between “best”"best" 25% and best 10%; and 25% and best 10%; and
    attainment, or those which rank in the best 10%., or those which rank in the best 10%.
    The designated level of distress is statutorily tied to allowable funding levels by the ARC The designated level of distress is statutorily tied to allowable funding levels by the ARC
    (funding allowance), the balance of which must be met through grant matches from other funding (funding allowance), the balance of which must be met through grant matches from other funding
    sources (including potentially other federal funds) unless a waiver or special dispensation is sources (including potentially other federal funds) unless a waiver or special dispensation is
    permitted: distressed (80% funding allowance, 20% grant match); at-risk (70%); transitional permitted: distressed (80% funding allowance, 20% grant match); at-risk (70%); transitional
    (50%); competitive (30%); and attainment (0% funding allowance). Exceptions can be made to (50%); competitive (30%); and attainment (0% funding allowance). Exceptions can be made to
    grant match thresholds. Attainment counties may be able to receive funding for projects where grant match thresholds. Attainment counties may be able to receive funding for projects where
    sub-county areas are considered to be at higher levels of distress, and/or in those cases where the sub-county areas are considered to be at higher levels of distress, and/or in those cases where the
    inclusion of an attainment county in a multi-county project would benefit one or more

    10 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia Envisioned: A New Era of Opportunity, Strategic Plan FY 2022-
    2026    , https://www.arc.gov/strategicplan/.
    11 See, for example, state plans available at Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian States,
    https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-states/.
    12 42 U.S.C. §14524.
    13 42 U.S.C. §14526.
    14 Appalachian Regional Commission, Classifying Economic Distress in Appalachian Counties, https://www.arc.gov/
    classifying-economic-distress-in-appalachian-counties.
    15 Appalachian Regional Commission, Distressed Designation and County Economic Status Classification System,
    https://www.arc.gov/distressed-designation-and-county-economic-status-classification-system.
    Congressional Research Service

    4
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    inclusion of an attainment county in a multi-county project would benefit one or more nonattainment counties or areas. In addition, special allowances may reduce or discharge nonattainment counties or areas. In addition, special allowances may reduce or discharge
    matches, and match requirements may be met with other federal funds.matches, and match requirements may be met with other federal funds.
    Recent Activities16
    Activities18 ARC makes grant investments through the following core programs:ARC makes grant investments through the following core programs:17
    19Area Development (i.e., the (i.e., the “base”"base" grant program). This funding is for building grant program). This funding is for building
    community capacity and supporting economic growth broadly. This program also community capacity and supporting economic growth broadly. This program also
    provides funding for local development districts (LDDs)provides funding for local development districts (LDDs), access to capital initiatives, and funding for business and funding for business
    development revolving loan funds (RLFs).development revolving loan funds (RLFs).18
    20 Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
    Revitalization (POWER) Initiative. The POWER Initiative provides funding for ARC communities The POWER Initiative provides funding for ARC communities
    disproportionately affected by the downturn of the coal industry.disproportionately affected by the downturn of the coal industry.19
    21 Initiative for Substance Abuse Mitigation (INSPIRE). INSPIRE funding is provided to INSPIRE funding is provided to
    initiatives designed to address challenges related to substance use disorder (SUD), such initiatives designed to address challenges related to substance use disorder (SUD), such
    as efforts to support workforce entry or re-entry and other recovery ecosystem projects.as efforts to support workforce entry or re-entry and other recovery ecosystem projects.20
    22 Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies (ARISE). ARC established ARC established
    the ARISE initiative in 2022 to support large-scale, multi-state projects.the ARISE initiative in 2022 to support large-scale, multi-state projects.21
    23
  • READY Appalachia. ARC provides five grant opportunities designed to strengthen economically distressed communities through the READY Appalachia initiative. The grants support projects that build individual, organizational, and/or community capacity.24
    • Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Grant Initiative.     ARC ARC
    partners with the U.S. Department of Laborpartners with the U.S. Department of Labor’'s Employment and Training Administration s Employment and Training Administration
    to design workforce development initiatives, with funding provided through the to design workforce development initiatives, with funding provided through the DOL.22
    Department of Labor (DOL).25In addition to its grant programs, ARC activities include various partnerships and ongoing In addition to its grant programs, ARC activities include various partnerships and ongoing
    initiatives (e.g., the J-1 Visa waiver programinitiatives (e.g., the J-1 Visa waiver program, the Appalachian Regional Energy Hub Initiative, and various academies and institutes). and various academies and institutes).2326 ARC ARC
    collaborates with federal, state, and local agencies to develop the Appalachian Development collaborates with federal, state, and local agencies to develop the Appalachian Development
    Highway System (ADHS) and Local Roads program.Highway System (ADHS) and Local Roads program.2427 Additionally, ARC Additionally, ARC’'s research office issues Requests for Proposals for research and evaluation contracts on topics directly affecting economic development in the Appalachian region.28

    ARC collaborates with various federal agencies on programs and initiatives. In recent years, Congress has directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide approximately $2-3 million annually to ARC for USDA Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) grants to support rural economic development activities in the Appalachian region.29 Other federal and interagency working group partners include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), among others.30

    Legislative History Appalachian Regional Development Act In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Appalachian Regional Development Act,31 which created the ARC to address the President's Appalachian Regional Commission (PARC)    s research office issues

    16 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on
    additional Appalachian Regional Commission activities, see https://www.arc.gov.
    17 Appalachian Regional Commission, About ARC Grants, https://www.arc.gov/about-arc-grants/; and Grants and
    Opportunities,     https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities.
    18 Appalachian Regional Commission, Area Development, https://www.arc.gov/area-development-program/. For more
    information on revolving loan funds, see CRS In Focus IF11449, Economic Development Revolving Loan Funds (ED-
    RLFs)    , by Julie M. Lawhorn.
    19 Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
    Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/power.
    20 Appalachian Regional Commission, Investments Supporting Partnerships in Recovery Ecosystems Initiative,
    https://www.arc.gov/sud.
    21 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies, https://www.arc.gov/
    arise.
    22 Appalachian Regional Commission, Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities, https://www.arc.gov/workforce-
    opportunity-for-rural-communities-worc.
    23 See Appalachian Regional Commission, Additional Opportunities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities.
    24 40 U.S.C. §14501. Congress authorized construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System as part of
    ARC’s original enabling legislation in 1965. See also “Appalachian Development Highway System Program (ADHS;
    IIJA Division J, Title VIII),” in CRS Report R47022, Federal Highway Programs: In Brief, by Robert S. Kirk;
    Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Development Highway System, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-
    development-highway-system; and Transportation in Appalachia, https://www.arc.gov/transportation-in-appalachia.
    Congressional Research Service

    5
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Requests for Proposals for research and evaluation contracts on topics directly affecting economic
    development in the Appalachian region.25
    Legislative History
    Appalachian Regional Development Act
    In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Appalachian Regional Development Act,26 which
    created the ARC to address the PARC’s recommendations, and added counties in New York and recommendations, and added counties in New York and
    Mississippi. The ARC was directed to administer or assist in the following initiatives:Mississippi. The ARC was directed to administer or assist in the following initiatives:
    The creation of the Appalachian The creation of the Appalachian
    Development Highway System;Development Highway System;
    The Council of Appalachian Governors
     Establishing “Demonstration Health

    Facilities” to fund health
  • Establishing "Demonstration Health Facilities" to fund health infrastructure;
  • Land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control programs;
  • Timber development organizations, for purposes of forest management;
  • Mining area restoration, for rehabilitating and/or revitalizing mining sites;
  • A water resources survey;
  • Vocational education programs; and
  • Sewage treatment infrastructure.

    • The Council of Appalachian Governors

    Prior to the establishment of ARC, in 1960, the     Prior to the establishment of ARC, in 1960, the
    infrastructure;
    Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North
    Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
     Land stabilization, conservation, and
    Virginia governors formed the Council of Appalachian Virginia governors formed the Council of Appalachian
    erosion control programs;
    Governors to highlight AppalachiaGovernors to highlight Appalachia’'s extended s extended

    economic distress and to press for increased federal economic distress and to press for increased federal
    Timber development organizations,
    involvement. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy involvement. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy
    for purposes of forest management;
    formed the Presidentformed the President’'s Appalachian Regional s Appalachian Regional
     Mining area restoration, for
    Commission (PARC) and charged it with developing an Commission (PARC) and charged it with developing an
    rehabilitating and/or revitalizing
    economic development program for the region. economic development program for the region.
    PARC’PARC's report, issued in 1964, s report, issued in 1964, cal edcalled for the creation for the creation
    mining sites;
    of an independent agency to coordinate federal and of an independent agency to coordinate federal and
     A water resources survey;
    state efforts to address infrastructure, natural state efforts to address infrastructure, natural
    resources, and human capital issues in the region. The resources, and human capital issues in the region. The
     Vocational education programs; and
    PARC also included some Ohio counties as part of the PARC also included some Ohio counties as part of the

    Appalachian region.27
    Sewage treatment infrastructure.
    Appalachian region.32 Major Amendments to the ARC
    Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 1975
    In 1975, the ARCIn 1975, the ARC’'s authorizing legislation was amended to require that state governors s authorizing legislation was amended to require that state governors
    themselves serve as the state representatives on the commission, overriding original statutory themselves serve as the state representatives on the commission, overriding original statutory
    language in which governors were permitted to appoint designated representatives.language in which governors were permitted to appoint designated representatives.2833 The The
    amendments also included provisions to expand public participation in ARC plans and programs. amendments also included provisions to expand public participation in ARC plans and programs.
    They also required states to consult with local development districts and local governments and They also required states to consult with local development districts and local governments and
    authorized federal grants to the ARC to assist states in enhancing state development planning.authorized federal grants to the ARC to assist states in enhancing state development planning.

    25 Appalachian Regional Commission, Research and Data, https://www.arc.gov/research-and-data.
    26 P.L. 89-4.
    27 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC History, https://www.arc.gov/about/ARCHistory.asp; and Appalachian
    Regional Commission, Appalachia: A Report by the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission, 1964, April 1964.
    28 P.L. 94-188.
    Congressional Research Service

    6
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Appalachian Regional Development Reform Act of 1998
    Appalachian Regional Development Reform Act of 1998
    Legislative reforms in 1998 introduced county-level designations of distress.Legislative reforms in 1998 introduced county-level designations of distress.2934 The legislation The legislation
    organized county-level distress into three bands, from organized county-level distress into three bands, from “worst” to “best”"worst" to "best": distressed counties; : distressed counties;
    competitive counties; and attainment counties. The act imposed limitations on funding for competitive counties; and attainment counties. The act imposed limitations on funding for
    economically strong counties: (1) economically strong counties: (1) “"competitive,competitive,”" which could only accept ARC funding for 30% which could only accept ARC funding for 30%
    of project costs (with the 70% balance being subject to grant match requirements); and (2) of project costs (with the 70% balance being subject to grant match requirements); and (2)
    “"attainment,attainment,”" which were generally ineligible for funding, except through waivers or exceptions. which were generally ineligible for funding, except through waivers or exceptions.
    In addition, the act withdrew the ARCIn addition, the act withdrew the ARC’'s legislative mandate for certain programs, including the s legislative mandate for certain programs, including the
    land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control program; the timber development program; land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control program; the timber development program;
    the mining area restoration program; the water resource development and utilization survey; the the mining area restoration program; the water resource development and utilization survey; the
    Appalachian airport safety improvements program (a program added in 1971); the sewage Appalachian airport safety improvements program (a program added in 1971); the sewage
    treatment works program; and amendments to the Housing Act of 1954 from the original 1965 treatment works program; and amendments to the Housing Act of 1954 from the original 1965
    act.act.
    Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2002
    Legislation in 2002 expanded the ARCLegislation in 2002 expanded the ARC’'s ability to support LDDs, introduced an emphasis on s ability to support LDDs, introduced an emphasis on
    ecological issues, and provided for a greater coordinating role by the ARC in federal economic ecological issues, and provided for a greater coordinating role by the ARC in federal economic
    development activities.development activities.3035 The amendments also provided new stipulations for the ARC The amendments also provided new stipulations for the ARC’'s grant s grant
    making, limiting the organization to funding 50% of project costs or 80% in designated distressed making, limiting the organization to funding 50% of project costs or 80% in designated distressed
    counties. The amendments also expanded the ARCcounties. The amendments also expanded the ARC’'s efforts in human capital development s efforts in human capital development
    projects, such as through various vocational, entrepreneurial, and skill training initiatives.projects, such as through various vocational, entrepreneurial, and skill training initiatives.
    The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008
    The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 made adjustments to the The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 made adjustments to the
    ARC’ARC's grant authorities and extended its geographic reach. The amendments includeds grant authorities and extended its geographic reach. The amendments included
    1. 1. various limitations on project funding amounts and commission contributions;various limitations on project funding amounts and commission contributions;
    2. 2. the establishment of an economic and energy development initiative;the establishment of an economic and energy development initiative;
    3. 3. the expansion of county designations to include an the expansion of county designations to include an “"at-riskat-risk”" designation; and designation; and
    4. 4. the expansion of the number of counties under the ARCthe expansion of the number of counties under the ARC’'s jurisdiction.s jurisdiction.31
    36 The 2008 amendments introduced funding limitations for ARC grant activities as a whole, as well The 2008 amendments introduced funding limitations for ARC grant activities as a whole, as well
    as to specific programs. According to the 2008 legislation, as to specific programs. According to the 2008 legislation, “"the amount of the grant shall not the amount of the grant shall not
    exceed 50 percent of administrative expenses.exceed 50 percent of administrative expenses.”" However, at the ARC However, at the ARC’'s discretion, an LDD that s discretion, an LDD that
    included a included a “distressed”"distressed" county in its service area could provide for 75% of administrative county in its service area could provide for 75% of administrative
    expenses of a relevant project, or 70% for expenses of a relevant project, or 70% for “"at-riskat-risk”" counties. Eligible activities could only be counties. Eligible activities could only be
    funded by the ARC at a maximum of 50% of the project cost,funded by the ARC at a maximum of 50% of the project cost,3237 or 80% for distressed counties and or 80% for distressed counties and
    70% for 70% for “"at-riskat-risk”" counties. The act introduced special project categories, including counties. The act introduced special project categories, including
    demonstration health projects;demonstration health projects;
    assistance for proposed low- and middle-income housing projects;assistance for proposed low- and middle-income housing projects;

    29 P.L. 105-393.
    30 P.L. 107-149.
    31 P.L. 110-371.
    32 Where allowable, nonappropriated funds—such as those from states or localities—or even other non-ARC federal
    funds may be used to fund the balance of the project costs.
    Congressional Research Service

    7
    link to page 14 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    the telecommunications and technology initiative;the telecommunications and technology initiative;
    the entrepreneurship initiative; andthe entrepreneurship initiative; and
    the regional skills partnership.the regional skills partnership.
    Finally, the Finally, the “"economic and energy development initiativeeconomic and energy development initiative”" provided for the ARC to fund provided for the ARC to fund
    activities supporting energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The legislation expanded activities supporting energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The legislation expanded
    distress designations to include an distress designations to include an “"at-riskat-risk”" category, or counties category, or counties “"most at risk of becoming most at risk of becoming
    economically distressed.economically distressed.”" This raised the number of distress levels to five. This raised the number of distress levels to five.3338 The legislation also The legislation also
    expanded ARCexpanded ARC’'s service area. Ten counties in four states were added to the ARC.s service area. Ten counties in four states were added to the ARC.
    The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (P.L. 115-271) of 2018
    The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (the SUPPORT Act, P.L. 115-271), enacted in The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (the SUPPORT Act, P.L. 115-271), enacted in
    June 2018, authorized the ARC to support projects and activities that address substance abuse, June 2018, authorized the ARC to support projects and activities that address substance abuse,
    including opioid abuse, in the region.including opioid abuse, in the region.34
    39 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) of 2021
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted in November 2021, extended the The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted in November 2021, extended the
    ARC’ARC's authorization and provided funding for it through FY2026.s authorization and provided funding for it through FY2026.
    Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations at $200 million a year for each fiscal year Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations at $200 million a year for each fiscal year
    through FY2026. Within those overall authorized appropriations, the act specifically authorized through FY2026. Within those overall authorized appropriations, the act specifically authorized
    the ARC to use $20 million annually for expansion of high-speed broadband activities (an the ARC to use $20 million annually for expansion of high-speed broadband activities (an
    increase from $10 million annually) and directed ARC to allocate $5 million annually for newly increase from $10 million annually) and directed ARC to allocate $5 million annually for newly
    authorized Appalachian Regional Energy Hub activities. The act addressed the ARCauthorized Appalachian Regional Energy Hub activities. The act addressed the ARC’'s broadband s broadband
    authorization, and outlined additional aspects of the agencyauthorization, and outlined additional aspects of the agency’'s broadband and regional energy hub s broadband and regional energy hub
    initiatives. The act also required congressional notification for grants over $50,000.initiatives. The act also required congressional notification for grants over $50,000.3540
    Additionally, three counties in two states were added to the ARC.Additionally, three counties in two states were added to the ARC. 36
    Funding History
    41 The Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA) of 2024

    The ARC was not reauthorized in EDRA. As aforementioned, the ARC was last reauthorized in the IIJA (P.L. 117-58). However, EDRA allowed ARC (and other FRCA) funding to be used for the nonfederal match in EDA projects.42

    Funding History     The ARC is a federal-state partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal The ARC is a federal-state partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal
    government and states, while economic development activities are federally funded. The ARC is government and states, while economic development activities are federally funded. The ARC is
    also the highest-funded of the also the highest-funded of the federal regional commissions and authorities. Its funding (Table 1)
    FRCAs. Its funding increased 174% from approximately $73 million in FY2008 to $200 million in increased 174% from approximately $73 million in FY2008 to $200 million in FY2023
    FY2025 (excluding advanced appropriations provided by the IIJA). In FY2025, annual and supplemental appropriations for the ARC totaled over four times the amount provided in FY2015 (see Table 1). As noted above, Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations of $200 million for the ARC for each of FY2022 through FY2026, and Division J appropriated the authorized level of funding.43 (excluding advanced appropriations provided by the IIJA).
    As noted above, Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations of $200 million for the ARC for
    each of FY2022 through FY2026, and Division J appropriated the authorized level of funding.37

    33 The five designations of distress are: distressed, at-risk, transitional, competitive, and attainment. The “transitional”
    designation is not defined in statute, unlike the other four categories, but it is utilized as part of the five-level distress
    criteria nonetheless.
    34 P.L. 115-271, Title VIII, Subtitle E—Treating Barriers to Prosperity, Sec. 8062.
    35 Division A, Sec. 11506 of P.L. 117-58.
    36 Union County, SC; Catawba County, NC; and Cleveland County, NC, were added to the ARC region (Division A,
    Sec. 11506(a) of P.L. 117-58).
    37 P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III. The IIJA also provided $1.25 billion over five years (FY2022-FY2026) for the
    Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) through the Federal Highway Administration (P.L. 117-58,
    Division J, Title VIII).
    Congressional Research Service

    8
    link to page 14 link to page 49 link to page 15 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    The $1 billion appropriation in Division J is made available in equal $200 million shares across The $1 billion appropriation in Division J is made available in equal $200 million shares across
    each of the five fiscal years, and each tranche remains available until it is expended.each of the five fiscal years, and each tranche remains available until it is expended.
    The ARCThe ARC’'s funding growth is attributable to incremental increases in appropriations along with s funding growth is attributable to incremental increases in appropriations along with
    an increase in annual appropriations set aside since FY2016 to support the an increase in annual appropriations set aside since FY2016 to support the POWER Initiative.38 In
    FY2023, Congress directed ARC to allocate $65 million to the Partnerships for Opportunity and Partnerships for Opportunity and
    Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative.Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative.3944 The POWER Initiative began in The POWER Initiative began in
    2015 to provide economic development funding for addressing economic and labor dislocations 2015 to provide economic development funding for addressing economic and labor dislocations
    caused by energy transition principally in coal communities in the Appalachian region.caused by energy transition principally in coal communities in the Appalachian region.40

    Table 1. ARC: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
    $ in millions

    FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
    FY21
    FY22a
    FY23
    Appropriated
    80.3
    90.0
    146.0
    152.0
    155.0
    165.0
    175.0
    180.0
    395.0
    400.00
    Funding
    Authorized
    110.0
    110.0
    110.0
    110.0
    110.0
    110.0
    110.0
    110.0
    200.0
    200.00
    Funding
    45 In FY2023 and FY2024, Congress directed ARC to allocate $65 million each year to the POWER Initiative.46 Table 1. ARC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2015-FY2025

    ($ in millions)

    FY15

    FY16

    FY17

    FY18

    FY19

    FY20

    FY21

    FY22

    FY23

    FY24

    FY25

    Appropriated Funding

    90

    146

    152

    155

    165

    175

    180

    395

    400

    400

    400

    Authorized Funding

    110

    110

    110

    110.0

    110

    110

    110

    200

    200

    200

    200

     Sources: Authorized funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 110-234Authorized funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 110-234, , P.L. 113-79P.L. 113-79, , P.L. 115-334P.L. 115-334, ,
    and P.L. 116-159P.L. 116-159, and P.L. 117-58. Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from. Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from: P.L. 113-76P.L. 113-76; , P.L. 113-235P.L. 113-235; , P.L. P.L.
    114-113114-113; , P.L. 115-31P.L. 115-31; , P.L. 115-141P.L. 115-141; , P.L. 115-244P.L. 115-244; , P.L. 116-94P.L. 116-94; , P.L. 116-260P.L. 116-260; , P.L. 117-58P.L. 117-58; , P.L. 117-103P.L. 117-103; and , P.L. P.L.
    117-328117-328.
    Notes, P.L. 118-42, and P.L. 119-4. Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, seesee Table C-1. The appropriated funding amounts for FY2022-FY2025 include $200 million Table C-1.
    a. FY2022 includes $195 mil ion provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103,
    Division D, Title IV). FY2022 and FY2023 appropriated funding amounts include $200 mil ion for each fiscal for each fiscal
    year provided by the Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III). The IIJA provided $200 year provided by the Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III). The IIJA provided $200
    mil ionmillion in advance appropriations for the ARC in each fiscal year from FY2022 through FY2026. FY2022 in advance appropriations for the ARC in each fiscal year from FY2022 through FY2026. FY2022
    amounts do not include appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian amounts do not include appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian
    Development Highway System (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title VIII).Development Highway System (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title VIII).
    Delta Regional Authority
    The Delta Regional Authority The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) was established in 2000 to address economic distress in the was established in 2000 to address economic distress in the
    Mississippi River Delta region.Mississippi River Delta region.4147 The DRA aims to The DRA aims to “"improve regional economic opportunity by improve regional economic opportunity by
    helping to create jobs, build communities, and improve the lives of the 10 million peoplehelping to create jobs, build communities, and improve the lives of the 10 million people”42"48 in 255 in
    252 designated counties and parishes in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, designated counties and parishes in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
    Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee (Figure 2).

    38 P.L. 114-113.
    39 Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
    (POWER) Initiative    , https://www.arc.gov/funding/POWER.asp.
    40 For more information on the POWER Initiative, see CRS Report R46015, The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition
    as Economic Development    , by Julie M. Lawhorn; and The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, FACT SHEET:
    The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative    , March 27, 2015,
    https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforce-
    and-economic-revitaliz.
    41 P.L. 106-554, Appendix D, Title V—Lower Mississippi River Region.
    42 Delta Regional Authority, About Delta Regional Authority, https://dra.gov/about.
    Congressional Research Service

    9
    link to page 19
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority
    DRA service area, by designations of county distress, FY2023

    Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and data provided to CRS by email from the
    Delta Regional Authority (2/10/23).
    (Figure 2).

    Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority

    Source: Compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 118-272 and Esri Data and Map<del>s</del>.

    Overview of Structure and Activities
    Authority Structure
    Like the ARC, the DRA is a federal-state partnership that shares administrative expenses equally, Like the ARC, the DRA is a federal-state partnership that shares administrative expenses equally,
    while activities are federally funded. The DRA consists of a federal co-chair appointed by the while activities are federally funded. The DRA consists of a federal co-chair appointed by the
    President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the eight state governors, of which one is President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the eight state governors, of which one is
    state co-chair. The governors are permitted to appoint a designee to represent the state, who also state co-chair. The governors are permitted to appoint a designee to represent the state, who also
    generally serves as the state alternate.generally serves as the state alternate.43
    49 Entities that are eligible to apply for DRA funding includeEntities that are eligible to apply for DRA funding include
    1. 1. state and local governments (state agencies, cities and counties/parishes);state and local governments (state agencies, cities and counties/parishes);
    2. 2. public bodies; andpublic bodies; and
    3. 3. nonprofit entities.nonprofit entities.
    These entities must apply for projects that operate in or are serving residents and communities These entities must apply for projects that operate in or are serving residents and communities
    within the within the 252255 counties/parishes of the DRA counties/parishes of the DRA’'s jurisdiction. Unlike the s jurisdiction. Unlike the other federal regional
    commissions and authoritiesFRCAs, the DRA, the DRA’'s service area is defined not in any one piece of legislation s service area is defined not in any one piece of legislation
    but through multiple legislative developments (see but through multiple legislative developments (see "“Legislative History”)"). In addition, there . In addition, there
    appears to be a mechanism for adding counties/parishes to the Authority administratively based appears to be a mechanism for adding counties/parishes to the Authority administratively based
    on bill text in the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 from the on bill text in the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 from the 103rd103rd Congress ( Congress (P.L. 103-433P.L. 103-

    43 7 U.S.C. §2009aa.
    Congressional Research Service

    10
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    433), which incorporated H.R. 4043, the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiatives Act of 1994 as Title ), which incorporated H.R. 4043, the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiatives Act of 1994 as Title
    XI of the bill.XI of the bill.44
    50 Strategic Plan
    Funding determinations are assessed according to the DRAFunding determinations are assessed according to the DRA’'s authorizing statute, its strategic s authorizing statute, its strategic
    plan, distress designations, and state priorities. The DRA strategic plan articulates the authorityplan, distress designations, and state priorities. The DRA strategic plan articulates the authority’s
    's high-level economic development priorities. The current strategic plan—high-level economic development priorities. The current strategic plan—Navigating the Currents
    of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV    IV—was released in February 2023 for the —was released in February 2023 for the
    2023-2027 period.2023-2027 period.45
    51 The strategic plan lists four primary goals:The strategic plan lists four primary goals:
    1. 1. Invest in public infrastructure;Invest in public infrastructure;
    2. 2. Nurture local workforce ecosystems;Nurture local workforce ecosystems;
    3. 3. Promote business growth and entrepreneurship; andPromote business growth and entrepreneurship; and
    4. 4. Support community place-making and capacity-building.Support community place-making and capacity-building.
    States provide development plans that reflect the economic development goals and priorities of States provide development plans that reflect the economic development goals and priorities of
    member states and LDDs.member states and LDDs.46
    52 DRA projects are developed in coordination with its 45 LDDs,DRA projects are developed in coordination with its 45 LDDs,4753 which are multicounty economic which are multicounty economic
    development organizations financially supported by the DRA and advise on local priorities. development organizations financially supported by the DRA and advise on local priorities.
    LDDs LDDs “"provide technical assistance, application support and review, and other servicesprovide technical assistance, application support and review, and other services”" to the to the
    DRA and entities applying for funding. LDDs receive administrative fees paid from awarded DRA and entities applying for funding. LDDs receive administrative fees paid from awarded
    DRA funds, which are calculated as 5% of the first $100,000 of an award, and 1% for all dollars DRA funds, which are calculated as 5% of the first $100,000 of an award, and 1% for all dollars
    above that amount.above that amount.48
    54 Designating Distressed Areas
    The DRA determines a county or parish as distressed on an annual basis through the following The DRA determines a county or parish as distressed on an annual basis through the following
    criteria:criteria:
    1. 1. an unemployment rate of 1% higher than the national average for the most recent an unemployment rate of 1% higher than the national average for the most recent
    24-month period; and24-month period; and
    2. 2. a per capita income of 80% or less than the national per capita income.a per capita income of 80% or less than the national per capita income.49
    55 The DRA designates counties as either distressed or not, and distressed counties received priority The DRA designates counties as either distressed or not, and distressed counties received priority
    funding from DRA grant making activities. By statute, the DRA directs at least 75% of funds to

    44 Of the 252 counties reported by the DRA to fall within its service area, 219 were incorporated through P.L. 100-460.
    Another 20 counties in Alabama were included in P.L. 106-554 (16 counties) and P.L. 107-171 (four counties). P.L.
    110-234 added 10 Louisiana parishes and two Mississippi counties. By this count, one county appears to have been
    included administratively.
    45 Delta Regional Authority, Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV, February
    2023, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/APPROVED_DRA-RDP-IV_20230215.pdf.
    46 See, for example, Delta Regional Authority, Regional Development Plan: State Economic Development Plans,
    https://dra.gov/about/strategic-development-plan.
    47 Delta Regional Authority, Local Development Districts, https://dra.gov/resources/local-development-districts.
    48 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/
    DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
    49 Delta Regional Authority, Map Room, https://dra.gov/map-room.
    Congressional Research Service

    11
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    funding from DRA grant making activities. By statute, the DRA directs at least 75% of funds to distressed counties and parishes and isolated areas within non-distressed counties and parishes;distressed counties and parishes and isolated areas within non-distressed counties and parishes;50
    56 half of those funds must target transportation and basic infrastructure.half of those funds must target transportation and basic infrastructure.5157 As of As of FY2023, 232FY2024, 227 of DRA' of
    DRA’s counties and parishes are economically distressed and s counties and parishes are economically distressed and 221136 are in persistent poverty. are in persistent poverty.5258 The The
    DRA notes that a county may experience persistent poverty if it has poverty rates of 20% of the DRA notes that a county may experience persistent poverty if it has poverty rates of 20% of the
    population, or more, for at least 30 years (per the USDA Economic Research Service).population, or more, for at least 30 years (per the USDA Economic Research Service).5359 The The
    DRA also analyzes census tracts in order to designate isolated areas of non-distressed counties or DRA also analyzes census tracts in order to designate isolated areas of non-distressed counties or
    parishes as distressed.parishes as distressed.54
    60 Recent Activities55
    Activities61 By statute, DRA is required to provide funding for the following four categories:By statute, DRA is required to provide funding for the following four categories:
    Basic public infrastructure in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress;Basic public infrastructure in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress;
    Transportation infrastructure for the purpose of facilitating economic Transportation infrastructure for the purpose of facilitating economic
    development in the region;development in the region;
    Business development, with emphasis on entrepreneurship; andBusiness development, with emphasis on entrepreneurship; and
    Job training or employment‐related education, with emphasis on the use of Job training or employment‐related education, with emphasis on the use of
    existing public educational institutions located in the region.existing public educational institutions located in the region.56
    62DRA categorizes its core programs as critical infrastructure or human infrastructure programs. DRA categorizes its core programs as critical infrastructure or human infrastructure programs.
    Critical infrastructure programs includeCritical infrastructure programs include:57
    63the Statesthe States’' Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP); Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP);
    the Community Infrastructure Fund; andthe Community Infrastructure Fund; and
    the Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance (PWEAA) Program.the Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance (PWEAA) Program.58
    64

    Human infrastructure programs include65

    • the Workforce Grant Programs (e.g., the Delta Workforce Grant Program, the Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) program);66
    • the Delta Health Collaborative Programs (e.g., the Delta Doctors Program;67 the Delta Region Community Health Systems Development Program);
    • the Delta Leadership Institute; and
    • the Delta Capacity-Building Programs (e.g., the Delta Research; the Delta Summit; the Local Development Districts (LDD) Pilot Program; the Strategic Planning Grant Program).

    Additional DRA activities include various partnerships and ongoing initiatives (e.g., the Innovative Readiness Training program, academies and institutes).68

    DRA collaborates with various federal agencies on programs and initiatives. Since 2003, Congress has directed USDA to provide funding to DRA for USDA Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) grants to support rural economic development activities in the DRA region.69 Other federal partners include the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the Department of Defense (DoD), DOL, and HRSA, among others.70

    States' Economic Development Assistance Program The principal investment tool used by the DRA is the States'    Human infrastructure programs include:59
     the Strategic Planning Grant Program;
     the Local Development Districts (LDD) Pilot Program;
     the Delta Doctors Program;60

    50 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(b).
    51 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(d).
    52 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/
    DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
    53 Delta Regional Authority, Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV, February
    2023, p. 5, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/APPROVED_DRA-RDP-IV_20230215.pdf.
    54 Delta Regional Authority, Map Room, https://dra.gov/map-room.
    55 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on other
    DRA activities, see https://dra.gov.
    56 7 U.S.C. §2009aa.
    57 For a summary of DRA’s critical infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/critical-infrastructure/.
    58 Since FY2016, Congress has directed the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to partner with DRA to
    “advance economic growth by assisting communities and regions experiencing chronic high unemployment and low
    per capita income to create an environment that fosters innovation, promotes entrepreneurship, and attracts increased
    private capital investment.” DRA and EDA executed an MOA, which calls for EDA to invest $3 million into projects
    identified by DRA through the Authority’s SEDAP application cycle. See DRA’s FY2023 CBJ, pp. 23-24.
    59 For a summary of DRA’s human infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure.
    60 The Delta Doctors program is designed to address the health disparities and high levels of health professional
    Congressional Research Service

    12
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

     the Delta Workforce Grant Program; and
     the Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Program.
    Other DRA activities include various partnerships and ongoing initiatives (e.g., the Innovative
    Readiness Training program, academies and institutes).61
    States’ Economic Development Assistance Program
    The principal investment tool used by the DRA is the States’ Economic Development Assistance Economic Development Assistance
    Program (SEDAP), which is used to fund grants for basic public infrastructure; transportation Program (SEDAP), which is used to fund grants for basic public infrastructure; transportation
    infrastructure; business development and entrepreneurship; and workforce training and infrastructure; business development and entrepreneurship; and workforce training and
    education.education.6271 The DRA The DRA’'s SEDAP funding is made available to each state according to a four-s SEDAP funding is made available to each state according to a four-
    factor, formula-derived allocation that balances geographic breadth, population size, and factor, formula-derived allocation that balances geographic breadth, population size, and
    economic distress. The factors and their respective weights are calculated as follows:economic distress. The factors and their respective weights are calculated as follows:
    Equity Factor (equal funding among eight states), 50%;Equity Factor (equal funding among eight states), 50%;
    Distressed Population (DRA counties/parishes), 20%;Distressed Population (DRA counties/parishes), 20%;
    Distressed County Area (DRA counties/parishes), 20%; andDistressed County Area (DRA counties/parishes), 20%; and
    Population Factor (DRA counties/parishes), 10%.Population Factor (DRA counties/parishes), 10%.63
    72 DRA investments are awarded from state allocations. SEDAP applications are accepted through DRA investments are awarded from state allocations. SEDAP applications are accepted through
    an online portal and reviewed by LDDs for completeness. Projects are then sorted by priority. The an online portal and reviewed by LDDs for completeness. Projects are then sorted by priority. The
    Board of Governors, through their Designees and Alternates, review a list of eligible projects to Board of Governors, through their Designees and Alternates, review a list of eligible projects to
    make project selections. According to the DRA, make project selections. According to the DRA, “Afterafter the Federal Co-Chair and Governors agree the Federal Co-Chair and Governors agree
    on the project selections for each state, on the project selections for each state, "a formal vote is requested to approve the projects then a a formal vote is requested to approve the projects then a
    grant agreement, notice to proceed letter, and grant manual is provided to the grantees grant agreement, notice to proceed letter, and grant manual is provided to the grantees shortly
    thereafter.”64after that."73 While all projects must be associated with one of the DRA While all projects must be associated with one of the DRA’'s four funding priorities, s four funding priorities,
    additional prioritization determines the rank order of awards, which include county-level distress additional prioritization determines the rank order of awards, which include county-level distress
    designations; adherence to at least one of the federal priority eligibility criteria (see below); designations; adherence to at least one of the federal priority eligibility criteria (see below);
    adherence to at least one of the DRA Regional Development Plan goals (from the strategic plan); adherence to at least one of the DRA Regional Development Plan goals (from the strategic plan);
    and adherence to at least one of the stateand adherence to at least one of the state’'s DRA priorities.s DRA priorities.
    In recent years, the federal priority eligibility criteria were as follows:In recent years, the federal priority eligibility criteria were as follows:
    Innovation and small businessInnovation and small business
     Merging and consolidating
    Regional impactRegional impact
    public utilities
    Multiple funding partnersMultiple funding partners
     Broadband infrastructure
    Emergency funding needEmergency funding need
     Water or wastewater rate
    Registered apprenticeshipRegistered apprenticeship
    study (i.e., projects with

    accredited rate study)
    Infrastructure

    shortages by granting J-1 visa waivers for physicians who are willing to provide medical services in distressed DRA
    communities. See Delta Regional Authority, Delta Doctors, https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure/health/
    delta-doctors/.
    61 Delta Regional Authority, Programs, https://dra.gov/programs.
    62 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/
    DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
    63 Ibid.
    64 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/
    DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
    Congressional Research Service

    13
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Legislative History
  • Infrastructure
  • Merging and consolidating public utilities
  • Broadband infrastructure
  • Water or wastewater rate study (i.e., projects with accredited rate study)
    • Legislative History     In 1988, the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for In 1988, the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
    FY1989 (P.L. 100-460) appropriated $2 million and included language that authorized the FY1989 (P.L. 100-460) appropriated $2 million and included language that authorized the
    creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission. The LMDDC was a DRA creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission. The LMDDC was a DRA
    predecessor tasked with studying economic issues in the Delta and developing a 10-year predecessor tasked with studying economic issues in the Delta and developing a 10-year
    economic development plan. The LMDDC consisted of two commissioners appointed by the economic development plan. The LMDDC consisted of two commissioners appointed by the
    President as well as the governors of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, President as well as the governors of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
    Missouri, and Tennessee. The commission was chaired by then-Governor William J. Clinton of Missouri, and Tennessee. The commission was chaired by then-Governor William J. Clinton of
    Arkansas, and the LMDDC released interim and final reports before completing its mandate in Arkansas, and the LMDDC released interim and final reports before completing its mandate in
    1990. Later, in the White House, the Clinton Administration continued to show interest in an 1990. Later, in the White House, the Clinton Administration continued to show interest in an
    expanded federal role in Mississippi Delta regional economic development.expanded federal role in Mississippi Delta regional economic development.
    Notably, P.L. 100-460P.L. 100-460’'s $2 million in appropriations were made available to s $2 million in appropriations were made available to “"carry out H.R. 5378carry out H.R. 5378
    and S. 2836, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, as introduced in the House of and S. 2836, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, as introduced in the House of
    Representatives on September 26, 1988, and in the Senate on September 27, 1988.Representatives on September 26, 1988, and in the Senate on September 27, 1988.”" Using this Using this
    language, those previously un-enacted bills were language, those previously un-enacted bills were “"incorporated by referenceincorporated by reference”" and enacted. P.L. and enacted. P.L.
    100-460 also provided a definition of the Lower Mississippi Delta region through the 100-460 also provided a definition of the Lower Mississippi Delta region through the
    incorporation of H.R. 5378 and incorporation of H.R. 5378 and S. 2836 (110th Congress)S. 2836. In 1994, Congress enacted the Lower Mississippi Delta . In 1994, Congress enacted the Lower Mississippi Delta
    Region Heritage Study Act, which built on the LMDDCRegion Heritage Study Act, which built on the LMDDC’'s recommendations. In particular, the s recommendations. In particular, the
    1994 act saw the Department of the Interior conduct a study on key regional cultural, natural, and 1994 act saw the Department of the Interior conduct a study on key regional cultural, natural, and
    heritage sites and locations in the Mississippi Delta region.heritage sites and locations in the Mississippi Delta region.
    106th Congress
    106th Congress
    In 2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554In 2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) )
    included language authorizing the creation of the DRA based on the seven included language authorizing the creation of the DRA based on the seven
    participating states of the LMDDC, with the addition of Alabama and 16 of its participating states of the LMDDC, with the addition of Alabama and 16 of its
    counties.65
    107th Congress
    counties.74
    107th Congress
    The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) amended voting procedures for DRA states, The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) amended voting procedures for DRA states,
    provided new funds for Delta regional projects, and added four additional provided new funds for Delta regional projects, and added four additional
    Alabama counties to the DRA.Alabama counties to the DRA.66
    110th Congress
    75
    110th Congress
    The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) reauthorized the DRA from FY2008 through The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) reauthorized the DRA from FY2008 through
    FY2012 and added FY2012 and added 1210 parishes in Louisiana and two counties in Mississippi to the DRA region.76
    113th Congress
    • The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) reauthorized the DRA through FY2018.77
    115th Congress
    • The 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334), reauthorized the DRA from FY2019 to FY2023, and emphasized Alabama's position as a "full member" of the DRA.78
    118th Congress The Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA) of 2024 (P.L. 118-272, Division B, Title II, Subtitle B) made several changes to the DRA. EDRA
  • repealed the sunset (or termination of authority) provision for DRA's authority;79
  • authorized funding each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029;
  • authorized the DRA to collect fees for the Delta Doctors program and keep and spend those fees;
  • authorized Indian Tribes as eligible recipients of economic and community development grants;
    • authorized the executive director, a nonfederal employee of the authority, to assume the duties of the federal co-chair and the alternate federal co-chair for purposes of continuation of normal operations in the event that both positions are vacant;80 added Sabine, Vernon, and Terrebonne Parishes in Louisiana to the DRA region; and
  • allowed DRA (and other FRCA) funding to be used for the nonfederal match in EDA projects.81
    • Funding History The DRA     parishes to the DRA region.67

    65 P.L. 106-554. This law added the following Alabama counties: Pickens, Greene, Sumter, Choctaw, Clarke,
    Washington, Marengo, Hale, Perry, Wilcox, Lowndes, Bullock, Macon, Barbour, Russell, and Dallas.
    66 P.L. 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This law added Butler, Conecuh, Escambia, and
    Monroe counties.
    67 P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. This law added Beauregard, Bienville, Cameron,
    Claiborne, DeSoto, Jefferson Davis, Red River, St. Mary, Vermillion, and Webster Parishes in Louisiana; and Jasper
    and Smith Counties in Mississippi.
    Congressional Research Service

    14
    link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 49 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    113th Congress
     The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) reauthorized the DRA through FY2018.68
    115th Congress
     The 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-33), reauthorized the DRA from FY2019 to
    FY2023, and emphasized Alabama’s position as a “full member” of the DRA.69
    Funding History
    Under “farm bill” legislation, the DRA has consistently received funding authorizations of $30 consistently received funding authorizations of $30
    million annually since it was first authorizedmillion annually since it was first authorized.70 However, appropriations in FY2001 through FY2023.82 EDRA provided a funding authorization of $40 million for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029.83 However, the actual appropriations provided have fluctuated over the have fluctuated over the
    years. Although the DRA was appropriated $20 million in the same legislation authorizing its years. Although the DRA was appropriated $20 million in the same legislation authorizing its
    creation,creation,7184 that amount was halved in 2002, that amount was halved in 2002,7285 and continued a downward trend and continued a downward trend through its funding
    nadirto a low point of $5 million in FY2004, rebounding in FY2006 to $12 million, where it stabilized until FY2016 (see Table 2). In FY2022, the IIJA provided the DRA with $150 million in supplemental appropriations—five times its annual appropriation at the time.86 In FY2024, the DRA received $31.1 million. P.L. 119-4 provided continuing appropriations for DRA for FY2025 at the same level that was provided in FY2024. In FY2025, the American Relief Act, 2025 (P.L. 118-158) provided $1.51 billion to the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) for disaster economic recovery, with $10 million of that amount to be transferred to the DRA. P.L. 118-158 states that the funding is "for economic adjustment assistance related to flood mitigation, disaster relief, long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in areas that received a major disaster designation as a result of hurricanes, wildfires, severe storms and flooding, tornadoes, and other natural disasters occurring in calendar years 2023 and 2024 under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)." DRA and other FRCAs support disaster economic recovery projects. However, in recent years, DRA and other FRCAs generally have not received supplemental funding for disaster economic recovery activities and have not received transferred funding provided through EDA. Table 2. DRA: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2015-FY2025

    ($ in millions)

    FY15

    FY16

    FY17

    FY18

    FY19

    FY20

    FY21

    FY22a

    FY23

    FY24

    FY25

    Appropriated Funding

    12.0

    25.0

    25.0

    25.0

    25.0

    30.0

    30.0

    180.1

    30.1

    31.1

    31.1

    Authorized Funding

    30.0

    30.0

    30.0

    30.0

    30.0

    30.0

    30.0

    30.0

    30.0

    —

    40.0

    Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the following: P.L. 111-85, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 112-74, P.L. 113-6, P.L. 113-76, P.L. 113-235, P.L. 114-113, P.L. 115-31, P.L. 115-141, P.L. 115-244, P.L. 116-94, P.L. 116-260, P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-42, and P.L. 119-4.

    Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1. a. FY2022 includes $30.1 million     of $5 million in FY2004. However, funding had increased by FY2006 to $12 million. Since
    FY2008, DRA’s annual appropriations have increased from almost $12 million to the current
    level of $30.1 million in FY2022 (excluding appropriations provided by the IIJA). The IIJA
    provided the DRA with an increase in appropriations that was five times its annual appropriation
    in FY2021 (Table 2). As of March 2023, the DRA will allocate IIJA funding to five program
    areas: (1) SEDAP; (2) Community Infrastructure Fund; (3) Delta Workforce Grant Program; (4)
    Strategic Planning; and (5) LDD Pilot Program.73
    Table 2. DRA: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
    $ in millions

    FY14 FY15 FY16
    FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22a FY23
    Appropriated 12.00 12.00
    25.00
    25.00
    25.00 25.00 30.00 30.00 180.10
    30.1
    Funding
    Authorized
    30.00 30.00
    30.00
    30.00
    30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
    30.00
    30.0
    Funding
    Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-
    10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
    116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; and P.L. 117-103.
    Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
    a. FY2022 includes $30.1 mil ion provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103 provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103, ,
    Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $150 Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $150 mil ionmillion from the from the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III). Denali Commission , Division J, Title III).

    68 P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014.
    69 P.L. 115-334, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. See CRS In Focus IF11126, 2018 Farm Bill Primer:
    Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018    , by Renée Johnson and Jim Monke.
    70 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–12.
    71 P.L. 106-554.
    72 P.L. 107-66.
    73 Delta Regional Authority, Performance and Accountability Report September 30, 2022, p. 22, https://dra.gov/wp-
    content/uploads/2023/02/DRA_FY2022_PAR_Final12.pdf. Estimates for the program allocations of the DRA’s IIJA
    spend plan are included in the Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8, https://dra.gov/
    wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
    Congressional Research Service

    15

    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Denali Commission
    The Denali Commission was established in 1998 to support rural economic development in The Denali Commission was established in 1998 to support rural economic development in
    Alaska.Alaska.7487 It is It is “"designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support
    throughout Alaska.throughout Alaska.”" The Denali Commission is unique among these commissions and authorities The Denali Commission is unique among these commissions and authorities
    as a single-state entity. It is also unique because it primarily uses federal funding for as a single-state entity. It is also unique because it primarily uses federal funding for
    administrative expenses, rather than a combination of federal and state contributions for these administrative expenses, rather than a combination of federal and state contributions for these
    expenses.expenses.75
    88

    Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission
    Service area by distressed and expanded (plus/minus 3%) standards of distress, 2022

    Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and Denali Commission, 2022 Distressed
    Communities Report,     https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/
    2022DistressedCommunities.pdf. Distressed areas (red shading) meet the Denali Commissions’ “surrogate
    standard.”

    Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps.

    Overview of Structure and Activities
    The commissionThe commission’'s statutory mission includes promoting rural development, providing power generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems and other infrastructure needs, and providing workforce and other economic development assistance to distressed rural regions in Alaska.89 For decades, the commission has provided substantial funding to coastal infrastructure protection and energy infrastructure and fuel storage projects.90 The commission continues to invest in energy and bulk fuel programs and climate adaptation activities.91 In FY2020, the commission reopened its general economic development and workforce development portfolios.92 Commission Structure The Denali Commission's statutory mission includes providing workforce and other economic
    development assistance to distressed rural regions in Alaska. However, the commission no longer
    engages in substantial activities in general economic development or transportation, which were
    once core elements of the Denali Commission’s activities. Its recent activities are principally
    limited to coastal infrastructure protection and energy infrastructure and fuel storage projects.

    74 P.L. 105-277.
    75 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF12165, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities:
    Administrative Expenses    , by Julie M. Lawhorn.
    Congressional Research Service

    16
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Commission Structure
    The Denali Commission’s structure is unique as the only commission with a single-state mandate. s structure is unique as the only commission with a single-state mandate.
    The commission is comprised of seven members (or a designated nominee), including the federal The commission is comprised of seven members (or a designated nominee), including the federal
    co-chair, appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; the Alaska governor, who is state co-co-chair, appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; the Alaska governor, who is state co-
    chair (or his/her designated representative); the University of Alaska president; the Alaska chair (or his/her designated representative); the University of Alaska president; the Alaska
    Municipal League president; the Alaska Federation of Natives president; the Alaska State AFL-Municipal League president; the Alaska Federation of Natives president; the Alaska State AFL-
    CIO president; and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska president.CIO president; and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska president.76
    93 These structural novelties offer a different model compared to the organization typified by the These structural novelties offer a different model compared to the organization typified by the
    ARC and broadly adopted by the other functioning ARC and broadly adopted by the other functioning federal regional commissions and authorities.
    FRCAs. For example, the federal co-chairFor example, the federal co-chair’'s appointment by the Secretary of Commerce, and not the s appointment by the Secretary of Commerce, and not the
    President with Senate confirmation, allows for a potentially more expeditious appointment of a President with Senate confirmation, allows for a potentially more expeditious appointment of a
    federal co-chair.federal co-chair.
    Annual Work Plan and Strategic Plan
    The Denali Commission is required by law to create an annual work plan, which solicits project The Denali Commission is required by law to create an annual work plan, which solicits project
    proposals, guides activities, and informs a five-year strategic plan.proposals, guides activities, and informs a five-year strategic plan.7794 The work plan is reviewed The work plan is reviewed
    by the federal co-chair, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget, by the federal co-chair, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget,
    and is subject to a public comment period.and is subject to a public comment period.
    The latest strategic plan, released in The latest strategic plan, released in October 2017March 2024, lists , lists fourseven strategic goals and objectives: strategic goals and objectives: (1)
    facilities management; (2) infrastructure protection from ecological change; (3)1. infrastructure for distressed communities;
  • 2. village infrastructure protection and climate resiliency;
    • 3.     energy, including energy, including
    storage, production, heating, and electricity; storage, production, heating, and electricity; and (4) innovation and collaboration.
    Designating Distressed Areas
    The Denali Commission’
  • 4. workforce development;
  • 5. transportation;
  • 6. sanitation, health facilities, housing, and broadband programs; and
  • 7. innovation and collaboration.95<del> </del>
    • Designating Distressed Areas The Denali Commission'    s authorizing statute obligates the commission to address economic s authorizing statute obligates the commission to address economic
    distress in rural areas of Alaska.distress in rural areas of Alaska.7896 As of 2018, the commission utilizes two overlapping standards As of 2018, the commission utilizes two overlapping standards
    to assess distress: a to assess distress: a “"surrogate standard,surrogate standard,”" adopted by the commission in 2000, and an adopted by the commission in 2000, and an “"expanded expanded
    standard.standard.”" These standards are applied to rural communities in Alaska and assessed by the Alaska These standards are applied to rural communities in Alaska and assessed by the Alaska
    Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL&WD), Research and Analysis Section. Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL&WD), Research and Analysis Section.
    DOL&WD uses the most current population, employment, and earnings data available to identify DOL&WD uses the most current population, employment, and earnings data available to identify
    Alaska communities and Census Designated Places considered Alaska communities and Census Designated Places considered “"distressed.distressed.”
    " Appeals can be made to community distress determinations, but only through a demonstration Appeals can be made to community distress determinations, but only through a demonstration
    that DOL&WD data or analysis was erroneous, invalid, or outdated. New information that DOL&WD data or analysis was erroneous, invalid, or outdated. New information “"must must
    come from a verifiable source, and be robust and representative of the entire community and/or come from a verifiable source, and be robust and representative of the entire community and/or
    population.population.”" Appeals are accepted and adjudicated only for the same reporting year in question. Appeals are accepted and adjudicated only for the same reporting year in question.

    76 P.L. 105-277.
    77 Denali Commission, Work Plans, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/.
    78 P.L. 105-277.
    Congressional Research Service

    17
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Recent Activities79
    Recent Activities97 The Denali CommissionThe Denali Commission’'s scope is more constrained compared to the other s scope is more constrained compared to the other federal regional
    commissions and authorities. The organization reported that due to funding constraints,80 the
    commission reduced its involvement in what might be considered traditional economic
    development and, instead, focused on rural fuel and energy infrastructure and coastal protection
    efforts.81
    FRCAs. Since the Denali CommissionSince the Denali Commission’'s founding, bulk fuel safety and security, energy reliability and s founding, bulk fuel safety and security, energy reliability and
    security, transportation system improvements, and health care projects have commanded the vast security, transportation system improvements, and health care projects have commanded the vast
    majority of Commission projects.majority of Commission projects.8298 In recent years, the Denali Commission In recent years, the Denali Commission’'s core programs have s core programs have
    focused on grants for energy reliability and security and bulk fuel safety and security projects.focused on grants for energy reliability and security and bulk fuel safety and security projects.83
    Village99 In 2015, the commission launched the village infrastructure protection infrastructure protection—a program launched program launched in 2015 to address community to address community
    infrastructure threatened by erosion, floodinginfrastructure threatened by erosion, flooding, and permafrost degradation and permafrost degradation—is a program that is
    relatively new and still funded.84 By contrast, the Denali Commission funds fewer “traditional”
    .100 The Denali Commission has generally funded fewer "traditional" economic development projects, such as housing, workforce development, and general economic economic development projects, such as housing, workforce development, and general economic
    development activitiesdevelopment activities.85
    As noted, for, due to funding constraints.101 However, since FY2020, the commission reports that it has renewed its partnerships and activities that focus on economic development.102 For several years before the enactment of the IIJA, the Denali Commission had not several years before the enactment of the IIJA, the Denali Commission had not
    received dedicated funding for transportation, sanitation, health facilities, housing, broadbandreceived dedicated funding for transportation, sanitation, health facilities, housing, broadband, ,
    and general economic development activities.and general economic development activities.86103 However, the However, the Commission’s FY2023 Work Plan
    commission's FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025 Work Plans and the FY2022-and the FY2022-FY2026FY2026 IIJA Work Plan indicate support for these and related activities. IIJA Work Plan indicate support for these and related activities.104 The The
    Denali Commission will allocate IIJA funding to the following activities: (1) infrastructure; (2) Denali Commission will allocate IIJA funding to the following activities: (1) infrastructure; (2)
    village infrastructure protection; (3) energy reliability and security; (4) emergency fund; and (5) village infrastructure protection; (3) energy reliability and security; (4) emergency fund; and (5)
    workforce and economic development.workforce and economic development.87
    The In recent years, the Denali Commission Denali Commission also receiveshas received funding from other state and federal sources funding from other state and federal sources, aside from its own appropriation. Other sources . Other sources
    for activities administered by the Denali Commission include:

    79 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on
    additional Denali Commission activities, see https://www.denali.gov.
    80 Denali Commission, Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/ (accessed April 23, 2021).
    81 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Strategic Plan: FY2018-2022, October 4, 2017, https://www.denali.gov/
    wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Denali_Commission_FY2018_-_2022_Strategic_Plan_-_Final_Executed_document_-
    _10-4-17.pdf.
    82 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Investment Summary, March 2022, https://www.denali.gov/programs/.
    83 The Denali Commission has made energy and bulk fuel its primary infrastructure theme since it was created in 1998.
    The types of projects currently being funded include the design and construction of replacement bulk fuel storage
    facilities, upgrades to community power generation and distribution systems (including interties), and energy efficiency
    related initiatives. See Denali Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8,
    https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-
    2024-Final.pdf.
    84 Denali Commission, Village Infrastructure Protection, https://www.denali.gov/programs/village-infrastructure-
    protection/.
    85 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Investment Summary, March 2022, https://www.denali.gov/programs/.
    86 Denali Commission, Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/.
    87 The Denali Commission no longer receives dedicated workforce development funding and it no longer has a formal
    workforce development program. However, it continues to use some of its annual discretionary funding for basic
    administrative and technical training that is directly related to the Energy and Bulk Program. More detail is available in
    the Denali Commission’s annual work plans and FY2023 Work Plan, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/. Denali
    Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 7, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/
    uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-2024-Final.pdf.
    Congressional Research Service

    18
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

     The State of Alaska, through the Federal Highway Administration, for planning,
    design, and construction of road and other surface transportation infrastructure in
    Alaska Native villages and rural communities; and
    for activities administered by the Denali Commission have included
  • The State of Alaska, through the Federal Highway Administration, for planning, design, and construction of road and other surface transportation infrastructure in Alaska Native villages and rural communities;105
  • Various federal agencies, such as the EPA, Department of Health and Human Services, USDA, and others;106 and
    • The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund, for the The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund, for the Commission’s
    commission's bulk fuel safety and security activities.bulk fuel safety and security activities.88
    107 The Denali Commission also uses its transfer authority to receive funding from other federal The Denali Commission also uses its transfer authority to receive funding from other federal
    agencies, which it uses to issue grants on the agenciesagencies, which it uses to issue grants on the agencies’' behalf. behalf.89
    108 Legislative History
    106th Congress
    106th Congress
    In 1999, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113) authorized the In 1999, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113) authorized the
    commission to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements, award grants, commission to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements, award grants,
    and make payments and make payments “"necessary to carry out the purposes of the commission.necessary to carry out the purposes of the commission.”
    " The act also established the federal co-chairThe act also established the federal co-chair’'s compensation schedule, prohibited s compensation schedule, prohibited
    using more than 5% of appropriated funds for administrative expenses, and using more than 5% of appropriated funds for administrative expenses, and
    established established “"demonstration health projectsdemonstration health projects”" as authorized activities and as authorized activities and
    authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to the authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to the
    commission to that effect.commission to that effect.
    108th Congress
    108th CongressThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) created an Economic The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) created an Economic
    Development Committee within the commission chaired by the Alaska Development Committee within the commission chaired by the Alaska
    Federation of Natives president, and included the Alaska Commissioner of Federation of Natives president, and included the Alaska Commissioner of
    Community and Economic Affairs, a representative of the Alaska Bankers Community and Economic Affairs, a representative of the Alaska Bankers
    Association, the chairman of the Alaska Permanent Fund, a representative from Association, the chairman of the Alaska Permanent Fund, a representative from
    the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from each region.the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from each region.
    109th Congress
  • The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) authorized the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to make payments to the commission for docks, waterfront development, and related infrastructure development.109
    • 109th Congress
    In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
    Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), established the Denali Access Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), established the Denali Access
    System Program among the commissionSystem Program among the commission’'s authorized activities. The program was s authorized activities. The program was
    part of its surface transportation efforts, which were active from 2005 through part of its surface transportation efforts, which were active from 2005 through
    2009.90

    88 The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund provides approximately $3 million each year in FY2023 and
    FY2024. See Denali Commission, Funding, https://www.denali.gov/about/funding-2/; and FY2024 Congressional
    Budget Justification    , p. 7, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-
    Justification-Fiscal-Year-2024-Final.pdf.
    89 42 U.S.C. 3121 note, Sec. 311. See also Denali Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8,
    https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-
    2024-Final.pdf.
    90 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Fact Sheet on Highway Provisions: Denali
    Access System Program    , https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/denali.htm.
    Congressional Research Service

    19
    link to page 26 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    112th Congress
     2012’2009.110
    112th Congress
    2012'    s Moving Ahead for Progress in the s Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st21st Century Act, or MAP-21 (P.L. 112- Century Act, or MAP-21 (P.L. 112-
    141), authorized the commission to accept funds from federal agencies, allowed 141), authorized the commission to accept funds from federal agencies, allowed
    it to accept gifts or donations of it to accept gifts or donations of “"service, property, or moneyservice, property, or money”" on behalf of the on behalf of the
    U.S. government, and included guidance regarding gifts.U.S. government, and included guidance regarding gifts.
    114th Congress
    114th CongressIn 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, or the WIIN In 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, or the WIIN
    Act (P.L. 114-322), reauthorized the Denali Commission through FY2021, and Act (P.L. 114-322), reauthorized the Denali Commission through FY2021, and
    established a four-year term for the federal co-chair (with allowances for established a four-year term for the federal co-chair (with allowances for
    reappointment), but provided that other members were appointed for life. The act reappointment), but provided that other members were appointed for life. The act
    also allowed for the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interim federal co-also allowed for the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interim federal co-
    chair, and included clarifying language on the nonfederal status of commission chair, and included clarifying language on the nonfederal status of commission
    staff and ethical issues regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure.staff and ethical issues regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure.
    117th Congress
    117th CongressDivision A of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, (P.L. 117-58Division A of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, (P.L. 117-58) )
    extends funding authorization for five years to carry out the Denali Access extends funding authorization for five years to carry out the Denali Access
    System Program.System Program.91111 The act also allows the Denali Commission to consider The act also allows the Denali Commission to consider
    funding from another federal agency as no longer subject to requirements funding from another federal agency as no longer subject to requirements
    previously attached to those funds, including any regulatory actions by the previously attached to those funds, including any regulatory actions by the
    transferring agency.transferring agency.92
    Funding History
    Under its authorizing statute, the Denali Commission received funding 112
    118th Congress
    EDRA (P.L. 118-272) made several changes to the Denali Commission's authorizing statute. EDRA
    • provided the Denali Commission with leasing authority (including the lease of office space for any term);113
    • allowed the commission's funds to be considered nonfederal matching funds when used as matching funds for EDA projects and in other federal programs (unless otherwise prohibited);114
    • repealed the commission's special function related to rural utilities;115
    • codified the U.S. Department of Agriculture's authority to make interagency transfers to the Denali Commission to address solid waste disposal site issues—in addition to direct lump sum payments, which were previously authorized;116
    • established a new program, the Denali Housing Fund, which may be used for loans or grants for planning, construction, or rehabilitation housing activities for low- and moderate-income (LMI) households in rural Alaska villages;117 and
    • established the authorized funding level of $40 million for each of fiscal years FY2025 through FY2029 (including $5 million for the Denali Housing Fund).118
    Funding History Under its authorizing statute, the Denali Commission received     authorizations for $20 authorizations for $20
    million for FY1999,million for FY1999,93119 and and “"such sums as necessarysuch sums as necessary” (SSAN)" for FY2000 through FY2003. for FY2000 through FY2003.
    Legislation passed in 2003 extended the commissionLegislation passed in 2003 extended the commission’s SSAN's uncapped funding authorization through funding authorization through
    2008.2008.94120 Its authorization lapsed after 2008; reauthorizing legislation was introduced in 2007, Its authorization lapsed after 2008; reauthorizing legislation was introduced in 2007,95121 but but
    was not enacted. The commission continued to receive annual appropriations for FY2009 and was not enacted. The commission continued to receive annual appropriations for FY2009 and
    several years thereafter.several years thereafter.96122 In 2016, legislation was enacted reauthorizing the Denali Commission In 2016, legislation was enacted reauthorizing the Denali Commission
    through FY2021 with a $15 million annual through FY2021 with a $15 million annual funding authorization through FY2021. The IIJA
    provided the Denali Commission with an increase in appropriations that was five times its most
    recent annual appropriation (Table 3).97

    91 The IIJA authorized $20 million to be appropriated for each of FY2022 through FY2026 to carry out the Denali
    Access System Program (Division A, Sec. 11507(a) of P.L. 117-58).
    92 Division A, Sec. 11507(b) of P.L. 117-58.
    93 P.L. 105-277.
    94 P.L. 108-7, §504.
    95 S. 1368, 110th Cong. (2007).
    96 P.L. 111-8.
    97 P.L. 114-322.
    Congressional Research Service

    20
    link to page 26 link to page 49 link to page 27 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Table 3. Denali Commission:
    Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
    $ in millions

    FY14
    FY15 FY16 FY17
    FY18
    FY19
    FY20
    FY21 FY22a FY23
    Appropriated
    10.00
    10.00
    11.00
    15.00
    30.00
    15.00
    15.00
    15.00
    90.1
    17.0
    Funding
    Authorized
    —
    —
    —
    15.00
    15.00
    15.00
    15.00
    15.00
    —
    —
    Funding
    Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-
    10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
    116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; P.L. 117-103; and P.L. 117-328.
    Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
    a. FY2022 amounts include $15.1 mil ionauthorization through FY2021. EDRA authorized appropriations for the Denali Commission at $40 million for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029 (including $5 million for the Denali Housing Fund).123 Between FY2015 and FY2025, annual appropriations for the Denali Commission averaged $16.1 million. In FY2022, the IIJA provided the Denali Commission with $75 million in supplemental appropriations—approximately five times its annual appropriation at the time (see Table 3).124 In addition to annual appropriations, the Denali Commission also receives funding from the Trans Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL), the state of Alaska, and other federal agencies.125 As noted, the Denali Commission is authorized to receive transfers from other federal agencies.126 Table 3. Denali Commission:Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2015-FY2025

    ($ in millions)

    FY15

    FY16

    FY17

    FY18

    FY19

    FY20

    FY21

    FY22a

    FY23

    FY24

    FY25

    Appropriated Funding

    10.0

    11.0

    15.0

    30.0

    15.0

    15.0

    15.0

    90.1

    17.0

    17.0

    17.0

    Authorized Funding

    —

    —

    15.0

    15.0

    15.0

    15.0

    15.0

    —

    —

    —

    40.0b

    Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the following: P.L. 111-85, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 112-74, P.L. 113-6, P.L. 113-76, P.L. 113-235, P.L. 114-113, P.L. 115-31, P.L. 115-141, P.L. 115-244, P.L. 116-94, P.L. 116-260, P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-42, and P.L. 119-4. Amounts provided by the Trans Atlantic Pipeline Liability Fund, the state of Alaska, and other federal agencies through FY2023 are listed in the Denali Commission's Strategic Plan, p. 10, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FY23-27StrategicPlanFINAL_v21.pdf. Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1. a. FY2022 amounts include $15.1 million     provided through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103). provided through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103). FY2022 FY2022
    appropriated funding amounts include $75 appropriated funding amounts include $75 mil ionmillion from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure Investment from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). FY2022 amounts do not include amounts authorized to be appropriated in and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). FY2022 amounts do not include amounts authorized to be appropriated in
    Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Denali Access System Program.Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Denali Access System Program.
    Great Lakes Authority

    b. Amounts authorized by P.L. 118-272 include $35 million for the Denali Commission and $5 million for the Denali Housing Fund for each of FY2025-FY2029.

    Great Lakes Authority     The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 ((P.L. 117-328, Division O, Title IV, P.L. 117-328, Division O, Title IV, Sec. §401) 401)
    amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Great Lakes Authority (GLA). The structure and amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Great Lakes Authority (GLA). The structure and
    functions of the GLA are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC, which were functions of the GLA are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC, which were
    established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (i.e., 2008 farm bill).established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (i.e., 2008 farm bill).98127 The The
    authorizing legislation requires that before the GLA may convene, the President must nominate authorizing legislation requires that before the GLA may convene, the President must nominate
    and the Senate must confirm a federal co-chairperson. and the Senate must confirm a federal co-chairperson. As of March 2023On May 2, 2024, President Biden , President Biden had not
    nominated a federal co-nominated a federal co-chairpersonchair for the GLA.128 However, the nominee was not confirmed by the Senate. As of the date of this publication, President Trump has not nominated a federal co-chair.

    The geographic boundaries of the GLA consist of

    the counties which contain, in part or in whole, the     for the GLA.
    The geographic boundaries of the authorized commissions’ regions are defined in statute, usually
    using county-based designations. The GLA differs in that its service region is defined in statute
    based on federal definitions of the area’s watershed (see Figure 4) so that the region
    shall consist of areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes System (as areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes System (as
    such terms are defined in section 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 such terms are defined in section 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
    U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)), in each of the following States: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)), in each of the following States: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
    New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

    98 P.L. 110-234.
    Congressional Research Service

    21

    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    129 The GLA region includes counties that are also in the NBRC and NGRPA regions (see Table D-4).

    Figure 4. Map of the Great Lakes Authority

    Source: Map created by CRS based on terms in P.L. 117-328Map created by CRS based on terms in P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-272, and U.S. Geological Survey data. and U.S. Geological Survey data.
    Notes Note: The GLA region consists of The GLA region consists of areas incounties—in areas specifically designated by statute—within the watershed of the Great Lakes and Great Lakes System the watershed of the Great Lakes and Great Lakes System in states
    specifically designated in the statute.
    . Overview of Structure and Activities
    As authorized, the GLA would share As authorized, the GLA would share an organizinga structure with the NBRC, structure with the NBRC, the Southeast
    Regional Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional Commission, as all four MARC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC, as all share share
    common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
    Authority Structure
    As authorized, the GLA would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the As authorized, the GLA would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the
    advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated
    representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair.
    There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two
    consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.
    Strategic Plan
    As of the date of publication, the GLA is not active and has not published a strategic plan.As of the date of publication, the GLA is not active and has not published a strategic plan.
    Designating Distressed Areas
    As authorized, the GLA would share an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to As authorized, the GLA would share an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to
    that of the NBRC, the Southeast Regional Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional
    Commission.99

    99 40 U.S.C. §15302.
    Congressional Research Service

    22
    link to page 29 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function
    that of the NBRC, MARC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC.130
    Recent Activities
    The GLA is not currently active. The presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of a The GLA is not currently active. The presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of a
    federal co-chair is an essential step for the GLA to start operations; as of the date of publication, federal co-chair is an essential step for the GLA to start operations; as of the date of publication,
    the President has the President has not nominated a federal co-chair for the GLA. nominated a federal co-chair for the GLA. Additionally, new federal
    regional commissions and authorities generally use funding from appropriations to begin
    operations (i.e., funding to hire staff); as of the date of publication, the GLA has not yet received
    appropriations. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Forming a Funded Federal
    Regional Commission    , by Julie M. Lawhorn.
    Legislative History
    117th Congress
     P.L. 117-328For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Authorization. Legislative History
    117th Congress
    • P.L. 117-328 amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the GLA. The structure and functions of the GLA are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-234).
    118th Congress
    EDRA (P.L. 118-272) extended the funding authorization for the GLA and expanded the definition of the region by specifying that it shall include entire counties rather than parts of counties. Under the prior version of the law, the GLA region covered only parts of certain counties because it was defined as consisting of "areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes System." For a summary of other changes to the GLA's authorizing statute in EDRA, see "Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs."Funding History Although EDRA did not provide direct funding for GLA, it did include an authorization of appropriations for GLA of $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).131

    In FY2024, the GLA received first-time funding of $5 million. P.L. 119-4 provided continuing appropriations for the GLA for FY2025 at the same level of funding that was provided in FY2024.

    Table 4. Great Lakes AuthorityAppropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2023-FY2025

    ($ in millions)

    FY23

    FY24

    FY25

    Appropriated Funding

    --

    5.0

    5.0

    Authorized Funding

    --

    33.0

    40.0

    Source: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 118-42 and P.L. 119-4.

    Notes: The GLA was authorized in FY2023 (P.L. 117-328). For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1. Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission P.L. 118-272 amended 40 U.S.C. §     amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the 15301(a) to establish the GLAMid-Atlantic Regional Commission (MARC). The structure . The structure
    and functions of the and functions of the GLAMARC are based on the model of the NBRC, are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC,SBRC and SCRC and
    SBRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of , which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
    2008 (P.L. 110-234).
    Funding History
    The GLA has not received appropriations as of the date of publication.
    Northern Border Regional Commission
    The Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) was created by the 2008 farm bill.100 The
    2008 (i.e., 2008 farm bill).132 The authorizing legislation requires that before the MARC may convene, the President must nominate and the Senate must confirm a federal co-chairperson. As of the date of this publication the President has not nominated a federal co-chair. The geographic boundaries of MARC include the entire state of Delaware, 20 counties in Maryland, and 15 counties in Pennsylvania (see Table D-5 and Figure 5).

    Figure 5. Map of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission Region

    Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data defined in P.L. 118-272 and Esri Data and Maps.

    Overview of Structure and Activities

    As authorized, the MARC would share a structure with the GLA, NBRC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC.

    Authority Structure

    As authorized, the MARC would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.

    Strategic Plan

    As of the date of publication, the MARC is not active and has not published a strategic plan.

    Designating Distressed Areas

    As authorized, the MARC would share an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that of the GLA, NBRC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC.133 Generally speaking, the statutory requirements require the FRCAs to designate all counties (including isolated areas within counties) by their relative level of economic distress. The highest level of distress is considered "distressed" and the least distressed are considered "attainment."

    Four of the Subtitle V FRCAs (i.e., FRCAs authorized by 40 U.S.C. §15101 et seq.) are authorized to provide funding in attainment counties for administrative expenses of local development districts and for multicounty projects that may include areas in attainment counties (i.e., GLA, NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC). EDRA waived these exceptions for the Maryland and Pennsylvania portions of the MARC.134

    Recent Activities

    The MARC is not currently active. The presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair is one of several essential steps for the MARC to start operations. For more information, see "Steps for Commission Formation" in CRS In Focus IF11744, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Authorization.

    Legislative History

    In the 118th Congress, EDRA (P.L. 118-272) established the MARC and authorized funding for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029.

    Funding History

    Although EDRA did not provide direct funding for MARC, it did include an authorization of appropriations for MARC of $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).135 As of the date of this publication, the MARC has not received appropriations.

    Table 5. Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2025

    ($ in millions)

    FY25

    Appropriated Funding

    --

    Authorized Funding

    40.0

    Notes: The MARC was authorized in FY2025 (P.L. 118-272). For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1. Northern Border Regional Commission The Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) was created by the 2008 farm bill.136 The     act also created the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) and the Southwest Border act also created the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) and the Southwest Border
    Regional Commission (SBRC). All three commissions share common authorizing language Regional Commission (SBRC). All three commissions share common authorizing language
    modeled after the ARC.modeled after the ARC.
    The NBRC is the only one of the three new commissions that has been both reauthorized and The NBRC is the only one of the three new commissions that has been both reauthorized and
    received progressively increasing annual appropriations since it was established in 2008. The received progressively increasing annual appropriations since it was established in 2008. The
    NBRC was founded to alleviate economic distress in the northern border areas of Maine, New NBRC was founded to alleviate economic distress in the northern border areas of Maine, New
    Hampshire, New York, and, as of 2018, the entire state of Vermont Hampshire, New York, and, as of 2018, the entire state of Vermont ((see Figure 5).

    100 P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
    Congressional Research Service

    23
    link to page 55
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Figure 56). The NBRC region includes counties that are also in the ARC and GLA regions (see Table D-5 and Figure B-1).

    Figure 6    . Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission

    Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and NBRC, Assessing Distress in NBRC Counties,
    https://www.nbrc.gov/content/distressed-counties.
    NBRC, P.L. 118-272, and Esri Data and Maps. Note: Vermont is the only state with all counties within the NBRC Vermont is the only state with all counties within the NBRC’'s jurisdiction.s jurisdiction.
    The stated mission of the NBRC is The stated mission of the NBRC is “"to catalyze regional, collaborative, and transformative to catalyze regional, collaborative, and transformative
    community economic development approaches that alleviate economic distress and position the community economic development approaches that alleviate economic distress and position the
    region for economic growth.region for economic growth.”101"137 Eligible counties within the NBRC Eligible counties within the NBRC’'s jurisdiction may receive s jurisdiction may receive
    funding funding “"for community and economic developmentfor community and economic development”" projects pursuant to regional, state, and projects pursuant to regional, state, and
    local planning and priorities local planning and priorities ((see Table D-5).
    6). Overview of Structure and Activities
    Commission Structure
    The NBRC is led by a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of The NBRC is led by a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of
    the Senate, and four state governors, of which one is appointed state co-chair. There is no term the Senate, and four state governors, of which one is appointed state co-chair. There is no term
    limit for the federal co-chair. The state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not limit for the federal co-chair. The state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not
    serve a term of less than one year. Each of the four governors may appoint an alternate; each state serve a term of less than one year. Each of the four governors may appoint an alternate; each state
    also designates an NBRC program manager to handle the day-to-day operations of coordinating, also designates an NBRC program manager to handle the day-to-day operations of coordinating,
    reviewing, and recommending economic development projects to the full membership.reviewing, and recommending economic development projects to the full membership.102
    138 While program funding depends on congressional appropriations, administrative costs are shared While program funding depends on congressional appropriations, administrative costs are shared
    equally between the federal government and the four states of the NBRC. Through commission equally between the federal government and the four states of the NBRC. Through commission
    votes, applications are ranked by priority, and are approved in that order as grant funds allow.votes, applications are ranked by priority, and are approved in that order as grant funds allow.

    101 Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about.
    102 Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about.
    Congressional Research Service

    24
    link to page 55 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Strategic Plan
    The NBRC’ Strategic Plan The NBRC's activities are guided by a five-year strategic plan,s activities are guided by a five-year strategic plan,103 which is developed through which is developed through
    “"extensive engagement with NBRC stakeholdersextensive engagement with NBRC stakeholders”" alongside alongside “"local, state, and regional economic local, state, and regional economic
    development strategies already in place.development strategies already in place.” The 2017-2022 strategic plan lists three goals:
    1. modernizing infrastructure;
    2. creating and sustaining jobs; and
    3. anticipating and capitalizing on shifting economic and demographic trends.104
    The strategic plan also lists five-year performance goals, which are
     5,000 jobs created or retained;
     10,000 households and businesses with access to improved infrastructure;
     1,000 businesses representing 5,000 employees benefit from NBRC investments;
     7,500 workers provided with skills training;
     250 communities and 1,000 leaders engaged in regional leadership, learning
    and/or innovation networks supported by the NBRC; and
     3:1 NBRC investment leverage.105
    " The NBRC's 2024-2029 strategic plan lists five focus areas: (1) communication and collaboration; (2) programs and funding; (3) systems and processes; (4) diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and (5) capacity building. The plan highlights several funding priorities as well, including: transportation and basic public infrastructure; telecommunications, workforce, technology, entrepreneurship and business development; basic health care in distressed communities; natural resources; resiliency; renewable and alternative energy; housing; and childcare and early education.139 The strategic plan also takes stock of various socioeconomic trends in the northern border region, The strategic plan also takes stock of various socioeconomic trends in the northern border region,
    including (1) population shifts; (2) distressed communities; and (3) changing workforce needs.
    including an increase in the population over the age of 60 years, an increase in remote workers that may consider relocating to the region, changes in industry dynamics, and other opportunities and challenges unique to the region.140 The NBRC member states generally use state economic development plans to outline their statesThe NBRC member states generally use state economic development plans to outline their states’
    ' funding priorities for NBRC projects.funding priorities for NBRC projects.106
    141 Designating Distressed Areas
    The NBRC is The NBRC is unique in that it is statutorily obligated to assess distress according to economic as statutorily obligated to assess distress according to economic as
    well as demographic well as demographic factors (Table D-5)factors. These designations are made and refined annually. The . These designations are made and refined annually. The
    NBRC defines levels of NBRC defines levels of “distress”"distress" for counties that for counties that “"have high rates of poverty, unemployment, have high rates of poverty, unemployment,
    or outmigrationor outmigration”" and and “"are the most severely and persistently economic distressed and are the most severely and persistently economic distressed and
    underdeveloped.underdeveloped.”107"142 The NBRC is required to The NBRC is required to designate isolated areas of distress in attainment counties and allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects
    in distressed countiesin distressed counties.108
    The NBRC’ and isolated areas of distress.143

    The NBRC's county designations are as follows, in descending levels of distress:

    • Distressed counties (80% maximum funding allowance);
    • Transitional counties (50%); and
    • Attainment (0%).
    s county designations are as follows, in descending levels of distress:

    103 Northern Border Regional Commission, 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, Concord, NH, 2017, http://www.nbrc.gov/
    content/strategic-plan.
    104 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission: 2017-2022 Strategic Plan,
    http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/004%20RESOURCES/Five%20Yr%20Strat%20Plan/
    NBRC%20Strategic%20Plan%2C%20Full%20Study.pdf.
    105 Northern Border Regional Commission, 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, Concord, NH, 2017, p. 6.
    106 See, for example, state plans available at Northern Border Regional Commission, Resources, https://www.nbrc.gov/
    content/resources.
    107 P.L. 110-234.
    108 Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Annual Economic and Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021:
    To Determine Categories of Distress Within the NBRC Service Area    , Concord, NH, March 2021,
    https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/
    NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINA
    L.pdf.
    Congressional Research Service

    25
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Distressed counties (80% maximum funding allowance);
    Transitional counties (50%); and
    Attainment (0%).
    Transitional counties are defined as counties that do not exhibit the same levels of economic and Transitional counties are defined as counties that do not exhibit the same levels of economic and
    demographic distress as a distressed county, but suffer from demographic distress as a distressed county, but suffer from “"high rates of poverty, high rates of poverty,
    unemployment, or outmigration.unemployment, or outmigration.”" Attainment counties are not allowed to be funded by the NBRC Attainment counties are not allowed to be funded by the NBRC
    except for those projects that are located within an except for those projects that are located within an “"isolated area of distress,isolated area of distress,”" or have been or have been
    granted a waiver.granted a waiver.109
    144 Distress is calculated in tiers of primary and secondary distress categories, with each category Distress is calculated in tiers of primary and secondary distress categories, with each category
    having three factors:having three factors:
    Primary Distress CategoriesPrimary Distress Categories
    o Percent of population below the poverty levelPercent of population below the poverty level
    o Unemployment rate
    o
  • Unemployment rate
    • Percent change in populationPercent change in population
    Secondary Distress CategoriesSecondary Distress Categories
    o Percent of population below the poverty levelPercent of population below the poverty level
    o Median household incomeMedian household income
    o Percent of secondary and/or seasonal homesPercent of secondary and/or seasonal homes
    The NBRC assesses each county annually to determine the classification. The three The NBRC assesses each county annually to determine the classification. The three
    classifications of economic distress areclassifications of economic distress are:
    Distressed counties (i.e., counties with at least three qualifying factors (of the six Distressed counties (i.e., counties with at least three qualifying factors (of the six
    total factors) and at least one factor from each category);total factors) and at least one factor from each category);
    Transitional counties (i.e., counties with at least one factor from either category); Transitional counties (i.e., counties with at least one factor from either category);
    and
    and Attainment counties (i.e., counties that show no measures of distress).Attainment counties (i.e., counties that show no measures of distress).
    Recent Activities110
    Recent Activities145 All projects are required to address at least one of the NBRCAll projects are required to address at least one of the NBRC’'s four authorized program areas and s four authorized program areas and
    its five-year strategic plan. The NBRCits five-year strategic plan. The NBRC’'s main program areas includes main program areas include
    the Catalyst program (formerly the state economic and infrastructure the Catalyst program (formerly the state economic and infrastructure
    development (SEID) program; partially funded by IIJA appropriations);development (SEID) program; partially funded by IIJA appropriations);
    Forest Economy Program (formerly the Forest Economy Program (formerly the “"Regional Forest Economy Partnership" Program);
  • Timber for Transit Program;
  • comprehensive planning for states; and
  • other programs and initiatives (e.g., the J-1 Visa program, LDD Partnership program).146

    • NBRC collaborates with various federal agencies on certain programs and initiatives. For instance, NBRC partners with the U.S. DOL's Employment and Training Administration to design workforce development initiatives through the DOL's Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Grant Initiative.147 Since 2019, Congress has directed USDA to provide approximately $2-3 million annually to NBRC for USDA Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) grants to support rural economic development activities in the NBRC region.148 Other federal partners include EDA, EPA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and HRSA.149

    Catalyst Program
    The NBRC'    Regional Forest Economy Partnership”
    Program); and

    109 Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Annual Economic and Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021:
    To Determine Categories of Distress Within the NBRC Service Area    , Concord, NH, March 2021,
    https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/
    NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINA
    L.pdf.
    110 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on
    additional Northern Border Regional Commission activities, see https://www.nbrc.gov.
    Congressional Research Service

    26
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

     comprehensive planning for states.111
    Catalyst Program
    The NBRC’s Catalyst investment program is the chief mechanism for investing in economic s Catalyst investment program is the chief mechanism for investing in economic
    development programs in the participating states. The Catalyst program funds infrastructure (e.g., development programs in the participating states. The Catalyst program funds infrastructure (e.g.,
    transportation, telecommunications, and basic public infrastructure) and non-infrastructure transportation, telecommunications, and basic public infrastructure) and non-infrastructure
    activities. Non-infrastructure activities may include job skills training, skills development and activities. Non-infrastructure activities may include job skills training, skills development and
    employment-related education, entrepreneurship, technology, and business development projects, employment-related education, entrepreneurship, technology, and business development projects,
    as well as projects designed to improve basic health care, nutrition and food security, and other as well as projects designed to improve basic health care, nutrition and food security, and other
    public services. Funding may also support projects designed to promote resource conservation, public services. Funding may also support projects designed to promote resource conservation,
    tourism, recreation, and preservation of open space consistent with economic development tourism, recreation, and preservation of open space consistent with economic development
    goals.goals.112150 The program provides approximately $5.8 million to each state for such activities. The program provides approximately $5.8 million to each state for such activities.113
    151 Eligible applicants include units of local government, 501(c) organizations, Native American Eligible applicants include units of local government, 501(c) organizations, Native American
    tribes, and the four state governments. Catalyst projects may require matching funds of up to 50% tribes, and the four state governments. Catalyst projects may require matching funds of up to 50%
    depending on the level of distress. The Catalyst program is funded in part by IIJA depending on the level of distress. The Catalyst program is funded in part by IIJA
    appropriations.appropriations.114
    152 Forest Economy Program (FEP)
    The FEP is an NBRC program designed to support the forest-based economy and to assist in the The FEP is an NBRC program designed to support the forest-based economy and to assist in the
    forest industryforest industry’'s evolution to include new technologies and viable business models across the s evolution to include new technologies and viable business models across the
    four-state NBRC region.four-state NBRC region.115153 In FY2018, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $3 million to address In FY2018, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $3 million to address
    the decline in forest-based economies throughout the region.the decline in forest-based economies throughout the region.116154 Each fiscal year from FY2019 to Each fiscal year from FY2019 to
    FY2023, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $4 million for the forest-based initiatives.FY2023, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $4 million for the forest-based initiatives.117155 In In
    FY2022, NBRC revised its forest program priorities with input from regional stakeholders and FY2022, NBRC revised its forest program priorities with input from regional stakeholders and
    renamed the initiative the Forest Economy Program.118
    State Capacity Grants
    The NBRC may provide funding through non-competitive grants to assist states in developing
    comprehensive economic and infrastructure development plans for their NBRC counties. These

    111 Northern Border Regional Commission, Program Areas, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/program-areas.
    112 Northern Border Regional Commission, Catalyst Program, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/Catalyst.
    113 Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/
    Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-Report_Final-Web.pdf.
    114 Northern Border Regional Commission, Catalyst Program, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/Catalyst.
    115 Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/
    Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-Report_Final-Web.pdf.
    116 Northern Border Regional Commission, Regional Forest Economy Partnership: Notice of Funding Opportunity,
    http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/RegionalForestEconomyParternship(5).pdf.
    117 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission Announces 2020 Regional Forest
    Economy Partnership Grant Round    , July 1, 2020, https://www.nbrc.gov/articles/94; and 2021 Regional Forest
    Economy Partnership Overview    , https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/2021_RFEP_Documents/
    2021%20RFEP%20Program%20Overview%20FINAL.pdf.
    118 The program was formerly called the “Regional Forest Economy Partnership Program.” Northern Border Regional
    Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-
    Report_Final-Web.pdf.
    Congressional Research Service

    27
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    renamed the initiative the Forest Economy Program.156
    Timber for Transit

    The NBRC launched the Timber for Transit program in FY2024. The program provides funding for activities that promote the use of high-value forest products in transportation infrastructure and enhance climate resilience in rural communities. The purpose of the program is to "advance the use of wood-based materials and composites (advanced wood materials) through applied research and demonstration projects that showcase the suitability of such materials to transportation and transportation adjacent infrastructure."157

    State Capacity Grants
    The NBRC may provide funding through non-competitive grants to assist states in developing comprehensive economic and infrastructure development plans for their NBRC counties. These     initiatives are undertaken in collaboration with LDDs, localities, institutions of higher education, initiatives are undertaken in collaboration with LDDs, localities, institutions of higher education,
    and other relevant stakeholders.and other relevant stakeholders.119
    158 Local Development Districts (LDD)
    The NBRC uses multicounty LDDs to advise on local priorities, identify opportunities, conduct The NBRC uses multicounty LDDs to advise on local priorities, identify opportunities, conduct
    outreach, and administer grants, from which the LDDs receive fees. LDDs receive 2% of the outreach, and administer grants, from which the LDDs receive fees. LDDs receive 2% of the
    NBRC grant award for their administrative work.NBRC grant award for their administrative work.120
    159 Legislative History
    110th Congress
    110th Congress
    The NBRC was first proposed in the Northern Border Economic Development The NBRC was first proposed in the Northern Border Economic Development
    Commission Act of 2007 (H.R. 1548), introduced on March 15, 2007. H.R. 1548Commission Act of 2007 (H.R. 1548), introduced on March 15, 2007. H.R. 1548
    proposed the creation of a federally chartered, multi-state economic development proposed the creation of a federally chartered, multi-state economic development
    organization—modeled after the ARC—covering designated northern border organization—modeled after the ARC—covering designated northern border
    counties in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. The bill would counties in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. The bill would
    have authorized the appropriation of $40 million per year for FY2008 through have authorized the appropriation of $40 million per year for FY2008 through
    FY2012 (H.R. 1548). The bill received regional co-sponsorship from Members of FY2012 (H.R. 1548). The bill received regional co-sponsorship from Members of
    Congress representing areas in the northern border region.Congress representing areas in the northern border region.121
    160 The NBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure The NBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
    Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the NBRC, Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the NBRC,
    the SCRC, and the SBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA (discussed the SCRC, and the SBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA (discussed
    in the next section) in a combined bill.in the next section) in a combined bill.122 H.R. 3246 won a broader range of
    support, which included161 H.R. 3246 had 18 co-sponsors in addition to the original bill sponsor, 18 co-sponsors in addition to the original bill sponsor,
    and passed the House by a vote of 264-154 on October 4, 2007.and passed the House by a vote of 264-154 on October 4, 2007.
    Upon House passage, H.R. 3246 was referred to the Senate Committee on Upon House passage, H.R. 3246 was referred to the Senate Committee on
    Environment and Public Works. The Senate incorporated authorizations for the Environment and Public Works. The Senate incorporated authorizations for the
    establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and the SBRC in the 2008 farm bill.establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and the SBRC in the 2008 farm bill.123162 The The
    2008 farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008 2008 farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008
    through FY2012 for all three new commissions.through FY2012 for all three new commissions.
    115th Congress
    115th Congress
    The only major changes to the NBRC since its creation were made in the The only major changes to the NBRC since its creation were made in the
    Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334, ", “2018 farm bill2018 farm bill”"), which ), which
    authorized the state capacity building grant program.

    119 Northern Border Regional Commission, Comprehensive Planning Investments for States, http://www.nbrc.gov/
    content/planning-for-states.
    120 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, Grant Administration, Compliance
    and Monitoring Manual    , February 2023, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/
    Compliance%20Manual%20February%2023%20FINAL.pdf.
    121 The bill was introduced by Rep. Hodes, Paul [D-NH-2] and co-sponsored by: Rep. Arcuri, Michael A. [D-NY-24];
    Rep. Allen, Thomas H. [D-ME-1]; Rep. McHugh, John M. [R-NY-23]; Rep. Michaud, Michael H. [D-ME-2]; Rep.
    Shea-Porter, Carol [D-NH-1]; and Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large].
    122 The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, H.R. 3246.
    123 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-234.
    Congressional Research Service

    28
    link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 49 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    authorized the state capacity building grant program. In addition, the 2018 farm bill expanded the NBRC to include the following In addition, the 2018 farm bill expanded the NBRC to include the following
    counties: Belknap and Cheshire counties in New Hampshire; Genesee, Greene, counties: Belknap and Cheshire counties in New Hampshire; Genesee, Greene,
    Livingston, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Livingston, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga,
    Schenectady, Sullivan, Washington, Warren, Wayne, and Yates counties in New Schenectady, Sullivan, Washington, Warren, Wayne, and Yates counties in New
    York; and Addison, Bennington, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington, York; and Addison, Bennington, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington,
    Windham, and Windsor counties in Vermont, making it the only state entirely Windham, and Windsor counties in Vermont, making it the only state entirely
    within the NBRC.within the NBRC.
    Funding History
    118th CongressEDRA (P.L. 118-272) extended the funding authorization for the NBRC and added four counties to its region: Lincoln County in Maine, Merrimack County in New Hampshire, and Schoharie and Wyoming Counties in New York.
  • EDRA made other changes to the NBRC's authorizing statute which are summarized in "Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs."
    • Funding History     Since its creation, the NBRC has received consistent authorizations of appropriations Since its creation, the NBRC has received consistent authorizations of appropriations ((see Table 4).
    6). The 2008 farm bill authorized the appropriation of $30 million for the NBRC for each of FY2008 The 2008 farm bill authorized the appropriation of $30 million for the NBRC for each of FY2008
    through FY2013 (P.L. 110-234); the same in the 2014 farm bill for each of FY2014 through through FY2013 (P.L. 110-234); the same in the 2014 farm bill for each of FY2014 through
    FY2018 (P.L. 113-79FY2018 (P.L. 113-79); ); and $33 million for each of FY2019 through FY2023 (P.L. 115-334$33 million for each of FY2019 through FY2023 (P.L. 115-334).
    ); and $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272). Due to its statutory linkages to the SCRC and SBRC, all three commissions also share common Due to its statutory linkages to the SCRC and SBRC, all three commissions also share common
    authorizing legislation and identical funding authorizations. Congress has funded the NBRC since authorizing legislation and identical funding authorizations. Congress has funded the NBRC since
    FY2010 (FY2010 (see Table 4)6). The NBRC. The NBRC’'s appropriated funding level—excluding supplemental s appropriated funding level—excluding supplemental
    appropriations—increased from $1.5 million in FY2013 to $40 million in FY2023. In FY2022, appropriations—increased from $1.5 million in FY2013 to $40 million in FY2023. In FY2022,
    the NBRC, like the NBRC, like the other commissions, received five times the amount of their FY2021 annual other commissions, received five times the amount of their FY2021 annual
    appropriations in the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act (Division J, Title III of P.L. 117-appropriations in the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act (Division J, Title III of P.L. 117-
    58).
    Table 4. NBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
    $ in millions

    FY14
    FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22a
    FY23
    58). In FY2024, NBRC received $41 million in annual appropriations. P.L. 119-4 provided continuing appropriations for the NBRC for FY2025 at the same level of funding that was provided in FY2024. Table 6. NBRC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2015-FY2025

    ($ in millions)

    FY15

    FY16

    FY17

    FY18

    FY19

    FY20

    FY21

    FY22a

    FY23

    FY24

    FY25

    Appropriated Funding

    5.0

    7.5

    10.0

    15.0

    20.0

    25.0

    30.0

    185.00

    40.0

    41.0

    41.0

    Authorized Funding

    30.0

    30.0

    30.0

    30.0

    33.0

    33.0

    33.0

    33.0

    33.0

    —

    40.0

    Appropriated
    5.0
    5.0
    7.5
    10.0
    15.0
    20.0
    25.0
    30.0
    185.00
    40.0
    Funding
    Authorized
    30.0
    30.0
    30.0
    30.0
    30.0
    33.0
    33.0
    33.0
    33.0
    33.0
    Funding
    Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: following: P.L. 113-76P.L. 113-76; , P.L. 113-P.L. 113-
    235; 235, P.L. 114-113P.L. 114-113; , P.L. 115-31P.L. 115-31; , P.L. 115-141P.L. 115-141; , P.L. 115-244P.L. 115-244; , P.L. 116-94P.L. 116-94; , P.L. 116-260P.L. 116-260; , P.L. 117-58P.L. 117-58; , P.L. 117-103P.L. 117-103;
    and , P.L. 117-328P.L. 117-328.
    Notes, P.L. 118-42, and P.L. 119-4. Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, seesee Table C-1.
    a. a. FY2022 amounts include $35 FY2022 amounts include $35 mil ionmillion provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103 provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103, ,
    Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $150 Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $150 mil ionmillion provided by the provided by the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).
    Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
    The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA) was created by the 2002 farm bill.was created by the 2002 farm bill.124163 The NGPRA The NGPRA
    was created to address economic distress in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri (other than counties was created to address economic distress in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri (other than counties
    included in the Delta Regional Authority), North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota.included in the Delta Regional Authority), North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota.

    124 P.L. 107-171.
    Congressional Research Service

    29

    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Figure 67. Map of the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority

    Source: Compiled by CRS using the NGPRA jurisdiction defined in P.L. 107-171 and Esri Data and Maps.Compiled by CRS using the NGPRA jurisdiction defined in P.L. 107-171 and Esri Data and Maps.
    Note: Missouri Missouri’'s jurisdiction was defined as those counties not already included in the DRA.s jurisdiction was defined as those counties not already included in the DRA.
    The NGPRA appears to have been briefly active shortly after it was created, when it received The NGPRA appears to have been briefly active shortly after it was created, when it received its
    only annual appropriation from Congress. The NGPRA’a total of $3 million in annual appropriations from Congress in FY2004 and FY2005.164 The NGPRA's funding authorization lapsed at the end s funding authorization lapsed at the end
    of FY2018of FY2018; it was not reauthorized.
    Structure and Activities
    , and it was reauthorized with the enactment of P.L. 118-272. The NGPRA region includes counties that are also in the GLA region (see Table D-7 and Figure B-1). Structure and Activities Overview of Structure and Activities
    The NGPRA featured broad similarities to the basic structure shared among most of the federal The NGPRA featured broad similarities to the basic structure shared among most of the federal
    regional authorities and commissions, being a federal-state partnership led by a federal co-chair regional authorities and commissions, being a federal-state partnership led by a federal co-chair
    (appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate) and governors of the (appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate) and governors of the
    participating states, of which one was designated as the state co-chair.participating states, of which one was designated as the state co-chair.
    Unique to the NGPRA were certain structural novelties reflective of regional socio-political Unique to the NGPRA were certain structural novelties reflective of regional socio-political
    features. The NGPRA also included a Native American tribal co-chair, who was the chairperson features. The NGPRA also included a Native American tribal co-chair, who was the chairperson
    of an Indian tribe in the region (or their designated representative), and appointed by the of an Indian tribe in the region (or their designated representative), and appointed by the
    President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tribal co-chair served as the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tribal co-chair served as the “"liaison liaison
    between the governments of Indian tribes in the region and the [NGPRA].between the governments of Indian tribes in the region and the [NGPRA].”" No term limit is No term limit is
    established in statute; the only term-related proscription is that the state co-chair established in statute; the only term-related proscription is that the state co-chair “"shall be elected shall be elected
    by the state members for a term of not less than 1 year.by the state members for a term of not less than 1 year.”
    " Another novel feature among the Another novel feature among the federal regional commissions and authoritiesFRCAs was also the was also the
    NGPRA’NGPRA's statutory reliance on a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation—Northern Great Plains, Inc.—s statutory reliance on a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation—Northern Great Plains, Inc.—
    in furtherance of its mission. While Northern Great Plains, Inc. was statutorily organized to in furtherance of its mission. While Northern Great Plains, Inc. was statutorily organized to
    complement the NGPRAcomplement the NGPRA’'s activities, it effectively served as the sole manifestation of the s activities, it effectively served as the sole manifestation of the
    NGPRA concept and rationale while it was active, given that the NGPRA was only once NGPRA concept and rationale while it was active, given that the NGPRA was only once
    appropriated funds and never appeared to exist as an active organization. The Northern Great appropriated funds and never appeared to exist as an active organization. The Northern Great
    Congressional Research Service

    30
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Plains, Inc. was active for several years, and reportedly received external funding,Plains, Inc. was active for several years, and reportedly received external funding,125165 but is but is
    currently defunct.currently defunct.
    Activities
    Under its authorizing statute,Under its authorizing statute,126166 the federal government would initially fund all administrative the federal government would initially fund all administrative
    costs in FY2002, which would decrease to 75% in FY2003, and 50% in FY2004. Also, the costs in FY2002, which would decrease to 75% in FY2003, and 50% in FY2004. Also, the
    NGPRA would have designated levels of county economic distress; 75% of funds were reserved NGPRA would have designated levels of county economic distress; 75% of funds were reserved
    for the most distressed counties in each state, and 50% reserved for transportation, for the most distressed counties in each state, and 50% reserved for transportation,
    telecommunications, and basic infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, non-distressed telecommunications, and basic infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, non-distressed
    communities were eligible to receive no more than 25% of appropriated funds.communities were eligible to receive no more than 25% of appropriated funds.
    The NGPRA was also structured to include a network of designated, multi-county LDDs at the The NGPRA was also structured to include a network of designated, multi-county LDDs at the
    sub-state levels. As with its sister organizations, the LDDs would have served as nodes for project sub-state levels. As with its sister organizations, the LDDs would have served as nodes for project
    implementation and reporting, and as advisors to their respective states and the NGPRA as a implementation and reporting, and as advisors to their respective states and the NGPRA as a
    whole.whole.
    Legislative History
    103rd Congress
    103rd Congress
    The Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act (P.L. 103-318), which became The Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act (P.L. 103-318), which became
    law in 1994, established the Northern Great Plains Rural Development law in 1994, established the Northern Great Plains Rural Development
    Commission to study economic conditions and provide economic development Commission to study economic conditions and provide economic development
    planning for the Northern Great Plains region. The commission was comprised of planning for the Northern Great Plains region. The commission was comprised of
    the governors (or designated representative) from the Northern Great Plains the governors (or designated representative) from the Northern Great Plains
    states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota (prior to states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota (prior to
    Missouri’Missouri's inclusion), along with one member from each of those states s inclusion), along with one member from each of those states
    appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
    104th Congress
    104th Congress
    The Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and The Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-330) provided $1,000,000 Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-330) provided $1,000,000
    to carry out the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act. The commission to carry out the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act. The commission
    produced a 10-year plan to address economic development and distress in the produced a 10-year plan to address economic development and distress in the
    five states. After a legislative extension (P.L. 104-327), the report was submitted five states. After a legislative extension (P.L. 104-327), the report was submitted
    in 1997.in 1997.127167 The Northern Great Plains Initiative for Rural Development The Northern Great Plains Initiative for Rural Development
    (NGPIRD), a nonprofit 501(c)(3), was established to implement the (NGPIRD), a nonprofit 501(c)(3), was established to implement the
    commission’commission's advisories.s advisories.
    107th Congress
    107th Congress
    The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm bill (P.L. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm bill (P.L.
    107-171107-171), authorized the NGPRA, which superseded the commission. The statute ), authorized the NGPRA, which superseded the commission. The statute

    125 W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Grants: Northern Great Plains, Inc., https://www.wkkf.org/grants/grant/2007/09/the-
    meadowlark-project-a-leadership-laboratory-on-the-future-of-the-northern-great-plains-3004879.
    126 P.L. 107-171.
    127 Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Great Plains Commission Completes Work, Looks to Region’s Future,”
    Minneapolis, MN, April 1, 1997, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/great-plains-commission-
    completes-work-looks-to-regions-future.
    Congressional Research Service

    31
    link to page 38 link to page 57 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    also created Northern Great Plains, Inc., a 501(c)(3), as a resource for regional also created Northern Great Plains, Inc., a 501(c)(3), as a resource for regional
    issues and international trade, which supplanted the NGPIRD with a broader issues and international trade, which supplanted the NGPIRD with a broader
    remit that included research, education, training, and issues of international trade.remit that included research, education, training, and issues of international trade.
    110th Congress
    110th CongressThe Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-
    246), extended the NGPRA246), extended the NGPRA’'s authorization through FY2012. The legislation also s authorization through FY2012. The legislation also
    expanded the authority to include areas of Missouri not covered by the DRA, and expanded the authority to include areas of Missouri not covered by the DRA, and
    provided mechanisms to enable the NGPRA to begin operations even without the provided mechanisms to enable the NGPRA to begin operations even without the
    Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair, as well as in the absence of a Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair, as well as in the absence of a
    confirmed tribal co-chair.confirmed tribal co-chair.
    The Agricultural Act of 2014, or 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), reauthorized the The Agricultural Act of 2014, or 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), reauthorized the
    NGPRA and the DRA, and extended their authorizations from FY2012 to NGPRA and the DRA, and extended their authorizations from FY2012 to
    FY2018.
    Funding History
    FY2018.
    118th Congress
    • EDRA (P.L. 118-272) repealed the NGPRA's sunset provision and reauthorized the NGPRA. The law also authorized appropriations for NGPRA through FY2029.168
    Funding History     The NGPRA was authorized to receive $30 million annually from The NGPRA was authorized to receive $30 million annually from FY2002FY2008 to FY2018 and $40 million annually from FY2025 to FY2029.169 Its authorization of appropriations lapsed at the end of FY2018, and was reauthorized in FY2025 through EDRA.170 It received $1.5 million in appropriations each year in FY2004 and FY2005.171 Table 7. Northern Great Plains Regional Authority Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2025

    (in millions $)

    FY2025

    Appropriated Funding

    —

    Authorized Funding

    $40

    Source: Authorized funding amount compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 118-272.

    Note: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.     to FY2018. It received
    appropriations once for $1.5 million in FY2004.128 Its authorization of appropriations lapsed at
    the end of FY2018.
    Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
    The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) was created by the 2008 farm bill,The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) was created by the 2008 farm bill,129
    172 which also created the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. All three which also created the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. All three
    commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
    The SCRC received regular appropriations of $250,000 annually from FY2010 through FY2020 The SCRC received regular appropriations of $250,000 annually from FY2010 through FY2020
    but did not form during that time due to the absence of an appointed federal co-chair.but did not form during that time due to the absence of an appointed federal co-chair.130173 On On
    December 8, 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the SCRCDecember 8, 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the SCRC’'s first federal co-chairperson, thereby s first federal co-chairperson, thereby
    allowing the SCRC to convene and begin other activities.allowing the SCRC to convene and begin other activities.131
    174 The SCRC was created to address economic distress in areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South The SCRC was created to address economic distress in areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South
    Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida ((see Figure 7)8) not served by the ARC or the not served by the ARC or the
    DRA (DRA (see Table D-78).

    Figure 8. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission     ).

    128 P.L. 108-199.
    129 P.L. 110-234.
    130 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Forming a Funded Federal Regional Commission, by Julie M.
    Lawhorn.
    131 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Hearing on the Nominations of Christopher
    Frey to be Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, at the Environmental Protection Agency and
    Jennifer Clyburn Reed to be Federal Co-Chair of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission,     117th Cong., 1st sess.,
    October 27, 2021, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=A654BF51-1207-411A-BD0E-
    914CCFBDB60B, and Congress.gov, “Nomination: Jennifer Clyburn Reed—Southeast Crescent Regional
    Commission,” PN957, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/957.
    Congressional Research Service

    32

    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Figure 7. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

    Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdiction defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps and SCRC, Compiled by CRS using the jurisdiction defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps and SCRC,
    SCRC Counties by Economic Designation, https://scrc.gov https://scrc.gov.
    . Notes: The SCRC is statutorily defined as including those counties in the named states that are not already The SCRC is statutorily defined as including those counties in the named states that are not already
    included in the ARC or the DRA. Florida is the only state with all counties defined as being within the SCRC. included in the ARC or the DRA. Florida is the only state with all counties defined as being within the SCRC.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three counties The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three counties
    that were previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region.that were previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region.
    Overview of Structure and Activities
    Commission Structure
    The SCRC shares an organizing structure with the The SCRC shares an organizing structure with the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional
    Commission, as all threeGLA, MARC, NBRC, SBRC, and SNERC; all share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC. share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
    The SCRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent The SCRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent
    of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of
    which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. There is no term limit which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. There is no term limit
    for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may
    not serve a term of less than one year. In December 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the first not serve a term of less than one year. In December 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the first
    federal co-chair for the SCRC.federal co-chair for the SCRC.
    Congressional Research Service

    33
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Strategic Plan
    Prior to the confirmation of the federal co-chair in FY2022, the SCRC was unable to form, despite receiving annual appropriations.175 Strategic Plan The SCRC developed its bylaws and its first strategic plan for the period FY2023-FY2027.The SCRC developed its bylaws and its first strategic plan for the period FY2023-FY2027.132176 The The
    plan includes the following goals:plan includes the following goals:
    1. 1. critical infrastructure,critical infrastructure,
    2. 2. health and support services access and outcomes,health and support services access and outcomes,
    3. 3. workforce capacity,workforce capacity,
    4. 4. entrepreneurial and business development activities,entrepreneurial and business development activities,
    5. 5. affordable housing stock and access, andaffordable housing stock and access, and
    6. 6. environmental conservation, preservation, and access.environmental conservation, preservation, and access.
    Designating Distressed Areas
    As authorized, the SCRC shares an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that As authorized, the SCRC shares an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that
    of the NBRC and the of the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional CommissionSBRC, as all , as all three share common share common
    statutory authorizing language.statutory authorizing language.133 In FY2023, using177 The SCRC uses an index-based classification system, the an index-based classification system, the
    SCRC compared each county within its jurisdiction with national averages based on three SCRC compared each county within its jurisdiction with national averages based on three
    economic indicators: (1) three-year average unemployment rates; (2) per capita market income; economic indicators: (1) three-year average unemployment rates; (2) per capita market income;
    and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a composite index value for each county, and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a composite index value for each county,
    which are ranked and sorted into designated distress levels. Each distress level corresponds to a which are ranked and sorted into designated distress levels. Each distress level corresponds to a
    given countygiven county’'s ranking relative to that of the United States as a whole. These designations are s ranking relative to that of the United States as a whole. These designations are
    defined as follows by the SCRC, starting from the highest level of distress:defined as follows by the SCRC, starting from the highest level of distress:
    DistressedDistressed counties, which are the most severely and persistently economically counties, which are the most severely and persistently economically
    distressed and underdeveloped. They also have high rates of poverty, distressed and underdeveloped. They also have high rates of poverty,
    unemployment, or outmigration.unemployment, or outmigration.
    Transitional Transitional, which are counties that are economically distressed and , which are counties that are economically distressed and
    underdeveloped or have recently suffered high rates of poverty, unemployment, underdeveloped or have recently suffered high rates of poverty, unemployment,
    or outmigration.or outmigration.
    Attainment Attainment, which are counties in the region that are not designated as distressed , which are counties in the region that are not designated as distressed
    or transitional counties under this subsection.134
    Recent Activities
    In addition to the development of bylaws and strategic plan, the SCRC hired its first chief of staff
    in 2022. In FY2023, the SCRC plans to hire an executive director and develop a competitive
    grant program as well as a separate J-1 visa program.135

    132 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, “Southeast Crescent Regional Commission: Bylaws,” August 2022,
    https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/SCRC-Bylaws-Final.pdf; and “Southeast Crescent Regional Commission:
    Strategic Plan (FY2023-FY2027),” December 2022, https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SCRC-Strategic-
    Plan-Final.pdf.
    133 40 U.S.C. §15302.
    134 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, “SCRC Economic Designation of Counties & Isolated Areas,”
    https://scrc.gov.
    135 SCRC, “Southeast Crescent Regional Commission,” https://scrc.gov.
    Congressional Research Service

    34
    link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 49 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Legislative History
    or transitional counties under this subsection.178

    The SCRC also designates isolated areas of distress in attainment counties.179 The SCRC is required to allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress.180

    Recent Activities

    In addition to the development of bylaws and strategic plan, the SCRC hired its first chief of staff in 2022 and continued to add staff in subsequent years. The SCRC administers State Economic and Infrastructure Development (SEID) Grant Program, a Local Development District (LDD) Capacity Building program, a state Capacity Cooperative program, and a J-1 visa program.181

    Legislative History     The SCRC concept was first introduced by university researchers working on rural development The SCRC concept was first introduced by university researchers working on rural development
    issues in 1990 at Tuskegee Universityissues in 1990 at Tuskegee University’'s Annual Professional Agricultural Workers Annual Professional Agricultural Worker’'s Conference s Conference
    for 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant Universities.for 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant Universities.
    In 1994, the Southern Rural Development Commission Act was introduced in the House In 1994, the Southern Rural Development Commission Act was introduced in the House
    Agricultural Committee, which would provide the statutory basis for a Agricultural Committee, which would provide the statutory basis for a “"Southern Black Belt Southern Black Belt
    Commission.Commission.”136"182 While the concept was not reintroduced in Congress until the 2000s, various While the concept was not reintroduced in Congress until the 2000s, various
    nongovernmental initiatives sustained discussion and interest in the concept in the intervening nongovernmental initiatives sustained discussion and interest in the concept in the intervening
    period. Supportive legislation was reintroduced in 2002, which touched off other accompanying period. Supportive legislation was reintroduced in 2002, which touched off other accompanying
    legislative efforts until the SCRC was authorized in 2008.legislative efforts until the SCRC was authorized in 2008.137
    Funding History
    183

    In the 118th Congress, EDRA (P.L. 118-272) extended the funding authorization for the SCRC. EDRA also made several changes to the SCRC's authorizing statute—see "Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs."

    Funding History     Congress authorized $30 million funding levels for each year from FY2008 to FY2018 and $33 Congress authorized $30 million funding levels for each year from FY2008 to FY2018 and $33
    million for each year from FY2019 through FY2023.million for each year from FY2019 through FY2023.138 184 EDRA (P.L. 118-272) authorized appropriations for the SCRC at $40 million for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029.185 Congress appropriated $250,000 in each Congress appropriated $250,000 in each
    fiscal year from FY2010 to FY2020. However, for FY2021, Congress provided an annual fiscal year from FY2010 to FY2020. However, for FY2021, Congress provided an annual
    appropriation of $1 million, which was followed by $5 million in FY2022appropriation of $1 million, which was followed by $5 million in FY2022 and $20 million each for FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025. Congress also . Congress also
    provided $5 million in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title provided $5 million in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title
    III) in III) in FY2022139 (Table 5). Prior to the confirmation of the federal co-chair in FY2022, the
    SCRC was unable to form, despite receiving annual appropriations.140
    Table 5. SCRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
    $ in millions

    FY14
    FY15
    FY16
    FY17
    FY18
    FY19
    FY20
    FY21
    FY22a
    FY23
    Appropriated
    0.25
    0.25
    0.25
    0.25
    0.25
    0.25
    0.25
    1.00
    10.00
    20.0
    Funding
    Authorized
    30.00
    30.00
    30.00
    30.00
    30.00
    33.00
    33.00
    33.00
    33.00
    33.0
    Funding
    FY2022186 (see Table 8). Table 8. SCRC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2015-FY2025

    ($ in millions)

    FY15

    FY16

    FY17

    FY18

    FY19

    FY20

    FY21

    FY22a

    FY23

    FY24

    FY25

    Appropriated Funding

    0.25

    0.25

    0.25

    0.25

    0.25

    0.25

    1.0

    10.0

    20.0

    20.0

    20.0

    Authorized Funding

    30.0

    30.0

    30.0

    30.0

    33.0

    33.0

    33.0

    33.0

    33.0

    —

    40.0

     Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: following: P.L. 113-76P.L. 113-76; , P.L. 113-P.L. 113-
    235; 235, P.L. 114-113P.L. 114-113; , P.L. 115-31P.L. 115-31; , P.L. 115-141P.L. 115-141; , P.L. 115-244P.L. 115-244; , P.L. 116-94P.L. 116-94; , P.L. 116-260P.L. 116-260; , P.L. 117-58P.L. 117-58; , P.L. 117-103P.L. 117-103;
    and , P.L. 117-328P.L. 117-328.
    Notes, P.L. 118-42, and P.L. 119-4. Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, seesee Table C-1.
    a. a. FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include $5 FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include $5 mil ionmillion provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
    2022 (P.L. 117-103, Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $5 2022 (P.L. 117-103, Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $5 mil ion
    million provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III). Southern New England Regional Commission

    P.L. 118-272 amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Southern New England Regional Commission (SNERC). The structure and functions of the SNERC are based on the model of the NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (i.e., 2008 farm bill).187 The authorizing legislation requires that before the SNERC may convene, the President must nominate and the Senate must confirm a federal co-chair. As of the date of this publication the President has not nominated a federal co-chair.

    The geographic boundaries of the SNERC include the entire states Massachusetts and Rhode Island and six counties in Connecticut (see Table D-9 and Figure 9).

    Figure 9. Map of the Southern New England Regional Commission Region

    Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data defined in P.L. 118-272 and Esri Data and Maps.

    Overview of Structure and Activities

    As authorized, the SNERC would share a structure with the GLA, MARC, NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC.

    Authority Structure

    As authorized, the SNERC would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.

    Strategic Plan

    As of the date of publication, the SNERC is not active and has not published a strategic plan.

    Designating Distressed Areas

    As authorized, the SNERC would share an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that of the GLA, MARC, NBRC, SBRC, and SCRC.188 Generally speaking, statutes require the FRCAs to designate all counties (including isolated areas within counties) by their relative level of economic distress. The highest level of distress is considered "distressed" and the least distressed are considered "attainment."

    Other Subtitle V FRCAs (i.e., GLA, NBRC, SBRC, SCRC) are authorized to provide funding in attainment counties for administrative expenses of local development districts and for multicounty projects that may include areas in attainment counties. EDRA waived these exceptions for the SNERC.189

    Recent Activities

    The SNERC is not currently active. The presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair is an essential step for the SNERC to start operations. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Authorization.

    Legislative History

    Members of Congress introduced bills to establish a SNERC in the 116th-118th Congresses.190 In the 118th Congress, P.L. 118-272 (EDRA) established the SNERC and authorized funding each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029.

    Funding History

    Although EDRA did not provide direct funding for SNERC, it did include an authorization of appropriations for SNERC of $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).191 As of the date of publication, the SNERC has not received appropriations.

    Table 9. Southern New England Regional Commission Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2025

    ($ in millions)

    FY25

    Appropriated Funding

    -

    Authorized Funding

    40.0

    Notes: The SNERC was authorized in FY2025 (P.L. 118-272). For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1. Southwest Border Regional Commission     , Division J, Title III).

    136 H.R. 3901.
    137 40 U.S.C. §15731.
    138 40 U.S.C. §15751.
    139 P.L. 116-260 and P.L. 117-58.
    140 According to statute, a federal co-chair is required for the formation of a commission quorum and making decisions.
    40 U.S.C. §15302.
    Congressional Research Service

    35
    link to page 41 link to page 58
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Southwest Border Regional Commission
    The Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC) was created with the enactment of the The Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC) was created with the enactment of the
    Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234), which also Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234), which also
    created the NBRC and the SCRC. All three commissions created the NBRC and the SCRC. All three commissions (and the GLA, MARC, and SNERC) share common statutory authorizing share common statutory authorizing
    language modeled after the ARC.language modeled after the ARC.
    The SBRC was created to address economic distress in the southern border regions of Arizona, The SBRC was created to address economic distress in the southern border regions of Arizona,
    California, New Mexico, and California, New Mexico, and Texas (Figure 8;Texas (see Figure 10 and Table D-8)10). On December 6, 2022, the U.S. . On December 6, 2022, the U.S.
    Senate confirmed the SBRCSenate confirmed the SBRC’'s first federal co-chairperson, thereby allowing the SCRC to convene s first federal co-chairperson, thereby allowing the SCRC to convene
    and begin other activities.and begin other activities.141
    192

    Figure 810. Map of the Southwest Border Regional Commission

    Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data defined in P.L. 110-234Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data defined in P.L. 110-234, P.L. 118-272, and Esri Data and Maps. and Esri Data and Maps.
    Overview of Structure and Activities
    Commission Structure
    The SBRC shares an organizing structure with the GLA, The SBRC shares an organizing structure with the GLA, theMARC, NBRC, NBRC, and the SCRC, as all four
    SCRC, SNERC as all share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
    By statute, the SBRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice By statute, the SBRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice
    and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated
    representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. As representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. As

    141 Congress.gov, “Nomination: Juan Eduardo Sanchez—Southwest Border Regional Commission,” PN2450,
    https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/2450.
    Congressional Research Service

    36
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    enacted in statute, there is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is enacted in statute, there is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is
    limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.
    Strategic Plan
    As of the date of publication, the SBRC has not yet published a strategic plan.
    Designating Distressed Areas

    In January 2025, the SBRC published its inaugural strategic plan for FY2025-FY2030, which includes goals focused on underserved communities; regional competitiveness; workforce and economic mobility; resiliency, local capacity, and infrastructure; and efficiency and impact.193

    Designating Distressed Areas     As authorized, the SBRC shares an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that As authorized, the SBRC shares an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that
    of the NBRC and the SCRC, as all three of the GLA, MARC, NBRC, SCRC, and SNERC as all share common statutory authorizing language.share common statutory authorizing language.142
    Recent Activities
    The U.S. Senate confirmed the SBRC’194 For instance, like these FRCAs, the SBRC is required to designate isolated areas of distress in attainment counties and to allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress.195 Recent Activities The U.S. Senate confirmed the SBRC's first federal co-chair in December 2022, which marked s first federal co-chair in December 2022, which marked
    an essential step for starting the commissionan essential step for starting the commission’'s operations.196 The SBRC announced its first grant competition in March 2025.197 Legislative History s operations.143 As of the date of publication, the
    SBRC has not yet announced recent activities.
    Legislative History
    The concept of an economic development agency focusing on the southwest border region has The concept of an economic development agency focusing on the southwest border region has
    existed at least since 1976, though the SBRC was established through more recent efforts.existed at least since 1976, though the SBRC was established through more recent efforts.
    Executive Order 13122 in 1999 created the Interagency Task Force on the Executive Order 13122 in 1999 created the Interagency Task Force on the
    Economic Development of the Southwest Border,Economic Development of the Southwest Border,144198 which examined issues of which examined issues of
    socioeconomic distress and economic development in the southwest border socioeconomic distress and economic development in the southwest border
    regions and advised on federal efforts to address them. regions and advised on federal efforts to address them.
    108th Congress
    108th CongressIn February 2003, a In February 2003, a “"Southwest Regional Border AuthoritySouthwest Regional Border Authority”" was proposed in was proposed in S. S.
    458. A companion bill, H.R. 1071, was introduced in March 2003. The SBRC 458. A companion bill, H.R. 1071, was introduced in March 2003. The SBRC
    was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act
    of 2003 (H.R. 3196), which would have authorized the SBRC, the DRA, the of 2003 (H.R. 3196), which would have authorized the SBRC, the DRA, the
    NGPRA, and the SCRC.NGPRA, and the SCRC.
    109th Congress
    109th Congress
    In 2006, the proposed Southwest Regional Border Authority Act would have In 2006, the proposed Southwest Regional Border Authority Act would have
    created the created the “"Southwest Regional Border AuthoritySouthwest Regional Border Authority” (" (H.R. 5742), similar to S. H.R. 5742), similar to S.
    458458 in 2003.
    110th Congress
    In 2007, the     in 2003.
    110th Congress
     In 2007, SBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure SBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
    Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the SBRC, ), which would have authorized the SBRC,

    142 40 U.S.C. §15302.
    143 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Forming a Funded Federal Regional Commission, by Julie M.
    Lawhorn.
    144 Executive Order 13122, “Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southern Border,” 64
    Federal Register     29201-29202, May 25, 1999.
    Congressional Research Service

    37
    link to page 43 link to page 49 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    the SCRC, and the NBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA in a the SCRC, and the NBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA in a
    combined bill.combined bill.
    Upon House passage, the Senate incorporated authorizations for the Upon House passage, the Senate incorporated authorizations for the
    establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC in the 2008 farm bill. The 2008 establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC in the 2008 farm bill. The 2008
    farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008 through farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008 through
    FY2012 for all three of the new organizations.FY2012 for all three of the new organizations.
    117th Congress
    117th Congress
    The U.S. Senate confirmed the SBRCThe U.S. Senate confirmed the SBRC’'s first federal co-chair in December s first federal co-chair in December
    2022.145
    Funding History
    2022.199
    118th Congress
    EDRA (P.L. 118-272) extended the funding authorization for the SBRC and added 10 counties to its region: Bernalillo, Cibola, Curry, De Baca, Guadalupe, Lea, Roosevelt, Torrance, and Valencia Counties in New Mexico and Guadalupe County in Texas. EDRA made other changes to the NBRC's authorizing statute which are summarized in "Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs."Funding History     Congress authorized annual funding of $30 million for the SBRC from FY2008 to FY2018Congress authorized annual funding of $30 million for the SBRC from FY2008 to FY2018; and
    $33 million for each fiscal year from FY2019 through FY2023$33 million for each fiscal year from FY2019 through FY2023.146; and $40 million for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).200 For FY2021, Congress For FY2021, Congress
    provided $250,000 for the SBRC through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-provided $250,000 for the SBRC through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-
    260). For FY2022, Congress provided $1.25 million for the SBRC through the IIJA (Division J, 260). For FY2022, Congress provided $1.25 million for the SBRC through the IIJA (Division J,
    Title III of P.L. 117-58) and $2.5 million through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. Title III of P.L. 117-58) and $2.5 million through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L.
    117-103). The IIJA provided the SBRC with an increase in appropriations that was five times the 117-103). The IIJA provided the SBRC with an increase in appropriations that was five times the
    amount of its annual appropriation in FY2021. Congress provided $5 million for the SBRC amount of its annual appropriation in FY2021. Congress provided $5 million for the SBRC
    through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328 ).
    Table 6. SBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
    $ in millions

    FY14
    FY15
    FY16
    FY17
    FY18
    FY19
    FY20
    FY21
    FY22a
    FY23
    Appropriated
    —
    —
    —
    —
    —
    —
    —
    0.25
    3.75
    5.0
    Funding
    Authorized
    30.00
    30.00
    30.00
    30.00
    30.00
    33.00
    33.00
    33.00
    33.0
    33.0
    Funding
    Sourcesfor each of FY2023 (P.L. 117-328) and FY2024 (P.L. 118-42). In FY2024, Congress directed USDA to provide funding for the first time to SBRC for USDA Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) grants to support rural economic development activities in the SBRC region.201 In FY2025, P.L. 119-4 provided continuing appropriations for SBRC for FY2025 at the same level of funding that was provided in FY2024 ($5 million). Table 10. SBRC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2015-FY2025

    ($ in millions)

    FY15

    FY16

    FY17

    FY18

    FY19

    FY20

    FY21

    FY22a

    FY23

    FY24

    FY25

    Appropriated Funding

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    0.25

    3.75

    5.00

    5.00

    5.00

    Authorized Funding

    30.00

    30.00

    30.00

    30.00

    33.00

    33.00

    33.00

    33.00

    33.00

    —

    40.00

    Sources    :     Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 116-260Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 116-260; ; P.L. 117-58P.L. 117-58; ; P.L. 117-P.L. 117-
    103; and 103; P.L. 117-328P.L. 117-328.
    Notes, P.L. 118-42, and P.L. 119-4. Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, seesee Table C-1.
    a. a. FY2022 amounts include $2.5 FY2022 amounts include $2.5 mil ionmillion provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103 provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103, ,
    Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $1.25 Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $1.25 mil ionmillion provided by of the provided by of the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III). The Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA) of 2024 (P.L. 118-272) As aforementioned, EDRA established two new FRCAs and made revisions to the authorizing statutes for seven of the existing FRCAs. EDRA also explicitly repealed the termination of authority provisions for the DRA and NGRPA.202 EDRA did not address the ARC, which was reauthorized by the IIJA in FY2021. In general, EDRA
    • expanded the geography of FRCAs to cover parts of four additional states that previously did not have counties included in a FRCA region (i.e., parts of Connecticut and the entire states of Delaware, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) by (1) adding counties or parts of counties to the regions of four FRCAs (i.e., DRA, GLA, NBRC, SBRC), and (2) establishing two new FRCAs, the MARC and the SNERC;
    • amended non-programmatic authorities and requirements (e.g., temporary leadership positions, cost sharing, and fees);203
    • authorized new programs (e.g., state capacity building program); and
    • authorized a total of $1.8 billion for nine FRCAs through FY2029.

    Changes resulting from the enactment of EDRA to the DRA, Denali Commission, and NGPRA are summarized in the "Legislative History" sections above. See below for a summary of the provisions affecting Subtitle V FRCAs.

    Sunset Provision and ARC's Operating Authorization

    The authorizing statute for the ARC continues to include a sunset provision.204 Policymakers may choose to allow this provision to take effect, extend the date of the sunset, or remove the sunset provision entirely. In recent years, Congress extended the ARC's operational authorization for periods of several years. The ARC's operational authorization was to expire on October 1, 2021. However, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Subtitle B) extended the authorization for the ARC until October 1, 2026.205

    Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs

    EDRA changed several aspects of the programs, decisionmaking, governance, and other requirements and authorities of the six Subtitle V FRCAs. EDRA

  • authorized the Subtitle V FRCAs to administer a demonstration health project program206 and state capacity grant building program;207
    • allowed funding to be considered as a nonfederal match in other federal programs (unless otherwise prohibited)208
  • authorized the FRCAs to collect, retain, and spend fees;209
  • allowed state alternate members to select a designee that may vote in their absence, provided that the executive director is notified a week before the applicable vote;210
  • allowed state alternate members or their designees to vote on FRCA decisions—prior to EDRA, decisions by Subtitle V FRCAs required the affirmative vote of the federal cochair and a majority of the state members;211
  • allowed state members, state alternate members, or their designees' votes may count towards a quorum—prior to EDRA, state alternative members and their designees did not count towards a quorum;212
  • authorized the transfer of funds to and from other Federal agencies (unless otherwise prohibited);213
  • allowed the federal co-chair to designate a nonfederal employee of the FRCAs to take on a temporary acting role as federal co-chair if there are vacancies in both the federal co-chair and the alternate federal co-chair roles;214
  • clarified that any request to the head of any federal agency, state agency, or local government to detail to the FRCAs shall not require reimbursement to the agency or local government;
  • changed the requirement from every 90 to every 180 days after the end of the fiscal year for the submission of the annual report to the President and to Congress;
  • changed the annual meeting requirements to allow for state alternate designees to count towards the majority of the state members and allow for in-person or virtual attendance; and
  • repealed the requirement to have government relations offices in the District of Columbia.215
    • Concluding Notes Given their geographic reach, broad activities, and integrated intergovernmental structures, the FRCAs are a significant element of federal economic development efforts. At the same time, as organizations that are largely governed by the respective state-based commissioners, the FRCAs are not     , Division J, Title III).
    Concluding Notes
    Given their geographic reach, broad activities, and integrated intergovernmental structures, the
    federal regional commissions and authorities are a significant element of federal economic
    development efforts. At the same time, as organizations that are largely governed by the
    respective state-based commissioners, the federal regional commissions and authorities are not

    145 Congress.gov, “Nomination: Juan Eduardo Sanchez—Southwest Border Regional Commission,” PN2450,
    https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/2450.
    146 40 U.S.C. §15751.
    Congressional Research Service

    38
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    typical federal agencies but federally chartered entities that integrate federal funding and direction typical federal agencies but federally chartered entities that integrate federal funding and direction
    with state and local economic development priorities.with state and local economic development priorities.
    This structure provides Congress with a flexible platform to support economic development This structure provides Congress with a flexible platform to support economic development
    efforts. The intergovernmental structure allows for strategic-level economic development efforts. The intergovernmental structure allows for strategic-level economic development
    initiatives to be launched at the federal levelinitiatives to be launched at the federal level and, implemented across multi-state jurisdictions implemented across multi-state jurisdictions
    with extensive state and local input, and with extensive state and local input, and adapted more readilymore adaptable to regional needs. to regional needs.
    The federal regional commissions and authorities The FRCAs reflect an emphasis by the federal government reflect an emphasis by the federal government
    on place-based economic development strategies sensitive to regional and local contexts. on place-based economic development strategies sensitive to regional and local contexts.
    However, the geographic specificity and varying functionality of the statutorily authorized However, the geographic specificity and varying functionality of the statutorily authorized federal
    regional commissions and authoritiesFRCAs, both active and inactive, potentially raise questions about , both active and inactive, potentially raise questions about
    the efficacy and equity of federal economic development policies.the efficacy and equity of federal economic development policies.

    Congressional Research Service

    39
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Appendix A. Basic Information at a Glance
    Table A-1. Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
    $ in millions
    FY2023
    Year
    Number
    Appropriations

    Authorized of States
    Counties
    (P.L. 117-328)
    ARC
    1965
    13

    Congress has occasionally passed legislation to reauthorize the FRCAs and to create new FRCAs. Such legislation has typically provided authorizations of funding levels; updated or added programs or requirements; and addressed changing socioeconomic and technological conditions.216 In light of recent changes provided in EDRA, Congress may be interested in tracking the implementation of new programs, roles, and coordination activities, and the impact of these implementations on communities.217

    Appendix A. Basic Information at a Glance Table A-1. Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities

    ($ in millions; entities in bold are active)

    Year Authorized

    Number of States

    Counties

    FY2025 Appropriations (P.L. 119-4)

    ARC

    1965

    13

    423 counties in Alabama, Georgia,     423 counties in Alabama, Georgia,
    $200.0*
    Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New
    (an additional $200.0
    York, North Carolina, Ohio,
    mil ion of advance
    York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
    appropriations
    Tennessee, Virginia, and Tennessee, Virginia, and the entire
    provided in FY2023
    West Virginia (includes the entire state of West Virginiastate of West Virginia
    from the IIJA
    Appropriations
    (P.L. 117-58)
    DRA
    2000
    8
    252 counties in Alabama, Arkansas,
    $30.1
    Il inois) $200.0a (an additional $200.0 million of advance appropriations provided in FY2023 from the IIJA [P.L. 117-58] also becomes available)

    DRA

    2000

    8

    255 counties in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,     , Kentucky, Louisiana,
    Mississippi, Missouri, and TennesseeMississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee
    Denali
    1998
    1

    $31.1

    Denali Commission

    1998

    1

    Entire state of AlaskaEntire state of Alaska
    $17.0$17.0
    Commission
    GLA
    2022
    8
    Areas

    GLA

    2022

    8

    214 counties     in the watershed of the Great in the watershed of the Great
    -
    Lakes and the Great Lakes System Lakes and the Great Lakes System
    (as such terms are defined in Section (as such terms are defined in Section
    118(a)(3) of the Federal Water 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water
    Pol utionPollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Control Act (33 U.S.C.
    1268(a)(3)), in each of the 1268(a)(3)), in each of the fol owing
    states: Il inoisfollowing states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, , Indiana, Michigan,
    Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
    Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
    NBRC
    2008
    4
    60

    $5.0

    MARC

    2025

    3

    38 counties in Maryland and Pennsylvania and the entire state of Delaware

    —

    NBRC

    2008

    4

    64 counties in Maine, New     counties in Maine, New
    $40.0
    Hampshire, New York, and Vermont Hampshire, New York, and Vermont
    NGPRC
    2002
    6
    86 counties in Missouri and the
    N/A
    (includes the entire state of Vermont)

    $41.0

    NGPRA

    2002

    6

    86 counties in of Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota (includes the entire states of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska,     entire states of Iowa, Minnesota,
    North Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and South
    Dakota
    SCRC
    2008
    7
    and South Dakota)

    —

    SCRC

    2008

    7

    428 counties in Alabama, 428 counties in Alabama, Florida Georgia, Georgia,
    $20.0
    Mississippi, North Carolina, South Mississippi, North Carolina, South
    Carolina, and Virginia not already Carolina, and Virginia not already
    served by the ARC or DRAserved by the ARC or DRA, and (includes the the
    entire state of Floridaentire state of Florida
    SBRC
    2008
    4
    93 counties in Arizona, California,
    $5.0
    New Mexico, and Texas
    )

    $20.0

    SBRC

    2008

    4

    103 counties in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas

    —

    SNERC

    2025

    3

    25 counties in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island (includes the entire state of Massachusetts and Rhode Island)

    —

     Sources: Data compiled by CRS from relevant legislation and official sources of various federal regional Data compiled by CRS from relevant legislation and official sources of various federal regional
    commissions and authorities. Authorizing statutes include, in order of tabulation, P.L. 89-4; P.L. 106-554commissions and authorities. Authorizing statutes include, in order of tabulation, P.L. 89-4; P.L. 106-554; ; P.L. P.L.
    105-277105-277; ; P.L. 117-328P.L. 117-328; P.L. 118-272, ; P.L. 110-234P.L. 110-234; ; P.L. 107-171P.L. 107-171; ; P.L. 110-234P.L. 110-234; ; and P.L. 110-234P.L. 110-234.
    , and P.L. 118-272. Notes: A dash ("—") indicates that no appropriation was provided. a. IIJA advance supplemental appropriations for ARC become available each year from FY2022 through FY2026, in $200 million tranches. IIJA supplemental appropriations for the DRA, Denali Commission, NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC were made available as lump sums in FY2022. All supplemental appropriations in P.L. 117-58 for regional commissions and authorities are available until expended. Table A-2. Statutory Citations for Operating Authorizations and Authorizations of Appropriations

    Commission or Authority

    Operating Authorization of the Commission or Authority

    Authorization of Appropriations

    ARC

    40 U.S.C. §14301

    40 U.S.C. §14703

    DRA

    7 U.S.C. §§2009aa-1 et seq.

    7 U.S.C. §2009aa-12

    Denali Commission

    42 U.S.C. §3121 note

    42 U.S.C. §3121 note

    GLA

    40 U.S.C. §§15301 et seq.

    40 U.S.C. §15751

    MARC

    40 U.S.C. §§15301 et seq.

    40 U.S.C. §15751

    NBRC

    40 U.S.C. §§15301 et seq.

    40 U.S.C. §15751

    NGPRA

    7 U.S.C. §§2009bb-1 et seq.

    7 U.S.C. §2009bb-12

    SCRC

    40 U.S.C. §§15301 et seq.

    40 U.S.C. §15751

    SBRC

    40 U.S.C. §§15301 et seq.

    40 U.S.C. §15751

    SNERC

    40 U.S.C. §§15301 et seq.

    40 U.S.C. §15751

    Source: Compiled by CRS.

    Notes: The table citations for authorizing statutes and authorizations of appropriations for the regional commissions and authorities. The information above shows two types of authorizations, which are distinct: (1) the operating authorization of the commission or authority, and (2) the authorization of appropriations. For more information, see CRS Report RS20371, Overview of the Authorization-Appropriations Process, by Bill Heniff Jr.; and CRS Report R46497, Authorizations and the Appropriations Process, by James V. Saturno, which includes a section on The Relationship of Appropriations to Authorizations.

    The commissions and authorities in bold are considered to be active.
    a. Funding in the IIJA has varying periods of availability. Appropriations for ARC are available through FY2026,
    with $200 mil ion in advance appropriations to be allocated each fiscal year starting in FY2022 through
    FY2026. Appropriations for the DRA, Denali Commission, NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC are available until
    expended. See IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III.
    Congressional Research Service

    40

    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Figure A-1. Structure and Activities of the Commissions and Authorities

    Sources Source: Compiled by CRS with information from the federal regional commissions and authorities.Compiled by CRS with information from the federal regional commissions and authorities.
    Notes: For the commissions and authority that are not considered to be functioning, structural characteristics For the commissions and authority that are not considered to be functioning, structural characteristics
    are tabulated according to their statutory design. As noted, the first federal co-chair of the SCRC was confirmed are tabulated according to their statutory design. As noted, the first federal co-chair of the SCRC was confirmed
    in December 2021, and the first federal co-chair of the SBRC was confirmed in December 2022. As of in December 2021, and the first federal co-chair of the SBRC was confirmed in December 2022. As of March
    2023, the GLA doesthe date of this publication, the GLA, MARC, NGPRA, and SNERC do not have a federal co-chair and not have a federal co-chair and isare not yet active. not yet active.
    Contact Information
    (for (for activeselected commissions and authorities) commissions and authorities)
    Contact
    Address/Phone/Website

    Contact

    Address/Phone/Website

    Appalachian Regional CommissionAppalachian Regional Commission
    1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW
    Suite 700Suite 700
    Washington, DC 20009-1068Washington, DC 20009-1068
    Phone: Phone: (202) 884-7700
    [phone number scrubbed] Website: http://www.arc.govWebsite: http://www.arc.gov
    Delta Regional AuthorityDelta Regional Authority
    236 Sharkey Avenue236 Sharkey Avenue
    Suite 400Suite 400
    Clarksdale, MS 38614Clarksdale, MS 38614
    Phone: Phone: (662) 624-8600
    [phone number scrubbed] Website: http://www.dra.govWebsite: http://www.dra.gov
    Denali CommissionDenali Commission
    510 L Street
    Suite 410
    550 W 7th AvenueSuite 1230Anchorage, AK 99501Anchorage, AK 99501
    Phone: Phone: (907) 271-1414
    [phone number scrubbed] Website: http://www.denali.govWebsite: http://www.denali.gov
    Northern Border Regional CommissionNorthern Border Regional Commission
    James Cleveland Federal Building, Suite 1201James Cleveland Federal Building, Suite 1201
    53 Pleasant Street53 Pleasant Street
    Concord, NH 03301Concord, NH 03301
    Phone: Phone: (603) 369-3001
    [phone number scrubbed] Website: http://www.NBRC.govWebsite: http://www.NBRC.gov
    Congressional Research Service

    41
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Contact
    Address/Phone/Website
    Southeast Crescent Regional CommissionSoutheast Crescent Regional Commission
    1901 Assembly Street | Suite 3701901 Assembly Street | Suite 370
    Columbia, SC 29201Columbia, SC 29201
    Phone: Phone: (202) 599-8310
    [phone number scrubbed] Website: https://https://scrc.gov/Website: https://https://scrc.gov/
    Congressional Research Service

    42


    Appendix B.

    Southwest Border Regional Commission

    3655 Research Drive, Genesis Center-C

    New Mexico State University

    Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001

    Website: https://sbrc.gov

    Appendix B.     Map of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities

    Figure B-1. National Map of the Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
    (by countyby county or watershed

    ) Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the various commissions and authoritiesCompiled by CRS using data from the various commissions and authorities, P.L. 118-272, and Esri Data and Maps. and Esri Data and Maps.
    CRS-43
    link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 51 link to page 51
    Appendix C. Historical Appropriations
    Table C-1. Historical Appropriations: Federal Regional Commissions (FY1986-FY2023)
    $ in millions
    Fiscal Year
    Legislation
    ARC
    Denali
    DRA
    GLA
    NGPRA
    NBRC
    SBRC
    SCRC
    1986
    P.L. 99-141
    130.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1987
    P.L. 99-591
    105.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1988
    P.L. 100-202
    107.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1989
    P.L. 100-371
    110.70
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1990
    P.L. 101-101
    150.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1991
    P.L. 101-514
    170.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1992
    P.L. 102-104
    190.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1993
    P.L. 102-377
    190.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1994
    P.L. 103-126
    249.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1995
    P.L. 103-316
    282.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1996
    P.L. 104-46
    170.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1997
    P.L. 104-206
    160.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1998
    P.L. 105-62
    170.00
    (Authorized)a
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    1999
    P.L. 105-245
    66.40
    20.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    2000
    P.L. 106-60
    66.40
    20.00
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    2001
    P.L. 106-377
    66.40
    30.00
    20.00b
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    2002
    P.L. 107-66
    71.29
    38.00
    10.00
    N/A
    (Authorized)c
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    2003
    P.L. 108-7
    71.29
    48.00
    8.00
    N/A
    —
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    2004
    P.L. 108-137 /
    66.00
    55.00
    5.00
    N/A
    1.50
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    P.L. 108-100d
    2005
    P.L. 108-447
    66.00
    67.00
    6.05
    N/A
    1.50e
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    CRS-44
    link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51
    Fiscal Year
    Legislation
    ARC
    Denali
    DRA
    GLA
    NGPRA
    NBRC
    SBRC
    SCRC
    2006
    P.L. 109-103
    65.47
    50.00
    12.00
    N/A
    —
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    2007
    P.L. 110-5f
    65.47
    50.00
    12.00
    N/A
    —
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    2008
    P.L. 110-161
    73.03
    21.80
    11.69
    N/A
    —
    (Authorized)g (Authorized)g
    (Authorized)g
    2009
    P.L. 111-8
    75.00
    11.80
    13.00
    N/A
    —
    —
    —
    —
    2010
    P.L. 111-85
    76.00
    11.97
    13.00
    N/A
    —
    1.50
    —
    0.25
    2011
    P.L. 112-10h
    68.40
    10.70
    11.70
    N/A
    —
    1.50
    —
    0.25
    2012
    P.L. 112-74
    68.26
    10.68
    11.68
    N/A
    —
    1.50
    —
    0.25
    2013
    P.L. 113-6i
    68.26
    10.68
    11.68
    N/A
    —
    1.50
    —
    0.25
    2014
    P.L. 113-76
    80.32
    10.00
    12.00
    N/A
    —
    5.00
    —
    0.25
    2015
    P.L. 113-235
    90.00
    10.00
    12.00
    N/A
    —
    5.00
    —
    0.25
    2016
    P.L. 114-113
    146.00
    11.00
    25.00
    N/A
    —
    7.50
    —
    0.25
    2017
    P.L. 115-31
    152.00
    15.00
    25.00
    N/A
    —
    10.00
    —
    0.25
    2018
    P.L. 115-141
    155.00
    30.00
    25.00
    N/A
    —
    15.00
    —
    0.25
    2019
    P.L. 115-244
    165.00
    15.00
    25.00
    N/A
    —
    20.00
    —
    0.25
    2020
    P.L. 116-94
    175.00
    15.00
    30.00
    N/A
    —
    25.00
    —
    0.25
    2021
    P.L. 116-260
    180.00
    15.00
    30.00
    N/A
    —
    30.00
    0.25
    1.00
    2022
    P.L. 117-103, P.L.
    395.00
    90.10
    180.1
    N/A
    —
    185.00
    3.75
    10.00
    117-58 j, k
    0
    2023
    P.L. 117-328, P.L.
    400.00
    17.00
    30.10
    (Authorized)l
    —
    40.00
    5.00
    20.00
    117-58 k
    Source: Tabulated by CRS from appropriations legislation.
    Notes: A dash (“—“) indicates that no appropriation was provided.
    a. P.L. 105-277.
    b. FY2025)

    ($ in millions)

    Fiscal Year

    Legislation

    ARC

    Denali

    DRA

    GLA

    MARC

    NGPRA

    NBRC

    SBRC

    SNERC

    SCRC

    1986

    P.L. 99-141

    130.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1987

    P.L. 99-591

    105.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1988

    P.L. 100-202

    107.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1989

    P.L. 100-371

    110.70

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1990

    P.L. 101-101

    150.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1991

    P.L. 101-514

    170.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1992

    P.L. 102-104

    190.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1993

    P.L. 102-377

    190.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1994

    P.L. 103-126

    249.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1995

    P.L. 103-316

    282.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1996

    P.L. 104-46

    170.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1997

    P.L. 104-206

    160.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1998

    P.L. 105-62

    170.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    1999

    P.L. 105-245

    66.40

    (Authorized)a20.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    2000

    P.L. 106-60

    66.40

    20.00

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    2001

    P.L. 106-377

    66.40

    30.00

    20.00b

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    2002

    P.L. 107-66

    71.29

    38.00

    10.00

    N/A

    N/A

    (Authorized)c

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    2003

    P.L. 108-7

    71.29

    48.00

    8.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    2004

    P.L. 108-137 /P.L. 108-199d

    66.00

    55.00

    5.00

    N/A

    N/A

    1.50

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    2005

    P.L. 108-447

    66.00

    67.00

    6.05

    N/A

    N/A

    1.49e

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    2006

    P.L. 109-103

    65.47

    50.00

    12.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    2007

    P.L. 110-5f

    65.47

    50.00

    12.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    2008

    P.L. 110-161

    73.03

    21.80

    11.69

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    (Authorized)g (Authorized)g

    N/A

    (Authorized)g

    2009

    P.L. 111-8

    75.00

    11.80

    13.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    —

    —

    N/A

    —

    2010

    P.L. 111-85

    76.00

    11.97

    13.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    1.50

    —

    N/A

    0.25

    2011

    P.L. 112-10h

    68.40

    10.70

    11.70

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    1.50

    —

    N/A

    0.25

    2012

    P.L. 112-74

    68.26

    10.68

    11.68

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    1.50

    —

    N/A

    0.25

    2013

    P.L. 113-6i

    68.26

    10.68

    11.68

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    1.50

    —

    N/A

    0.25

    2014

    P.L. 113-76

    80.32

    10.00

    12.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    5.00

    —

    N/A

    0.25

    2015

    P.L. 113-235

    90.00

    10.00

    12.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    5.00

    —

    N/A

    0.25

    2016

    P.L. 114-113

    146.00

    11.00

    25.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    7.50

    —

    N/A

    0.25

    2017

    P.L. 115-31

    152.00

    15.00

    25.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    10.00

    —

    N/A

    0.25

    2018

    P.L. 115-141

    155.00

    30.00

    25.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    15.00

    —

    N/A

    0.25

    2019

    P.L. 115-244

    165.00

    15.00

    25.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    20.00

    —

    N/A

    0.25

    2020

    P.L. 116-94

    175.00

    15.00

    30.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    25.00

    —

    N/A

    0.25

    2021

    P.L. 116-260

    180.00

    15.00

    30.00

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    30.00

    0.25

    N/A

    1.00

    2022

    P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-58 j, k

    395.00

    90.10

    180.10

    N/A

    N/A

    —

    185.00

    3.75

    N/A

    10.00

    2023

    P.L. 117-328, P.L. 117-58 k

    400.00

    17.00

    30.10

    (Authorized)l

    N/A

    —

    40.00

    5.00

    N/A

    20.00

    2024

    P.L. 118-42, P.L. 117-58 k

    400.00

    17.00

    31.10

    5.0

    N/A

    —

    41.00

    5.00

    N/A

    20.00

    2025

    P.L. 119-4n, P.L. 117-58k

    400.00

    17.00

    31.10

    5.0

    (Authorized)m

    —

    41.00

    5.00

    (Authorized)m

    20.00

    Source: Tabulated by CRS from appropriations legislation.

    Notes: FY2025 annual appropriations for FY2025 have not yet been resolved as of the date of this publication. A dash ("—") indicates that no appropriation was provided. N/A is used to indicate that an appropriation was not applicable (i.e., for years prior to a FRCA's authorization).

    a. P.L. 105-277.

    b.     The DRA was authorized in FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) and received its initial appropriations in that same fiscal year (P.L. 106-The DRA was authorized in FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) and received its initial appropriations in that same fiscal year (P.L. 106-337).
    c. 377). c. P.L. 107-171P.L. 107-171.
    CRS-45

    d. . d. For FY2004, the NGPRA received appropriations in separate legislation from the rest of the federal regional commissions.For FY2004, the NGPRA received appropriations in separate legislation from the rest of the federal regional commissions.
    e. e. The NGPRA was appropriated separately from the other federal regional commission, which can be found in Section 759 of the same legislation.The NGPRA was appropriated separately from the other federal regional commission, which can be found in Section 759 of the same legislation.
    f. f.
    FY2007 appropriations were provided to the federal regional commissions under FY2007 appropriations were provided to the federal regional commissions under ful full-year continuing resolution legislation.-year continuing resolution legislation.
    g. g. In FY2008, P.L. 110-234 established the NBRC, the SBRC, and the SCRC.In FY2008, P.L. 110-234 established the NBRC, the SBRC, and the SCRC.
    h. h. For FY2011, appropriations for the ARC, Denali, and the DRA were appropriated separately from the broader appropriations legislation under a continuing For FY2011, appropriations for the ARC, Denali, and the DRA were appropriated separately from the broader appropriations legislation under a continuing
    resolution. The NBRC, however, was subject to the continuing resolution.resolution. The NBRC, however, was subject to the continuing resolution.
    i. i.
    FY2013FY2013 and FY2025 appropriations were provided to the federal regional commissions under continuing resolution legislation. appropriations were provided to the federal regional commissions under continuing resolution legislation.
    j. j.
    FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include funding provided in Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). Amounts do FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include funding provided in Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). Amounts do
    not include appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian Development Highway System.not include appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian Development Highway System.
    k. k. Division J, Title III of the IIJA provided $1 Division J, Title III of the IIJA provided $1 bil ionbillion in appropriations for the ARC, divided into $200 in appropriations for the ARC, divided into $200 mil ionmillion tranches, one for each tranches, one for each fiscal year FY2022-of FY2022 through FY2026. Of the FY2026. Of the
    regional commissions funded in the IIJA, the ARC was the only one to receive such a structured appropriationregional commissions funded in the IIJA, the ARC was the only one to receive such a structured appropriation:; all other commissions received their appropriation all other commissions received their appropriation
    solely in FY2022. All IIJA funds remain available until expended.solely in FY2022. All IIJA funds remain available until expended.
    l. l.
    The GLA was authorized in FY2023 (P.L. 117-328, Division O, Title IV, The GLA was authorized in FY2023 (P.L. 117-328, Division O, Title IV, Sec. 401).

    CRS-46
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Appendix D. §401).

    m. The MARC and SNERC were authorized in FY2025 (P.L. 118-272, Title II, Division B, Subtitle B).

    n. With the exception of advance appropriations provided by P.L. 117-58, FY2025 appropriations were provided to most federal regional commissions under full-year continuing resolution legislation.

    Appendix D.     Service Areas of Federal Regional
    Commissions and Authorities
    Appalachian Regional Commission
    Table D-1. Statutory Jurisdiction of ARC
    State
    County
    Alabama

    State

    County

    Alabama

    Bibb, Blount, Calhoun, Chambers, Cherokee, Chilton, Clay, Cleburne, Colbert, Coosa, Bibb, Blount, Calhoun, Chambers, Cherokee, Chilton, Clay, Cleburne, Colbert, Coosa, Cul man,
    Cullman, De Kalb, Elmore, Etowah, Fayette, Franklin, Hale, Jackson, Jefferson, Lamar, Lauderdale, De Kalb, Elmore, Etowah, Fayette, Franklin, Hale, Jackson, Jefferson, Lamar, Lauderdale,
    Lawrence, Limestone, Macon, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Morgan, Pickens, Randolph, St. Clair, Lawrence, Limestone, Macon, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Morgan, Pickens, Randolph, St. Clair,
    Shelby, Talladega, Tallapoosa, Tuscaloosa, Walker, WinstonShelby, Talladega, Tallapoosa, Tuscaloosa, Walker, Winston
    Georgia
    Banks, Barrow, Bartow, Banks, Barrow, Bartow, Carrol Carroll, Catoosa, Chattooga, Cherokee, Dade, Dawson, Douglas, , Catoosa, Chattooga, Cherokee, Dade, Dawson, Douglas,
    Elbert, Fannin, Floyd, Forsyth, Franklin, Gilmer, Gordon, Gwinnett, Habersham, Hall, Haralson, Elbert, Fannin, Floyd, Forsyth, Franklin, Gilmer, Gordon, Gwinnett, Habersham, Hall, Haralson,
    Hart, Heard, Jackson, Lumpkin, Madison, Murray, Paulding, Pickens, Polk, Rabun, Stephens, Hart, Heard, Jackson, Lumpkin, Madison, Murray, Paulding, Pickens, Polk, Rabun, Stephens,
    Towns, Union, Walker, White, WhitfieldTowns, Union, Walker, White, Whitfield
    Kentucky

    Kentucky

    Adair, Bath, Bell, Boyd, Breathitt, Carter, Casey, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cumberland, Edmonson, Adair, Bath, Bell, Boyd, Breathitt, Carter, Casey, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cumberland, Edmonson,
    El iott, Estil Elliott, Estill, Fleming, Floyd, Garrard, Green, Greenup, Harlan, Hart, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, , Fleming, Floyd, Garrard, Green, Greenup, Harlan, Hart, Jackson, Johnson, Knott,
    Knox, Laurel, Lawrence, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Lincoln, McCreary, Madison, Magoffin, Knox, Laurel, Lawrence, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Lincoln, McCreary, Madison, Magoffin,
    Martin, Menifee, Metcalfe, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Nicholas, Owsley, Perry, Pike, Martin, Menifee, Metcalfe, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Nicholas, Owsley, Perry, Pike, Powel ,
    Powell, Pulaski, Robertson, Rockcastle, Rowan, Russell, Wayne, Whitley, WolfePulaski, Robertson, Rockcastle, Rowan, Russell, Wayne, Whitley, Wolfe
    Maryland
    Allegany, Garrett, Washington
    Mississippi

    Maryland

    Allegany, Garrett, Washington

    Mississippi

    Alcorn, Benton, Calhoun, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Clay, Itawamba, Kemper, Lee, Lowndes, Alcorn, Benton, Calhoun, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Clay, Itawamba, Kemper, Lee, Lowndes,
    Marshall, Monroe, Montgomery, Noxubee, Oktibbeha, Panola, Pontotoc, Prentiss, Tippah, Marshall, Monroe, Montgomery, Noxubee, Oktibbeha, Panola, Pontotoc, Prentiss, Tippah,
    Tishomingo, Union, Webster, Winston, YalobushaTishomingo, Union, Webster, Winston, Yalobusha
    New York
    Allegany, Broome, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Otsego, Allegany, Broome, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Otsego,
    Schoharie, Schuyler, Steuben, Tioga, TompkinsSchoharie, Schuyler, Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins
    North

    North Carolina

    Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba,* Cherokee, Clay, Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba,* Cherokee, Clay,
    Carolina
    Cleveland,* Davie, Forsyth, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, McDowell, Macon, Cleveland,* Davie, Forsyth, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, McDowell, Macon,
    Madison, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Stokes, Surry, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes, Madison, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Stokes, Surry, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes,
    Yadkin, YanceyYadkin, Yancey
    Ohio

    Ohio

    Adams, Ashtabula, Athens, Belmont, Brown, Adams, Ashtabula, Athens, Belmont, Brown, Carrol Carroll, Clermont, Columbiana, Coshocton, Gallia, , Clermont, Columbiana, Coshocton, Gallia,
    Guernsey, Harrison, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Mahoning, Meigs, Guernsey, Harrison, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Mahoning, Meigs,
    Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Pike, Ross, Scioto, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Pike, Ross, Scioto, Trumbul Trumbull, Tuscarawas, Vinton, , Tuscarawas, Vinton,
    Washington
    Pennsylvania
    Washington

    Pennsylvania

    Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Bedford, Blair, Bradford, Butler, Cambria, Cameron, Carbon, Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Bedford, Blair, Bradford, Butler, Cambria, Cameron, Carbon,
    Centre, Clarion, Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Crawford, Elk, Erie, Fayette, Forest, Fulton, Centre, Clarion, Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Crawford, Elk, Erie, Fayette, Forest, Fulton,
    Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Jefferson, Juniata, Lackawanna, Lawrence, Luzerne, Lycoming, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Jefferson, Juniata, Lackawanna, Lawrence, Luzerne, Lycoming,
    McKean, Mercer, Mifflin, Monroe, Montour, Northumberland, Perry, Pike, Potter, McKean, Mercer, Mifflin, Monroe, Montour, Northumberland, Perry, Pike, Potter, Schuylkil ,
    Schuylkill, Snyder, Somerset, Snyder, Somerset, Sul ivanSullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, Union, Venango, Warren, Washington, Wayne, , Susquehanna, Tioga, Union, Venango, Warren, Washington, Wayne,
    Westmoreland, WyomingWestmoreland, Wyoming
    South
    Carolina Anderson, Cherokee, Anderson, Cherokee, Greenvil eGreenville, Oconee, Pickens, Spartanburg, Union*, Oconee, Pickens, Spartanburg, Union*
    Carolina
    Tennessee

    Tennessee

    Anderson, Bledsoe, Blount, Bradley, Campbell, Cannon, Carter, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Coffee, Anderson, Bledsoe, Blount, Bradley, Campbell, Cannon, Carter, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Coffee,
    Cumberland, De Kalb, Fentress, Franklin, Grainger, Greene, Grundy, Hamblen, Hamilton, Cumberland, De Kalb, Fentress, Franklin, Grainger, Greene, Grundy, Hamblen, Hamilton,
    Hancock, Hawkins, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Lawrence, Lewis, Loudon, McMinn, Hancock, Hawkins, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Lawrence, Lewis, Loudon, McMinn,
    Macon, Marion, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Overton, Pickett, Polk, Putnam, Rhea, Roane, Scott, Macon, Marion, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Overton, Pickett, Polk, Putnam, Rhea, Roane, Scott,
    Sequatchie, Sevier, Smith, Sequatchie, Sevier, Smith, Sul ivanSullivan, Unicoi, Union, Van Buren, Warren, Washington, White, Unicoi, Union, Van Buren, Warren, Washington, White
    Congressional Research Service

    47
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    State
    County
    Virginia

    Virginia

    Alleghany, Bath, Bland, Botetourt, Buchanan, Alleghany, Bath, Bland, Botetourt, Buchanan, Carrol Carroll, Craig, Dickenson, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, , Craig, Dickenson, Floyd, Giles, Grayson,
    Henry, Highland, Lee, Montgomery, Patrick, Pulaski, Rockbridge, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Henry, Highland, Lee, Montgomery, Patrick, Pulaski, Rockbridge, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewel ,
    Tazewell, Washington, Wise, and WytheWashington, Wise, and Wythe

    The fol owing The following independent cities in Virginia are also within the Appalachian Region and are independent cities in Virginia are also within the Appalachian Region and are
    merged with an adjacent or surrounding county for the purposes of data analysis and grant merged with an adjacent or surrounding county for the purposes of data analysis and grant
    management: Bristol (Washington County), Buena Vista (Rockbridge County), Covington management: Bristol (Washington County), Buena Vista (Rockbridge County), Covington
    (Alleghany County), Galax ((Alleghany County), Galax (Carrol Carroll County), Lexington (Rockbridge County), County), Lexington (Rockbridge County), Martinsvil e
    Martinsville (Henry County), Norton (Wise County), and Radford (Montgomery County)(Henry County), Norton (Wise County), and Radford (Montgomery County)

    West

    West Virginia

    Barbour, Berkeley, Boone, Braxton, Brooke, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Doddridge, Fayette, Gilmer, Barbour, Berkeley, Boone, Braxton, Brooke, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Doddridge, Fayette, Gilmer,
    Virginia
    Grant, Greenbrier, Hampshire, Hancock, Hardy, Harrison, Jackson, Jefferson, Kanawha, Lewis, Grant, Greenbrier, Hampshire, Hancock, Hardy, Harrison, Jackson, Jefferson, Kanawha, Lewis,
    Lincoln, Logan, Marion, Marshall, Mason, McDowell, Mercer, Mineral, Mingo, Monongalia, Lincoln, Logan, Marion, Marshall, Mason, McDowell, Mercer, Mineral, Mingo, Monongalia,
    Monroe, Morgan, Nicholas, Ohio, Pendleton, Pleasants, Pocahontas, Preston, Putnam, Raleigh, Monroe, Morgan, Nicholas, Ohio, Pendleton, Pleasants, Pocahontas, Preston, Putnam, Raleigh,
    Randolph, Ritchie, Roane, Summers, Taylor, Tucker, Tyler, Upshur, Wayne, Webster, Wetzel, Randolph, Ritchie, Roane, Summers, Taylor, Tucker, Tyler, Upshur, Wayne, Webster, Wetzel,
    Wirt, Wood, WyomingWirt, Wood, Wyoming
    Source: Information compiled by CRS from ARC data, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-counties-served-by-arcInformation compiled by CRS from ARC data, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-counties-served-by-arc.
    Delta Regional Authority
    Table D-2. Statutory Jurisdiction of DRA
    State
    Counties and Parishes
    Alabama
    Barbour, Bul ock.

    Notes: In Mississippi, the counties in regions covered by both the ARC and DRA include Benton, Marshall, Montgomery, Panola, Tippah, Union, and Yalobusha counties. In Alabama, the counties in ARC and DRA regions include Hale, Macon, and Pickens counties. In Pennsylvania, the counties in ARC and GLA regions include Crawford, Eerie, and Potter. In New York, the nine counties in ARC and GLA regions include Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Cortland, Schuyler, Steuben, Tioga, and Tompkins. In Ohio, the counties in ARC and GLA regions include Ashtabula and Trumbull. Schoharie County in New York is in the ARC and NBRC regions.

    Delta Regional Authority

    Table D-2. Statutory Jurisdiction of DRA

    (states, counties, and parishes)

    State

    Counties and Parishes

    Alabama

    Barbour, Bullock    , Butler, Choctaw, Clarke, Conecuh, Dallas, Escambia, Greene, Hale, , Butler, Choctaw, Clarke, Conecuh, Dallas, Escambia, Greene, Hale,
    Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Monroe, Perry, Pickens, Russell, Sumter, Washington, WilcoxLowndes, Macon, Marengo, Monroe, Perry, Pickens, Russell, Sumter, Washington, Wilcox
    Arkansas
    Arkansas, Ashley, Baxter, Bradley, Calhoun, Chicot, Clay, Cleveland, Craighead, Arkansas, Ashley, Baxter, Bradley, Calhoun, Chicot, Clay, Cleveland, Craighead,
    Crittenden, Cross, Dallas, Desha, Drew, Fulton, Grant, Greene, Independence, Izard, Crittenden, Cross, Dallas, Desha, Drew, Fulton, Grant, Greene, Independence, Izard,
    Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Lee, Lincoln, Lonoke, Marion, Mississippi, Monroe, Ouachita, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Lee, Lincoln, Lonoke, Marion, Mississippi, Monroe, Ouachita,
    Phil ipsPhillips, Poinsett, Prairie, Pulaski, Randolph, Searcy, Sharp, St. Francis, Stone, Union, Van , Poinsett, Prairie, Pulaski, Randolph, Searcy, Sharp, St. Francis, Stone, Union, Van
    Buren, White, WoodruffBuren, White, Woodruff
    Illinois
    Alexander, Franklin, Gallatin, Hamilton, Hardin, Jackson, Johnson, Massac, Perry, Pope, Alexander, Franklin, Gallatin, Hamilton, Hardin, Jackson, Johnson, Massac, Perry, Pope,
    Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, Union, White, Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, Union, White, Wil iamson
    Williamson Kentucky
    Ballard,Caldwel Ballard, Caldwell, Calloway, Carlisle, Christian, Crittenden, Fulton, Graves, Henderson, , Calloway, Carlisle, Christian, Crittenden, Fulton, Graves, Henderson,
    Hickman, Hopkins, Livingston, Lyon, McCracken, McLean, Marshall, Muhlenberg, Todd, Hickman, Hopkins, Livingston, Lyon, McCracken, McLean, Marshall, Muhlenberg, Todd,
    Trigg, Union, WebsterTrigg, Union, Webster
    Louisiana

    Louisiana

    Acadia, Allen, Ascension, Assumption, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Acadia, Allen, Ascension, Assumption, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Bienvil e, Caldwel ,
    Bienville, Caldwell, Cameron, Catahoula, Claiborne, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Cameron, Catahoula, Claiborne, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Carrol ,
    Carroll, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Iberia, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Iberia, Ibervil eIberville, Jackson, Jefferson, Jefferson , Jackson, Jefferson, Jefferson
    Davis, La Davis, La Sal eSalle, Lafourche, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches, , Lafourche, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches,
    Orleans, Ouachita, Plaquemines, Pointe Coupee, Rapides, Red River, Richland, Orleans, Ouachita, Plaquemines, Pointe Coupee, Rapides, Red River, Richland, Sabine, St. St.
    Bernard, St. Charles, St. Helena, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. Helena, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St.
    Mary, Tangipahoa, Tensas, Mary, Tangipahoa, Tensas, Union, Vermil ionTerrebonne, Union, Vermillion, Vernon, Washington, Webster, West Baton Rouge, , Washington, Webster, West Baton Rouge,
    West West Carrol Carroll, West Feliciana, Winn, West Feliciana, Winn
    Mississippi

    Mississippi

    Adams, Amite, Attala, Benton, Bolivar, Adams, Amite, Attala, Benton, Bolivar, Carrol Carroll, Claiborne, Coahoma, Copiah, Covington, , Claiborne, Coahoma, Copiah, Covington,
    De Soto, Franklin, Grenada, Hinds, Holmes, Humphreys, Issaquena, Jasper, Jefferson, De Soto, Franklin, Grenada, Hinds, Holmes, Humphreys, Issaquena, Jasper, Jefferson,
    Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Lawrence, Leflore, Lincoln, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Lawrence, Leflore, Lincoln, Madison, Marion, Marshall,
    Montgomery, Panola, Pike, Quitman, Rankin, Sharkey, Simpson, Smith, Sunflower, Montgomery, Panola, Pike, Quitman, Rankin, Sharkey, Simpson, Smith, Sunflower,
    Tallahatchie, Tate, Tippah, Tunica, Union, Walthall, Warren, Washington, Wilkinson, Tallahatchie, Tate, Tippah, Tunica, Union, Walthall, Warren, Washington, Wilkinson,
    Yalobusha, Yazoo
    Congressional Research Service

    48
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    State
    Counties and Parishes
    Missouri
    Bol ingerYalobusha, Yazoo

    Missouri

    Bollinger    , Butler, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Crawford, Dent, Douglas, Dunklin, Howell, , Butler, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Crawford, Dent, Douglas, Dunklin, Howell,
    Iron, Madison, Mississippi, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, Pemiscot, Perry, Phelps, Iron, Madison, Mississippi, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, Pemiscot, Perry, Phelps,
    Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, Ste. Genevieve, St. Francois, Stoddard, Texas, Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, Ste. Genevieve, St. Francois, Stoddard, Texas,
    Washington, Wayne, WrightWashington, Wayne, Wright
    Tennessee
    Benton, Benton, Carrol Carroll, Chester, Crockett, Decatur, Dyer, Fayette, Gibson, Hardeman, Hardin, , Chester, Crockett, Decatur, Dyer, Fayette, Gibson, Hardeman, Hardin,
    Haywood, Henderson, Henry, Lake, Lauderdale, Madison, McNairy, Obion, Shelby, Haywood, Henderson, Henry, Lake, Lauderdale, Madison, McNairy, Obion, Shelby,
    Tipton, WeakleyTipton, Weakley
    Source: Compiled by CRS from the Delta Regional AuthorityCompiled by CRS from the Delta Regional Authority.
    Denali Commission
    and P.L. 118-272.

    Notes: In Mississippi, the counties in regions covered by both the ARC and DRA include Benton, Marshall, Montgomery, Panola, Tippah, Union, and Yalobusha counties. In Alabama, the counties in ARC and DRA regions include Hale, Macon, and Pickens counties.

    Denali Commission

    Table D-3. Statutory Jurisdiction of Denali Commission
    State
    Counties
    Alaska
    Entire state of Alaska

    State

    Counties

    Alaska

    Entire state of Alaska
    Source: Compiled by CRS from the Denali Commission.Compiled by CRS from the Denali Commission.
    Congressional Research Service

    49
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Great Lakes Authority

    Great Lakes Authority

    Table D-4. Statutory Jurisdiction of GLA
    counties that are partially or entirely in the GLA region
    State
    County
    Illinois
    Cook, Lake
    Indiana

    (states and counties)

    State

    County

    Illinois

    Cook, Lake

    Indiana

    Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Elkhart, Kosciusko, LaGrange, Lake, LaPorte, Noble, Porter, St. Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Elkhart, Kosciusko, LaGrange, Lake, LaPorte, Noble, Porter, St.
    Joseph, Steuben, Wells, WhitleyJoseph, Steuben, Wells, Whitley
    Michigan

    Michigan

    Alcona, Alger, Allegan, Alpena, Antrim, Arenac, Baraga, Barry, Bay, Benzie, Berrien, Alcona, Alger, Allegan, Alpena, Antrim, Arenac, Baraga, Barry, Bay, Benzie, Berrien,

    Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Clare, Clinton, Crawford, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Clare, Clinton, Crawford,
    Delta, Dickinson, Eaton, Emmet, Genesee, Gladwin, Gogebic, Grand Traverse, Gratiot, Delta, Dickinson, Eaton, Emmet, Genesee, Gladwin, Gogebic, Grand Traverse, Gratiot,
    Hil sdaleHillsdale, Houghton, Huron, Ingham, Ionia, Iosco, Iron, Isabella, Jackson, Kalamazoo, , Houghton, Huron, Ingham, Ionia, Iosco, Iron, Isabella, Jackson, Kalamazoo,
    Kalkaska, Kent, Keweenaw, Lake, Lapeer, Leelanau, Lenawee, Livingston, Luce, Mackinac, Kalkaska, Kent, Keweenaw, Lake, Lapeer, Leelanau, Lenawee, Livingston, Luce, Mackinac,
    Macomb, Manistee, Marquette, Mason, Mecosta, Menominee, Midland, Missaukee, Macomb, Manistee, Marquette, Mason, Mecosta, Menominee, Midland, Missaukee,
    Monroe, Montcalm, Montmorency, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oakland, Oceana, Ogemaw, Monroe, Montcalm, Montmorency, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oakland, Oceana, Ogemaw,
    Ontonagon, Osceola, Oscoda, Otsego, Ottawa, Presque, Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Ontonagon, Osceola, Oscoda, Otsego, Ottawa, Presque, Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw,
    Sanilac, Schoolcraft, Shiawassee, St. Clair, St. Joseph, Tuscola, Van Buren, Washtenaw, Sanilac, Schoolcraft, Shiawassee, St. Clair, St. Joseph, Tuscola, Van Buren, Washtenaw,
    Wayne, WexfordWayne, Wexford
    Minnesota

    Minnesota

    Aitkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Lake, Pine, St. LouisAitkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Lake, Pine, St. Louis
    New York

    New York

    Allegany,* Cattaraugus,* Allegany,* Cattaraugus,* Cayuga, Chautauqua,* Chemung,* Cortland,* Erie, Chautauqua,* Chemung,* Cortland,* Erie, Essex,
    Franklin, Genesee, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston,
    Livingston, Madison, Monroe, Monroe, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Ontario, Onondaga, Ontario, Orleans, Oswego,
    Schuyler,* Schuyler,* Seneca, St. Lawrence, Steuben,* Tioga,* Tompkins,* Steuben,* Tioga,* Tompkins,* Wayne, Wyoming, Wyoming,
    Yates
    Ohio
    Allen, Ashland, Ashtabula,* Auglaize, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Defiance, Erie, Fulton, Allen, Ashland, Ashtabula,* Auglaize, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Defiance, Erie, Fulton,
    Geauga, Hancock, Hardin, Henry, Huron, Lake, Lorain, Lucas, Marion, Medina, Mercer, Geauga, Hancock, Hardin, Henry, Huron, Lake, Lorain, Lucas, Marion, Medina, Mercer,
    Ottawa, Paulding, Portage, Putnam, Richland, Sandusky, Seneca, Shelby, Stark, Summit, Ottawa, Paulding, Portage, Putnam, Richland, Sandusky, Seneca, Shelby, Stark, Summit,
    Trumbul Trumbull,* Van Wert, ,* Van Wert, Wil iamsWilliams, Wood, Wyandot, Wood, Wyandot
    Pennsylvania
    Crawford,* Erie,* Potter*Crawford,* Erie,* Potter*
    Wisconsin
    Adams, Ashland, Bayfield, Brown, Calumet, Columbia, Dodge, Door, Douglas, Florence, Adams, Ashland, Bayfield, Brown, Calumet, Columbia, Dodge, Door, Douglas, Florence,
    Fond du Lac, Forest, Green Lake, Iron, Kenosha, Kewaunee, Langlade, Manitowoc, Fond du Lac, Forest, Green Lake, Iron, Kenosha, Kewaunee, Langlade, Manitowoc,
    Marathon, Marinette, Marquette, Menominee, Milwaukee, Oconto, Oneida, Outagamie, Marathon, Marinette, Marquette, Menominee, Milwaukee, Oconto, Oneida, Outagamie,
    Ozaukee, Portage, Racine, Shawano, Sheboygan, Vilas, Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca, Ozaukee, Portage, Racine, Shawano, Sheboygan, Vilas, Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca,
    Waushara, WinnebagoWaushara, Winnebago
    Source: Tabulated by CRS based on terms in P.L. 117-328Tabulated by CRS based on terms in P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-272, and U.S. Geological Survey data. and U.S. Geological Survey data.
    Notes: The GLA region consists of The GLA region consists of areascounties in the watershed of the Great Lakes and Great Lakes System in states in the watershed of the Great Lakes and Great Lakes System in states
    specifically designated in the statute. specifically designated in the statute. The watershed of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes System is defined in Sec. 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §1268(a)(3)). Fourteen counties marked by asterisk (*) are also in the ARC region. Fourteen counties marked by asterisk (*) are also in the ARC region.
    Eighteen counties marked in bold text are also in the NBRC region. All seven counties in Minnesota are in the Eighteen counties marked in bold text are also in the NBRC region. All seven counties in Minnesota are in the
    NGPRA region.NGPRA region.
    Northern Border Regional Commission

    Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission

     Table D-5. Statutory Jurisdiction of NBRC
    counties
    State
    County


    Maine
    Androscoggin, Aroostook, Franklin, Hancock, Kennebec, Knox, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis,
    Somerset, Waldo, Washington
    Congressional Research Service

    50
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    State
    County


    New
    Belknap, Carrol , Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, Sul ivan
    Hampshire
    New York
    Cayuga, Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Genesee, Greene, MARC

    (states and counties)

    State

    County

    Delaware

    Entire state of Delaware

    Maryland

    Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Caroline, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Dorchester, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Kent, Montgomery, Prince George's, Queen Anne's, St. Mary's, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, Worcester

    Pennsylvania

    Adams, Berks, Bucks, Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia, York

    Source: Compiled and tabulated by CRS from P.L. 118-272.

    Note: Delaware is the only MARC state with all counties within the MARC jurisdiction.

    Northern Border Regional Commission

    Table D-6. Statutory Jurisdiction of NBRC

    (states and counties)

    State

    County

    Maine

    Androscoggin, Aroostook, Franklin, Hancock, Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, Waldo, Washington

    New Hampshire

    Belknap, Carroll, Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, Merrimack, Sullivan

    New York

    Cayuga, Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Genesee, Greene,     Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson,
    Lewis, Livingston, Madison, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida,Lewis, Livingston, Madison, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego, Rensselaer, Orleans, Oswego, Rensselaer,
    Saratoga, St. Lawrence, Schenectady, Saratoga, St. Lawrence, Schenectady, Seneca, Sul ivanSchoharie, Seneca, Sullivan, Warren, Washington, , Warren, Washington, Wayne, Wyoming, Yates

    Vermont

    Wayne, Yates
    Vermont
    Addison, Bennington, Caledonia, Chittenden, Essex, Franklin, Grand Isle, Addison, Bennington, Caledonia, Chittenden, Essex, Franklin, Grand Isle, Lamoil eLamoille, Orange, , Orange,
    Orleans, Rutland, Washington, Windham, WindsorOrleans, Rutland, Washington, Windham, Windsor
    Source: Compiled and tabulated by CRS from NBRC dataCompiled and tabulated by CRS from NBRC data.
    and P.L. 118-272. Note: Vermont is the only NBRC state with all counties within the NBRC jurisdiction. Vermont is the only NBRC state with all counties within the NBRC jurisdiction.
    Schoharie County is in the NBRC and ARC regions. Eighteen counties marked in bold text are also in the GLA region. Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
    Table D-67. Statutory Jurisdiction of NGPRA
    (states and countiesstates and counties

    NGPRA Jurisdiction
    Iowa
    Entire State
    Minnesota
    Entire State
    Missouri
    )

    NGPRA Jurisdiction

    Iowa

    Entire State

    Minnesota

    Entire State

    Missouri(counties)     Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Audrain, Barry, Barton, Bates, Benton, Boone, Buchanan, Caldwell, Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Audrain, Barry, Barton, Bates, Benton, Boone, Buchanan, Caldwell,
    (counties)
    Callaway, Camden, Callaway, Camden, Carrol Carroll, Cass, Cedar, Chariton, Christian, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cole, Cooper, , Cass, Cedar, Chariton, Christian, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cole, Cooper,
    Dade, Dallas, Daviess, DeKalb, Franklin, Gasconade, Gentry, Greene, Grundy, Harrison, Henry, Dade, Dallas, Daviess, DeKalb, Franklin, Gasconade, Gentry, Greene, Grundy, Harrison, Henry,
    Hickory, Holt, Howard, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Laclede, Lafayette, Lawrence, Hickory, Holt, Howard, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Laclede, Lafayette, Lawrence,
    Lewis, Lincoln, Linn, Livingston, Macon, Maries, Marion, McDonald, Mercer, Lewis, Lincoln, Linn, Livingston, Macon, Maries, Marion, McDonald, Mercer, Mil erMiller, Moniteau, , Moniteau,
    Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Nodaway, Osage, Pettis, Pike, Platte, Polk, Pulaski, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Nodaway, Osage, Pettis, Pike, Platte, Polk, Pulaski,
    Putnam, Ralls, Randolph, Ray, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, Shelby, St. Charles, St. Clair, St. Louis, St. Putnam, Ralls, Randolph, Ray, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, Shelby, St. Charles, St. Clair, St. Louis, St.
    Louis City, Stone, Louis City, Stone, Sul ivanSullivan, Taney, Vernon, Warren, Webster, Worth, Taney, Vernon, Warren, Webster, Worth
    Nebraska
    Entire State
    North
    Entire State
    Dakota
    South
    Entire State
    Dakota

    Entire State

    North Dakota

    Entire State

    South Dakota

    Entire State

     Source: Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 107-171Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 107-171.
    . Note: Missouri jurisdiction represents all those counties not currently included in the DRA.Missouri jurisdiction represents all those counties not currently included in the DRA.
    Congressional Research Service

    51
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
    Table D-78. Statutory Jurisdiction of SCRC
    (states and countiesstates and counties)

    SCRC Jurisdiction
    Alabama
    Autauga, Baldwin, Coffee, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Lee, Mobile, Autauga, Baldwin, Coffee, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Lee, Mobile,
    Montgomery County, PikeMontgomery County, Pike
    Georgia
    Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Baker, Baldwin, Ben Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Baker, Baldwin, Ben Hil Hill, Berrien, Bibb, Bleckley, Brantley, Brooks, Bryan, , Berrien, Bibb, Bleckley, Brantley, Brooks, Bryan,
    Bul ochBulloch, Burke, Butts, Calhoun, Camden, Candler, Charlton, Chatham, Chattahoochee, Clarke, Clay, , Burke, Butts, Calhoun, Camden, Candler, Charlton, Chatham, Chattahoochee, Clarke, Clay,
    Clayton, Clinch, Cobb, Coffee, Colquitt, Columbia, Cook, Coweta, Crawford, Crisp, De Kalb, Clayton, Clinch, Cobb, Coffee, Colquitt, Columbia, Cook, Coweta, Crawford, Crisp, De Kalb,
    Decatur, Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Echols, Effingham, Emanuel, Evans, Fayette, Fulton, Decatur, Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Echols, Effingham, Emanuel, Evans, Fayette, Fulton,
    Glascock, Glynn, Grady, Greene, Hancock, Harris, Henry, Houston, Irwin, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Glascock, Glynn, Grady, Greene, Hancock, Harris, Henry, Houston, Irwin, Jasper, Jeff Davis,
    Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Jones, Lamar, Lanier, Laurens, Lee, Liberty, Lincoln, Long, Lowndes, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Jones, Lamar, Lanier, Laurens, Lee, Liberty, Lincoln, Long, Lowndes,
    Macon, Marion, McDuffie, McIntosh, Meriwether, Macon, Marion, McDuffie, McIntosh, Meriwether, Mil erMiller, Mitchell, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, , Mitchell, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan,
    Muscogee, Newton, Oconee, Oglethorpe, Peach, Pierce, Pike, Pulaski, Putnam, Quitman, Randolph, Muscogee, Newton, Oconee, Oglethorpe, Peach, Pierce, Pike, Pulaski, Putnam, Quitman, Randolph,
    Richmond, Rockdale, Schley, Screven, Seminole, Spalding, Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, Taliaferro, Richmond, Rockdale, Schley, Screven, Seminole, Spalding, Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, Taliaferro,
    Tattnall, Taylor, Telfair, Terrell, Thomas, Tift, Toombs, Treutlen, Troup, Turner, Twiggs, Upson, Tattnall, Taylor, Telfair, Terrell, Thomas, Tift, Toombs, Treutlen, Troup, Turner, Twiggs, Upson,
    Walton, Ware, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Webster, Wheeler, White, Whitfield, Wilcox, Walton, Ware, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Webster, Wheeler, White, Whitfield, Wilcox,
    Wilkes, Wilkinson, WorthWilkes, Wilkinson, Worth
    Florida
    Entire state
    Mississippi

    Entire state

    Mississippi

    Clarke, Forrest, George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Jones, Lamar, Lauderdale, Leake, Clarke, Forrest, George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Jones, Lamar, Lauderdale, Leake,
    Neshoba, Newton, Pearl River, Perry, Scott, Stone, WayneNeshoba, Newton, Pearl River, Perry, Scott, Stone, Wayne
    North

    North Carolina

    Alamance, Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Cabarrus, Camden, Carteret, Alamance, Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Cabarrus, Camden, Carteret, Caswel ,
    Carolina
    Caswell, Chatham, Chowan, Clay, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Davidson, Duplin, Chatham, Chowan, Clay, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Davidson, Duplin,
    Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granvil eGranville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, , Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett,
    Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Iredell, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Lincoln, Martin, Mecklenburg, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Iredell, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Lincoln, Martin, Mecklenburg,
    Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pasquotank,
    Pender, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Randolph, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan, Rutherford, Pender, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Randolph, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan, Rutherford,
    Sampson, Scotland, Stanly, Tyrrell, Union, Vance, Wake, Warren, Washington, Wayne, WilsonSampson, Scotland, Stanly, Tyrrell, Union, Vance, Wake, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Wilson
    South

    South Carolina

    Abbeville, Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, Chester, Abbeville, Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, Chester,
    Carolina
    Chesterfield, Clarendon, Chesterfield, Clarendon, Col etonColleton, Darlington, , Darlington, Dil onDillon, Dorchester, Edgefield, Fairfield, Florence, , Dorchester, Edgefield, Fairfield, Florence,
    Georgetown, Greenwood, Hampton, Horry, Jasper, Kershaw, Lancaster, Laurens, Lee, Lexington, Georgetown, Greenwood, Hampton, Horry, Jasper, Kershaw, Lancaster, Laurens, Lee, Lexington,
    Marion, Marlboro, McCormick, Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Sumter, Marion, Marlboro, McCormick, Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Sumter, Wil iamsburg,
    York
    Virginia
    Williamsburg, York

    Virginia

    Accomack, Albemarle, Accomack, Albemarle, Alexandria city, Amelia, Amherst, Appomattox, Arlington, Augusta, , Amelia, Amherst, Appomattox, Arlington, Augusta,
    Bedford, Brunswick, Buckingham, Campbell, Caroline, Charles City*, Charlotte, Bedford, Brunswick, Buckingham, Campbell, Caroline, Charles City*, Charlotte, Charlottesville
    city    , , Chesapeake city, Chesterfield, Clarke, , Chesterfield, Clarke, Colonial Heights city, Culpeper, Cumberland, , Culpeper, Cumberland,
    Danville city, Dinwiddie, , Dinwiddie, Emporia city, Essex, Fairfax, , Essex, Fairfax, Fairfax City, , Fal sFalls Church city, Fauquier, Church city, Fauquier,
    Fluvanna, Franklin, Fluvanna, Franklin, Franklin city, Frederick, , Frederick, Fredericksburg city, Gloucester, Goochland, , Gloucester, Goochland,
    Greene, Greene, Greensvil eGreensville, Halifax, , Halifax, Hampton city, Hanover, , Hanover, Harrisonburg city, Henrico, , Henrico, Hopewell
    city    , Isle Of Wight, James City*, King And Queen, King George, King , Isle Of Wight, James City*, King And Queen, King George, King Wil iamWilliam, Lancaster, Loudoun, , Lancaster, Loudoun,
    Louisa, Lunenburg, Louisa, Lunenburg, Lynchburg city, Madison, , Madison, Manassas city, , Manassas Park city, Mathews, , Mathews,
    Mecklenburg, Middlesex, Nelson, New Kent, Mecklenburg, Middlesex, Nelson, New Kent, Newport News city, , Norfolk city, Northampton, , Northampton,
    Northumberland, Nottoway, Orange, Page, Northumberland, Nottoway, Orange, Page, Petersburg city, Pittsylvania, , Pittsylvania, Poquoson city, ,
    Portsmouth city, Powhatan, Prince Edward, Prince George, Prince , Powhatan, Prince Edward, Prince George, Prince Wil iamWilliam, Rappahannock, , Rappahannock,
    Richmond, Richmond, Richmond city, Roanoke, , Roanoke, Roanoke city, Rockingham, Shenandoah, , Rockingham, Shenandoah, South Boston
    city    , Southampton, Spotsylvania, Stafford, , Southampton, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Staunton city, , Suffolk city, Surry, Sussex, , Surry, Sussex, Virginia
    Beach city    , Warren, , Warren, Waynesboro city, Westmoreland, , Westmoreland, Williamsburg city, , Winchester city, ,
    York
    York Source: Tabulated by CRS by cross-referencing relevant state counties against ARC and DRA jurisdictions, and Tabulated by CRS by cross-referencing relevant state counties against ARC and DRA jurisdictions, and
    SCRC, SCRC, “"FY23 County and County Equivalent Listings by State,FY23 County and County Equivalent Listings by State,” " https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/
    SCRC-County-Listing-By-State.pdfSCRC-County-Listing-By-State.pdf..
    Congressional Research Service

    52
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

    Notes: In Virginia, independent cities (in In Virginia, independent cities (in bold) are considered counties for U.S. census purposes and are eligible ) are considered counties for U.S. census purposes and are eligible
    for independent inclusion. Virginia counties with an asterisk (*) are named as cities, but are actually counties (e.g., for independent inclusion. Virginia counties with an asterisk (*) are named as cities, but are actually counties (e.g.,
    James City County). With the exception of Florida, which has no coverage in another federally chartered James City County). With the exception of Florida, which has no coverage in another federally chartered
    regional commission or authority, SCRC jurisdiction encompasses all member state counties that are not part of regional commission or authority, SCRC jurisdiction encompasses all member state counties that are not part of
    the DRA and/or the ARC (see 40 U.S.C. §15731).the DRA and/or the ARC (see 40 U.S.C. §15731).
    Southwest Border Regional Commission
    Table D-8. Statutory Jurisdiction of SBRC
    states and counties

    SBRC Jurisdiction
    Arizona
    Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yuma
    California
    Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura
    New
    Catron, Chaves, Dona Ana, Eddy, Grant, Hidalgo, Lincoln, Luna, Otero, Sierra, Socorro
    Mexico
    Texas

    Southern New England Regional Commission

    Table D-9. Statutory Jurisdiction of SNERC

    (states and counties)

    State

    County

    Connecticut

    Hartford, Middlesex, New Haven, New London, Tolland, Windham

    Massachusetts

    Entire state of Massachusetts

    Rhode Island

    Entire state of Rhode Island

    Source: Compiled and tabulated by CRS from P.L. 118-272.

    Note: All counites in Massachusetts and Rhode Island are within the SNERC jurisdiction.

    Southwest Border Regional Commission

    Table D-10. Statutory Jurisdiction of SBRC

    (states and counties)

    SBRC Jurisdiction

    Arizona

    Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yuma

    California

    Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura

    New Mexico

    Bernalillo, Catron, Chaves, Cibola, Curry, De Baca, Dona Ana, Eddy, Grant, Guadalupe, Hidalgo, Lea, Lincoln, Luna, Otero, Roosevelt, Sierra, Socorro, Torrance, Valencia

    Texas

    Atascosa, Bandera, Bee, Bexar, Brewster, Brooks, Cameron, Coke, Concho, Crane, Crockett, Atascosa, Bandera, Bee, Bexar, Brewster, Brooks, Cameron, Coke, Concho, Crane, Crockett,
    Culberson, Dimmit, Duval, Ector, Edwards, El Paso, Frio, Culberson, Dimmit, Duval, Ector, Edwards, El Paso, Frio, Gil espieGillespie, Glasscock, , Glasscock, Guadalupe, Hidalgo, Hudspeth, Hidalgo, Hudspeth,
    Irion, Jeff Davis, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kendall, Kenedy, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Kleberg, La Irion, Jeff Davis, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kendall, Kenedy, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Kleberg, La
    Salle, Live Oak, Loving, Mason, Maverick, Salle, Live Oak, Loving, Mason, Maverick, McMul enMcMullen, Medina, Menard, Midland, Nueces, Pecos, , Medina, Menard, Midland, Nueces, Pecos,
    Presidio, Reagan, Real, Reeves, San Patricio, Shleicher, Sutton, Starr, Sterling, Terrell, Tom Green, Presidio, Reagan, Real, Reeves, San Patricio, Shleicher, Sutton, Starr, Sterling, Terrell, Tom Green,
    Upton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Ward, Webb, Upton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Ward, Webb, Wil acyWillacy, Wilson, Winkler, Zapata, Zavala, Wilson, Winkler, Zapata, Zavala
    Source: Tabulated by CRS with information from Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 110-234 and P.L. 118-272. P.L. 110-234.

    Author Information

    Julie M. Lawhorn

    Analyst in Economic Development Policy


    Acknowledgments
    This report was originally written by former CRS Analyst Michael Cecire. Congressional clients seeking This report was originally written by former CRS Analyst Michael Cecire. Congressional clients seeking
    more information and analysis on the material covered in this report should contact the current author. more information and analysis on the material covered in this report should contact the current author.
    Molly Cox, GIS AnalystMolly Cox, GIS Analyst, and Mari Lee; and Jamie Bush, Mari Lee, Brion Long, and Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialists and Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialists,; developed the developed the
    figures included in this report. William Painter, Specialist in Homeland Security and Appropriations, figures included in this report. William Painter, Specialist in Homeland Security and Appropriations,
    provided substantive edits and assistance in updating the report.provided substantive edits and assistance in updating the report.
    Congressional Research Service

    53
    Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function



    Disclaimer
    This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
    shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
    under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
    than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
    connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
    subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
    material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
    copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

    Congressional Research Service
    R45997 · VERSION 16 · UPDATED
    54

    Footnotes

    1.

    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Great Lakes Authority (GLA). The GLA does not yet have a federal co-chair. See Division O, Title IV, §401 of P.L. 117-328.

    2. The Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA) of 2024 (P.L. 118-272, Division B, Title II) amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission (MARC) and Southern New England Regional Commission (SNERC). The MARC and SNERC do not yet have a federal co-chair and have not received appropriations. 3. On May 2, 2024, President Biden nominated a federal co-chair for the GLA. The federal co-chair is a presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed position. In November 2024, the nomination was reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), and in January 2025, the nomination was returned to the President under the provisions of Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6 of the Standing Rules of the Senate (see PN-1694, PN1694—Nomination of Matthew Kaplan for Great Lakes Authority, 118th Congress (2023-2024), PN1694, 118th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/nomination/118th-congress/1694); and the White House, "President Biden Announces Key Nominees," May 2, 2024, https://www.bidenwhitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/02/president-biden-announces-key-nominees-72/. 4. See, for example, recent congressional interest and legislative action on new place-based programs such as the Department of Commerce Recompete and Technology and Innovation Hub programs (authorized in FY2022 by P.L. 117-167); Opportunity Zones (CRS Report R45152, Tax Incentives for Opportunity Zones, by Donald J. Marples); and New Market Tax Credits (CRS Report RL34402, New Markets Tax Credit: An Introduction, by Donald J. Marples), and previous federal and congressional action on "Promise Zones" (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Promise Zones Overview, https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/promise-zones/promise-zones-overview/); as well as various legislation relating to the federal regional commissions and authorities themselves. See also CRS In Focus IF12409, What Is Place-Based Economic Development?, by Adam G. Levin. 5.

    40 U.S.C. §§14101-14704.

    6.

    P.L. 89-4.

    7.

    Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC Code, 2022, https://www.arc.gov/arc-code.

    8.

    Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC Code, 2022. The ARC Code reflects ARC decisions and current ARC policy. The ARC Code is a statement of ARC decisions adopted through resolutions and motions. Under Section 101(b) of the Appalachian Regional Development Act (ARDA), the ARC Code cannot be modified or revised without a quorum of governors.

    9.

    LDDs are not exclusive to the ARC. The DRA and NBRC also make use of them, and other inactive commissions and authorities are authorized to organize and/or support them. Designated LDDs may also be organized as Economic Development Administration (EDA)-designated economic development districts (EDDs), which serve a similar purpose. They may also be co-located with Small Business Administration-affiliated small business development centers (SBDCs).

    10. Appalachian Regional Commission, Local Development Districts, https://www.arc.gov/local-development-districts/. 11.

    See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Issues: Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes, 12-348, April 2012, https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590102.pdf.

    12. Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia Envisioned: A New Era of Opportunity, Strategic Plan FY 2022-2026, https://www.arc.gov/strategicplan/. 13. See, for example, state plans available at Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian States, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-states/. 14.

    40 U.S.C. §14524.

    15.

    40 U.S.C. §14526.

    16.

    Appalachian Regional Commission, Classifying Economic Distress in Appalachian Counties, https://www.arc.gov/classifying-economic-distress-in-appalachian-counties.

    17.

    Appalachian Regional Commission, Distressed Designation and County Economic Status Classification System, https://www.arc.gov/distressed-designation-and-county-economic-status-classification-system.

    18.

    Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on additional Appalachian Regional Commission activities, see https://www.arc.gov.

    19. Appalachian Regional Commission, About ARC Grants, https://www.arc.gov/about-arc-grants/; and Grants and Opportunities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities. 20. Appalachian Regional Commission, Area Development, https://www.arc.gov/area-development-program/. For more information on revolving loan funds, see CRS In Focus IF11449, Economic Development Revolving Loan Funds (ED-RLFs), by Julie M. Lawhorn. For information about ARC's Access to Capital Program, see Appalachian Regional Commission, Access to Capital Program, https://arc.gov/access-to-capital-program/. 21.

    Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/power.

    22.

    Appalachian Regional Commission, Investments Supporting Partnerships in Recovery Ecosystems Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/sud.

    23. Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies, https://www.arc.gov/arise. 24.

    Appalachian Regional Commission, Ready Appalachia, https://www.arc.gov/ready/.

    25. Appalachian Regional Commission, Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities/worc/; and Department of Labor, Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Initiative, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/dislocated-workers/grants/workforce-opportunity. 26.

    See Appalachian Regional Commission, Grants and Opportunities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities.

    27.

    40 U.S.C. §14501. Congress authorized construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System as part of ARC's original enabling legislation in 1965. See also "Appalachian Development Highway System Program (ADHS; IIJA Division J, Title VIII)," in CRS Report R47022, Federal Highway Programs: In Brief, by Robert S. Kirk; Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Development Highway System, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-development-highway-system; and Transportation in Appalachia, https://www.arc.gov/transportation-in-appalachia.

    28.

    Appalachian Regional Commission, Research and Data, https://www.arc.gov/research-and-data.

    29.

    For example, in FY2024, P.L. 118-42 provided $8 million for the ARC, DRA, NBRC, and SBRC regions for RCAP projects. See also USDA, "USDA Invests $550,211 to Expand and Strengthen Workforce Development in West Virginia," July 11, 2023, https://www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom/news-release/usda-invests-550211-expand-and-strengthen-workforce-development-west-virginia.

    30.

    Appalachian Regional Commission, FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 6-7, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/FY-2025-ARC-Budget-Congressional-Justification.pdf.

    31.

    P.L. 89-4.

    32.

    Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC History, https://www.arc.gov/about/ARCHistory.asp; and Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia: A Report by the President's Appalachian Regional Commission, 1964, April 1964.

    33.

    P.L. 94-188.

    34.

    P.L. 105-393.

    35.

    P.L. 107-149.

    36.

    P.L. 110-371.

    37.

    Where allowable, nonappropriated funds—such as those from states or localities—or even other non-ARC federal funds may be used to fund the balance of the project costs.

    38.

    The five designations of distress are: distressed, at-risk, transitional, competitive, and attainment. The "transitional" designation is not defined in statute, unlike the other four categories, but it is utilized as part of the five-level distress criteria nonetheless.

    39.

    P.L. 115-271, Title VIII, Subtitle E—Treating Barriers to Prosperity, §8062.

    40.

    Division A, §11506 of P.L. 117-58.

    41.

    Union County, SC; Catawba County, NC; and Cleveland County, NC, were added to the ARC region (Division A, §11506(a) of P.L. 117-58).

    42.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2215.

    43.

    P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III. The IIJA also provided $1.25 billion over five years (FY2022-FY2026) for the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) through the Federal Highway Administration (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title VIII).

    44.

    P.L. 114-113.

    45.

    For more information on the POWER Initiative, see CRS Report R46015, The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development, by Julie M. Lawhorn; and The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, FACT SHEET: The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, March 27, 2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforce-and-economic-revitaliz.

    46.

    Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/funding/POWER.asp. For FY2023 amounts, see Senator Patrick Leahy, "Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Leahy, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 2617, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023," Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 168, no. 198 (December 20, 2022), S8417, https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/12/20/168/198/CREC-2022-12-20-pt1-PgS7819-2.pdf. For FY2024, amounts were specified in the House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports—see H.Rept. 118-126, p. 185, https://www.congress.gov/118/crpt/hrpt126/CRPT-118hrpt126.pdf, and S.Rept. 118-72, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-118srpt72/html/CRPT-118srpt72.htm.

    47.

    P.L. 106-554, Appendix D, Title V—Lower Mississippi River Region.

    48.

    Delta Regional Authority, About Delta Regional Authority, https://dra.gov/about.

    49.

    7 U.S.C. §2009aa.

    50.

    Of the 252 counties reported by the DRA to fall within its service area, 219 were incorporated through P.L. 100-460. Another 20 counties in Alabama were included in P.L. 106-554 (16 counties) and P.L. 107-171 (four counties). P.L. 110-234 added 10 Louisiana parishes and two Mississippi counties. By this count, one county appears to have been included administratively.

    51.

    Delta Regional Authority, Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV, February 2023, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/APPROVED_DRA-RDP-IV_20230215.pdf.

    52. See, for example, Delta Regional Authority, Regional Development Plan: State Economic Development Plans, https://dra.gov/about/strategic-development-plan. 53.

    Delta Regional Authority, Local Development Districts, https://dra.gov/resources/local-development-districts.

    54.

    Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.

    55. Delta Regional Authority, Map Room, https://dra.gov/map-room. 56.

    7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(b).

    57.

    7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(d).

    58.

    Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 23, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DRA-FY-2025-Buget-Justification-FINAL_Updated03072025.pdf.

    59.

    Delta Regional Authority, Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV, February 2023, p. 5, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/APPROVED_DRA-RDP-IV_20230215.pdf.

    60. See 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(a) and Delta Regional Authority, Map Room, https://dra.gov/map-room. 61.

    Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on other DRA activities, see https://dra.gov.

    62.

    7 U.S.C. §2009aa.

    63. DRA also provides funding to local development districts for their assistance in administering States' Economic Development Assistance Programs and other technical assistance services. See 2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 10, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DRA-FY-2025-Buget-Justification-FINAL_Updated03072025.pdf. For a summary of DRA's critical infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/critical-infrastructure/. 64.

    Since FY2016, Congress has directed the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to partner with DRA to "advance economic growth by assisting communities and regions experiencing chronic high unemployment and low per capita income to create an environment that fosters innovation, promotes entrepreneurship, and attracts increased private capital investment." DRA and EDA executed an MOA, which calls for EDA to invest $3 million into projects identified by DRA through the Authority's SEDAP application cycle. See DRA's FY2023 CBJ, pp. 23-24.

    65.

    For a summary of DRA's human infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure.

    66. The Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) program is administered in partnership with and supported by the Department of Labor. For more information about DRA's WORC activities, see https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure/workforce/worc/. 67. The Delta Doctors program is designed to address the health disparities and high levels of health professional shortages by granting J-1 visa waivers for physicians who are willing to provide medical services in distressed DRA communities. See Delta Regional Authority, Delta Doctors, https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure/health/delta-doctors/. 68.

    Delta Regional Authority, Programs, https://dra.gov/programs.

    69.

    For example, P.L. 118-42 provided $8 million for the ARC, DRA, NBRC, and SBRC regions for RCAP projects. According to a 2023 DRA budget document,

    Each year DRA allocates a portion of the RCAP dollars to fund various Authority programs and region-wide projects priorities by the Federal Co-Chair. Examples of funded programs/projects: Delta Leadership Institute, Delta Small Business Academy, and Delta Summit.

    See Delta Regional Authority, 2023 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 21, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/FY-2023-Budget-Justification-Report-FINAL.pdf.

    70.

    Delta Regional Authority, FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DRA-FY-2025-Buget-Justification-FINAL_Updated03072025.pdf.

    71.

    Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification.

    72.

    Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification.

    73.

    Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification.

    74.

    P.L. 106-554. This law added the following Alabama counties: Pickens, Greene, Sumter, Choctaw, Clarke, Washington, Marengo, Hale, Perry, Wilcox, Lowndes, Bullock, Macon, Barbour, Russell, and Dallas.

    75.

    P.L. 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This law added Butler, Conecuh, Escambia, and Monroe counties.

    76.

    P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. This law added Beauregard, Bienville, Cameron, Claiborne, DeSoto, Jefferson Davis, Red River, St. Mary, Vermillion, and Webster Parishes in Louisiana; and Jasper and Smith Counties in Mississippi.

    77.

    P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014.

    78.

    P.L. 115-334, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. See CRS In Focus IF11126, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, by Renée Johnson and Jim Monke.

    79.

    The Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA) of 2024 repealed 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–13.

    80.

    As noted in CRS In Focus IF11396, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Operations,

    The commission structure is comprised of a federal co-chair and the state governors of member states or their designated representative (of which one serves as state co-chair). The commission is supplemented by professional staff to carry out organizational activities. While largely considered independent federal agencies, most commission members and staff are not federal employees. The main exception is the federal co-chair, that co-chair's alternate, and that co-chair's direct staff.

    81.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2215.

    82.

    7 U.S.C. §2009aa–12.

    83.

    P.L. 118-272.

    84.

    P.L. 106-554.

    85.

    P.L. 107-66.

    86.

    The DRA plans to continue to allocate IIJA funding to five program areas: (1) SEDAP; (2) Community Infrastructure Fund; (3) Delta Workforce Grant Program; (4) Strategic Planning; and (5) LDD Pilot Program. See Delta Regional Authority, Performance and Accountability Report September 30, 2022, p. 22, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/DRA_FY2022_PAR_Final12.pdf. Estimates for the program allocations of the DRA's IIJA spend plan are included in the Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ), p. 6, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DRA-FY-2025-Buget-Justification-FINAL_Updated03072025.pdf. The DRA's FY2025 CBJ also notes that it will use 4% of IIJA funding to cover administrative expenses.

    87.

    P.L. 105-277.

    88.

    For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF12165, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Administrative Expenses, by Julie M. Lawhorn.

    89.

    42 U.S.C. §3121 note.

    90.

    Denali Commission, Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/.

    91.

    See, for example, Denali Commission, Strategic Plan FY2023-FY2027, which notes that

    The Commission has invested $50 million in climate adaptation projects/initiatives through the VIP Program, leveraging nearly $60 million of other funding contributions. Over forty villages have received assistance because of Commission initiatives since the program was created in 2016.

    The plan indicates that partners include numerous state and federal agencies, universities, and philanthropic organizations, and that "A significant amount of the funding referenced above has been used to assist with relocating Newtok."

    92. Denali Commission, Strategic Plan FY2023-FY2027, pp. 19-20, https://www.denali.gov/strategic-plans/. 93.

    P.L. 105-277.

    94. Denali Commission, Work Plans, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/. 95. Denali Commission, Strategic Plan FY2023-FY2027, https://www.denali.gov/strategic-plans/. 96.

    P.L. 105-277.

    97.

    Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on additional Denali Commission activities, see https://www.denali.gov.

    98. Denali Commission, Denali Commission Investment Summary, March 2022, https://www.denali.gov/programs/. 99.

    The Denali Commission has made energy and bulk fuel its primary infrastructure theme since it was created in 1998. The types of projects currently being funded include the design and construction of replacement bulk fuel storage facilities, upgrades to community power generation and distribution systems (including interties), and energy efficiency related initiatives. See Denali Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-2024-Final.pdf.

    100. Denali Commission, Village Infrastructure Protection, https://www.denali.gov/programs/village-infrastructure-protection/. 101. Denali Commission, Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/ (accessed April 23, 2021) and Denali Commission, Denali Commission Investment Summary, March 2022, https://www.denali.gov/programs/. 102. Denali Commission, Strategic Plan FY2023-FY2027, pp. 19-20, https://www.denali.gov/strategic-plans/. 103. Denali Commission, Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/. 104.

    Denali Commission, Work Plans, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/.

    105.

    Denali Commission's Strategic Plan, p. 15, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FY23-27StrategicPlanFINAL_v21.pdf.

    106.

    Amounts provided by other federal agencies through FY2023 are provided in the Denali Commission's Strategic Plan, pp. 21-22, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FY23-27StrategicPlanFINAL_v21.pdf.

    107. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund provides approximately $3 million each year in FY2023 and FY2024. See Denali Commission, Funding, https://www.denali.gov/about/funding-2/; and FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 7, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-2024-Final.pdf. 108.

    42 U.S.C. §3121 note, Section 311. See also Denali Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-2024-Final.pdf.

    109.

    42 U.S.C. §3121 note.

    110.

    U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Fact Sheet on Highway Provisions: Denali Access System Program, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/denali.htm.

    111.

    The IIJA authorized $20 million to be appropriated for each of FY2022 through FY2026 to carry out the Denali Access System Program (P.L. 117-58, Division A, §11507(a)).

    112.

    P.L. 117-58,.Division A, §11507(b).

    113.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2251.

    114.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2215 and Section 2251.

    115.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2251 removed subsection (a) from Section 307 of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 4321 note; P.L. 105-277), which was

    Rural Utilities.—In carrying out its functions under this title, the Commission shall as appropriate, provide assistance, seek to avoid duplicating services and assistance, and complement the water and sewer wastewater programs under section 306D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926d) and section 303 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 1263a).

    116.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2251.

    117.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2252.

    118.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2251 and Section 2252. EDRA provided the authorization for appropriations; it did not provide appropriations of budget authority to the Denali Commission.

    119.

    P.L. 105-277.

    120.

    P.L. 108-7, §504.

    121.

    S. 1368, 110th Cong. (2007).

    122.

    P.L. 111-8.

    123.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2251 and Section 2252.

    124.

    P.L. 114-322.

    125.

    Denali Commission, Strategic Plan, p. 10, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FY23-27StrategicPlanFINAL_v21.pdf. For information about the Trans Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) fund, see the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277).

    126.

    42 U.S.C. §3121 note. See, for example, a summary of the funding transferred and the transferring agencies in the Denali Commission's FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 13, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Denali-Commission-CJ-2025-Final.pdf.

    127.

    P.L. 110-234.

    128.

    The White House, "President Biden Announces Key Nominees," May 2, 2024, https://www.bidenwhitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/02/president-biden-announces-key-nominees-72/.

    129.

    P.L. 118-272.

    130.

    40 U.S.C. §15702.

    131.

    40 U.S.C. §15751.

    132.

    P.L. 110-234.

    133.

    40 U.S.C. §15702.

    134.

    EDRA also waived these exceptions for the SNERC. See 40 U.S.C. §15702(c)(3).

    135.

    40 U.S.C. §15751.

    136.

    P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.

    137.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about.

    138.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about.

    139.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission: 2024-2029 Strategic Plan.

    140.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission: 2024-2029 Strategic Plan.

    141.

    See, for example, state plans available at Northern Border Regional Commission, Resources, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/resources.

    142.

    P.L. 110-234.

    143.

    See 40 U.S.C. §15702(b) and Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Annual Economic and Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021: To Determine Categories of Distress Within the NBRC Service Area, Concord, NH, March 2021, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINAL.pdf.

    144.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Annual Economic and Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021: To Determine Categories of Distress Within the NBRC Service Area, Concord, NH, March 2021, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINAL.pdf.

    145.

    Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on additional Northern Border Regional Commission activities, see https://www.nbrc.gov.

    146.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, Program Areas, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/program-areas.

    147.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, Partnership Opportunities, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/program-areas, and Department of Labor, Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Initiative, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/dislocated-workers/grants/workforce-opportunity.

    148.

    For example, P.L. 118-42 provided $8 million for the ARC, DRA, NBRC, and SBRC regions for RCAP projects. According to a NBRC press release,

    The awards being made through this partnership will support community-driven initiatives in each state with a particular focus on outdoor recreation, business support and workforce development efforts. Congress has provided funds to the NBRC since 2019 for this partnership, which advances the strategic objectives of both agencies.

    See Northern Border Regional Commission, "Northern Border Regional Commission and USDA Rural Development Announce $2.85 Million for Economic Development Projects in Four States," December 11, 2023, https://www.nbrc.gov/articles/147.

    149.

    See Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/FY25%20Budget%20Justification.pdf; and Northern Border Regional Commission, Recreation Economy for Rural Communities (RERC) Program, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/RERC.

    150.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, Catalyst Program, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/Catalyst.

    151.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-Report_Final-Web.pdf.

    152.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, Catalyst Program, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/Catalyst.

    153.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-Report_Final-Web.pdf.

    154.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, Regional Forest Economy Partnership: Notice of Funding Opportunity, http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/RegionalForestEconomyParternship(5).pdf.

    155.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission Announces 2020 Regional Forest Economy Partnership Grant Round, July 1, 2020, https://www.nbrc.gov/articles/94; and 2021 Regional Forest Economy Partnership Overview, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/2021_RFEP_Documents/2021%20RFEP%20Program%20Overview%20FINAL.pdf.

    156.

    The program was formerly called the "Regional Forest Economy Partnership Program." Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-Report_Final-Web.pdf.

    157.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, Timber for Transit, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/t4t.

    158.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, Comprehensive Planning Investments for States, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/planning-for-states.

    159.

    Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, Grant Administration, Compliance and Monitoring Manual, February 2023, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/Compliance%20Manual%20February%2023%20FINAL.pdf.

    160.

    The bill was introduced by Rep. Hodes, Paul [D-NH-2] and co-sponsored by: Rep. Arcuri, Michael A. [D-NY-24]; Rep. Allen, Thomas H. [D-ME-1]; Rep. McHugh, John M. [R-NY-23]; Rep. Michaud, Michael H. [D-ME-2]; Rep. Shea-Porter, Carol [D-NH-1]; and Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large].

    161.

    The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, H.R. 3246.

    162.

    Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-234.

    163.

    P.L. 107-171.

    164.

    See P.L. 108-199 and P.L. 108-447.

    165.

    W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Grants: Northern Great Plains, Inc., https://www.wkkf.org/grants/grant/2007/09/the-meadowlark-project-a-leadership-laboratory-on-the-future-of-the-northern-great-plains-3004879.

    166.

    P.L. 107-171.

    167.

    Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, "Great Plains Commission Completes Work, Looks to Region's Future," Minneapolis, MN, April 1, 1997, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/great-plains-commission-completes-work-looks-to-regions-future.

    168.

    EDRA repealed 7 U.S.C. §2009bb–13, which had previously terminated the NGPRA's authorization after FY2018.

    169.

    7 U.S.C. 2009bb–12.

    170.

    P.L. 118-272.

    171.

    P.L. 108-199 and P.L. 108-447.

    172.

    P.L. 110-234.

    173.

    For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Authorization.

    174.

    U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Hearing on the Nominations of Christopher Frey to be Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, at the Environmental Protection Agency and Jennifer Clyburn Reed to be Federal Co-Chair of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, 117th Cong., 1st sess., October 27, 2021, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=A654BF51-1207-411A-BD0E-914CCFBDB60B, and Congress.gov, "Nomination: Jennifer Clyburn Reed—Southeast Crescent Regional Commission," PN957, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/957.

    175.

    According to statute, a federal co-chair is required for the formation of a commission quorum and making decisions. 40 U.S.C. §15302.

    176.

    Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, "Southeast Crescent Regional Commission: Bylaws," August 2022, https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/SCRC-Bylaws-Final.pdf; and "Southeast Crescent Regional Commission: Strategic Plan (FY2023-FY2027)," December 2022, https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SCRC-Strategic-Plan-Final.pdf.

    177.

    40 U.S.C. §15702.

    178.

    Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, "SCRC Economic Designation of Counties & Isolated Areas," https://scrc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/scrc-economic-designation-methodology.pdf.

    179.

    Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, "FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification," p. 17, https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/SCRC-FY-2025-Budget-Justification-Final.pdf.

    180.

    40 U.S.C. §15702(b).

    181.

    SCRC, "Southeast Crescent Regional Commission," https://scrc.gov; and SCRC, FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification, https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/SCRC-FY-2025-Budget-Justification-Final.pdf.

    182.

    H.R. 3901.

    183.

    40 U.S.C. §15731.

    184.

    40 U.S.C. §15751.

    185.

    40 U.S.C. §15751.

    186.

    P.L. 116-260 and P.L. 117-58.

    187.

    P.L. 110-234.

    188.

    40 U.S.C. §15702.

    189.

    EDRA also waived these exceptions for the Maryland and Pennsylvania portions of the MARC. See 40 U.S.C. §15702(c)(3).

    190.

    See H.R. 5124 (116th Congress); H.R. 2134 and S. 900 (117th Congress); and H.R. 10339 (118th Congress).

    191.

    40 U.S.C. §15751.

    192.

    Congress.gov, "Nomination: Juan Eduardo Sanchez—Southwest Border Regional Commission," PN2450, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/2450.

    193.

    SBRC, Strategic Plan 2025, https://sbrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/SBRC-5-YEAR-PLAN-.pdf.

    194.

    40 U.S.C. §15702.

    195.

    40 U.S.C. §15702(b).

    196.

    For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Authorization.

    197.

    SBRC, Grant Program, https://sbrc.gov/grant-and-programs/.

    198.

    Executive Order 13122, "Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southern Border," 64 Federal Register 29201-29202, May 25, 1999.

    199.

    Congress.gov, "Nomination: Juan Eduardo Sanchez—Southwest Border Regional Commission," PN2450, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/2450.

    200.

    40 U.S.C. §15751.

    201. P.L. 118-42 provided $8 million for the ARC, DRA, NBRC, and SBRC regions for RCAP projects. P.L. 119-4 provided continuing appropriations for SBRC for FY2025 at the same level of funding that was provided in FY2024. 202.

    See P.L. 118-272, Section 2253 and Section 2254.

    203. For example, EDRA authorized the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) to consider all FRCA-sourced funding as nonfederal funding when used as matching funds for EDA projects—see P.L. 118-272, Section 2215. EDRA also provided the DRA and the Subtitle V FRCAs with new or expanded authorities to collect, retain, and use fees—see P.L. 118-272, Section 2242(c) and Section 2253. 204.

    40 U.S.C. §14704.

    205.

    Prior to the enactment of P.L. 117-58, P.L. 116-159 extended the period of authorization for the ARC from October 1, 2020 to October 1, 2021. Prior to the enactment of P.L. 116-159, P.L. 114-94 extended the period of authorization for the ARC from October 1, 2012 to October 1, 2020.

    206.

    Prior to EDRA's enactment, the ARC and Denali Commission were authorized to administer demonstration health project programs as well. For the authorization of the ARC's demonstration health project, see 40 U.S.C. §14502. For the authorization of the Denali Commission's demonstration health project, see Section 307 of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 4321 note).

    207.

    Prior to EDRA's enactment, the NBRC was already authorized to administer a state capacity building grant program designed to address capacity challenges. EDRA extended the NBRC's authority to administer the program. Prior to EDRA, FRCAs had administered other types of capacity building initiatives under existing program authorities. For instance, the ARC has administered READY Appalachia since 2022, an initiative designed to build individual, organizational, and community capacity in the Appalachian Region and the DRA administered several capacity-building programs.

    208.

    See P.L. 118-272, Section 2244. EDRA also provided a similar authority to the Denali Commission—see P.L. 118-272, Section 2251(b).

    209.

    EDRA also provided a similar authority to the DRA. See P.L. 118-272, Section 2242(c).

    210.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2242(a).

    211.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2242(b)(1).

    212.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2242(b)(2). Previously, the statute dealing with quorums stated that "a State alternate member shall not be counted toward the establishment of a quorum." Section 2242 specified that the FRCAs' quorum decisions shall include the federal co-chair or alternate federal co-chair (unchanged) and "a majority of State members or alternate State members, including designees (exclusive of members representing States delinquent under section 15304(c)(3)(C))" [emphasis added].

    213.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2243.

    214.

    See EDRA (P.L. 118-272, Division B, Title II, Subtitle B, Section 2242(a)(2)). Prior to EDRA's enactment, the provision related to "succession" allowed the federal co-chair to designate a federal employee for the temporary acting federal co-chair role. EDRA substituted "an employee" for "a Federal employee" in the statute. As noted in CRS In Focus IF11396, Starting a Federal Regional Commission or Authority

    The commission structure is comprised of a federal co-chair and the state governors of member states or their designated representative (of which one serves as state co-chair). The commission is supplemented by professional staff to carry out organizational activities. While largely considered independent federal agencies, most commission members and staff are not federal employees. The main exception is the federal co-chair, that co-chair's alternate, and that co-chair's direct staff.

    215.

    P.L. 118-272, Section 2242(c)(4).

    216. There are two parts to authorizations for federal entities: authorization of appropriations, which generally provide a guideline for the anticipated resource needs for an entity or activity; and operational or organizational authorization, which may establish an entity and/or provide it certain authority in law to operate. Either part of an authorization may lapse. Although an expired authorization can present a procedural obstacle for the consideration of appropriations, including such funding in an appropriations act provides a de facto extension of the authorization. Some operating authorizations may include "sunset provisions," which terminate an entity's legal authority to operate after a certain date, which could positively shut down their ability to function if not extended. For additional information, see CRS Report R46497, Authorizations and the Appropriations Process, by James V. Saturno. 217.

    Although EDRA implementation may not be complete as of the date of publication, FRCAs have initiated activities associated with several new programs authorized by the legislation.