# Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR45997 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** Reports - **Published:** September 17, 2026 - **Citation:** R45997 ## Text Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Updated September 17, 2026 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45997 SUMMARY Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of the 11 federal regional commissions and authorities. Those commissions and authorities are the • • • • • • • • • • • R45997 September 17, 2026 Julie M. Lawhorn Analyst in Economic Development Policy Appalachian Regional Commission; Delta Regional Authority; Denali Commission; Great Lakes Authority; Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission; Northern Border Regional Commission; Northern Great Plains Regional Authority; Northwest Regional Commission; 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 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 11 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, the Northwest 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 and is not active. Eight of the regional commissions and authorities each received $1 million to $200 million in annual appropriations in FY2026 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). Congressional Research Service Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................................................ 3 Overview of Structure and Activities ........................................................................................ 4 Commission Structure......................................................................................................... 4 Strategic Plan ...................................................................................................................... 4 Designating Distressed Areas ............................................................................................. 5 Recent Activities ................................................................................................................. 6 Legislative History .................................................................................................................... 8 Appalachian Regional Development Act ............................................................................ 8 Major Amendments to the ARC .......................................................................................... 8 Funding History ................................................................................................................. 11 Delta Regional Authority............................................................................................................... 12 Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 13 Authority Structure ........................................................................................................... 13 Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 14 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 14 Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 15 States’ Economic Development Assistance Program ........................................................ 16 Legislative History ............................................................................................................ 16 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 19 Denali Commission ....................................................................................................................... 20 Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 21 Commission Structure....................................................................................................... 22 Annual Work Plan and Strategic Plan ............................................................................... 22 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 22 Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 23 Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 24 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 26 Great Lakes Authority ................................................................................................................... 27 Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 28 Authority Structure ........................................................................................................... 28 Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 29 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 29 Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 29 Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 29 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 29 Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission.............................................................................................. 30 Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 31 Authority Structure ........................................................................................................... 31 Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 31 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 31 Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 31 Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 31 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 32 Northern Border Regional Commission ........................................................................................ 32 Congressional Research Service Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 33 Commission Structure....................................................................................................... 33 Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 34 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 34 Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 35 Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 37 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 38 Northern Great Plains Regional Authority .................................................................................... 39 Structure and Activities ........................................................................................................... 40 Overview of Structure and Activities ................................................................................ 40 Activities ........................................................................................................................... 40 Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 40 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 42 Northwest Regional Commission .................................................................................................. 42 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .................................................................................... 43 Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 44 Commission Structure....................................................................................................... 44 Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 44 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 44 Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 45 Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 45 Funding History ................................................................................................................ 48 Southern New England Regional Commission ............................................................................. 48 Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 49 Authority Structure ........................................................................................................... 49 Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 50 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 50 Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 50 Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 50 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 50 Southwest Border Regional Commission ...................................................................................... 51 Overview of Structure and Activities ...................................................................................... 51 Commission Structure....................................................................................................... 51 Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 52 Designating Distressed Areas ........................................................................................... 52 Recent Activities ............................................................................................................... 52 Legislative History .................................................................................................................. 52 Funding History ...................................................................................................................... 54 The Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024 (P.L. 118-272) ................................... 54 Changes to Subtitle V FRCAs ................................................................................................. 55 Concluding Notes .......................................................................................................................... 57 Figures Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission............................................................... 3 Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority ............................................................................. 13 Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission ..................................................................................... 21 Congressional Research Service Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Figure 4. Map of the Great Lakes Authority ................................................................................. 28 Figure 5. Map of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission Region ............................................... 30 Figure 6. Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission ...................................................... 33 Figure 7. Map of the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority .................................................. 39 Figure 8. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .................................................. 43 Figure 9. Map of the Southern New England Regional Commission Region ............................... 49 Figure 10. Map of the Southwest Border Regional Commission .................................................. 51 Figure A-1. Structure and Activities of the Commissions and Authorities.................................... 61 Figure B-1. National Map of the Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities ....................... 63 Tables Table 1. ARC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 ............ 12 Table 2. DRA: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 ............ 20 Table 3. Denali Commission: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 ........................................................................................................................ 27 Table 4. Great Lakes Authority Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2023-FY2026 ........................................................................................................................ 30 Table 5. Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2025-FY2026 ............................................................................................... 32 Table 6. NBRC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026.......... 38 Table 7. Northern Great Plains Regional Authority Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2025-FY2026 ............................................................................................... 42 Table 8. SCRC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 .......... 48 Table 9. Southern New England Regional Commission Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2025-FY2026 ............................................................................ 50 Table 10. SBRC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 ........ 54 Table A-1. Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities .......................................................... 59 Table A-2. Statutory Citations for FRCA Operating Authorizations ............................................. 60 Table C-1. Historical Appropriations: Federal Regional Commissions (FY1986-FY2026) ......... 64 Table D-1. Statutory Jurisdiction of ARC ..................................................................................... 67 Table D-2. Statutory Jurisdiction of DRA ..................................................................................... 68 Table D-3. Statutory Jurisdiction of Denali Commission .............................................................. 69 Table D-4. Statutory Jurisdiction of GLA ..................................................................................... 70 Table D-5. Statutory Jurisdiction of MARC .................................................................................. 71 Table D-6. Statutory Jurisdiction of NBRC................................................................................... 71 Table D-7. Statutory Jurisdiction of NGPRA ................................................................................ 72 Table D-8. Statutory Jurisdiction of SCRC ................................................................................... 73 Table D-9. Statutory Jurisdiction of SNERC................................................................................. 74 Table D-10. Statutory Jurisdiction of SBRC ................................................................................. 74 Congressional Research Service Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Appendixes Appendix A. Basic Information at a Glance .................................................................................. 59 Appendix B. Map of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities ......................................... 63 Appendix C. Historical Appropriations ......................................................................................... 64 Appendix D. Service Areas of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities........................... 67 Contacts Author Information........................................................................................................................ 75 Congressional Research Service Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Introduction The 11 federal regional commissions and authorities (FRCAs) are: • • • • • • • • • • • Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC); Delta Regional Authority (DRA); Denali Commission; Great Lakes Authority (GLA); Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission (MARC); Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC); Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA); Northwest Regional Commission (NRC); Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC); Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC); and Southern New England Regional Commission (SNERC). Congress authorized most FRCAs to address instances of major economic distress in certain defined socioeconomic regions (see Table A-1). The first such federal regional commission, the ARC, was founded in 1965. The other commissions and authorities may have roots in the intervening decades, but were not founded until 1998 (Denali Commission), 2000 (DRA), and 2002 (the NGPRA). The NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC were authorized in 2008; the GLA was authorized in 2022.1 The MARC and SNERC were authorized in 2025; the NRC received initial appropriations in 2026.2 Six FRCAs are currently active, meaning they are engaged in economic development activities in their service areas, have received recent appropriations, and have a Senate-confirmed federal cochair (or equivalent) in place. These are the ARC, DRA, Denali Commission, NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC. Five FRCAs are currently inactive, and do not have all of those features at this time: the MARC, NGPRA,3 NRC, SNERC, and GLA.4 Eight of the entities currently receive annual appropriations: ARC, DRA, GLA, the Denali Commission, NBRC, NRC, SBRC, and SCRC. Both SCRC and SBRC were inactive until 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. P.L. 119-74 provided appropriations for “expenses necessary to establish a Northwest Regional Commission.” As of the date of publication, the Northwest Regional Commission does not yet have a federal co-chair and is not active. 3 The NGPRA has not received appropriations since FY2005 and does not have a federal co-chair. 4 The GLA received its first appropriation in FY2024, and on May 2, 2024, President Biden nominated a federal cochair 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 PN1694—Nomination of Matthew Kaplan for Great Lakes Authority, 118 th Congress (2023-2024), 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/. Congressional Research Service 1 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function relatively recently. The SCRC received regular annual appropriations since FY2010, but lacked a Senate-confirmed federal co-chair until December 2021. The SBRC received its first appropriation in FY2021, and lacked a federal co-chair until December 2022. Confirmation of the SCRC and SBRC federal co-chairs allowed these two commissions to convene and begin their activities. The annual Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies (E&W) appropriations act provides funding for select FRCAs. Full-year FY2027 E&W appropriations have not been enacted. On September 2, 2026, the President signed into law the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027 (P.L. 119-103). P.L. 119-103 provides FY2027 funding on a temporary basis through December 11, 2026, for the FRCAs that were funded in the FY2026 appropriation act (P.L. 119-74) at the same rate and under the same conditions (see Division A). P.L. 119-103 also extends the ARC’s authorization and funding authorization through FY2027 and extends funding authorizations for two specific ARC initiatives through FY2027 (see Division C) through the extension period. The Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-74) provided $324 million in total annual appropriations for select FRCAs, an increase of about 1% from their FY2025 enacted level of $319 million.5 The FY2026 appropriations measure also provided funding for a new Northwest Regional Commission (NRC), which—once established—would cover Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. As of the date of this report, the commission does not have a federal co-chair and is not active.6 The FRCAs are functioning examples of place-based and intergovernmental approaches to economic development, which receive regular congressional interest.7 The FRCAs integrate federal and state economic development priorities alongside regional and local considerations. As federally chartered agencies created by acts of Congress, the FRCAs depend on congressional 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 FRCAs. 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 the federally chartered regional commissions and authorities. “Subtitle V” Regional Commissions 5 P.L. 119-4. 6 P.L. 119-74 provided appropriations for “expenses necessary to establish a Northwest Regional Commission” and that the funding for the commission “shall be used to carry out activities authorized for other regional Commissions by subtitle V of title 40, United States Code.” The commission is not active. 7 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-zonesoverview/); 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. Congressional Research Service 2 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function The GLA, MARC, NBRC, NRC, 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 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. In FY2025, P.L. 118-272 amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish two new Subtitle V FRCAs—the MARC and SNERC. In FY2026, P.L. 119-74 provided appropriations “for expenses necessary to establish a Northwest Regional Commission located in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana,” and noted that the funding for the commission “shall be used to carry out activities authorized for other regional Commissions by subtitle V of title 40, United States Code.” Appalachian Regional Commission The Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965 to address economic distress in the Appalachian region.8 The ARC’s jurisdiction spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (Figure 1). The ARC was originally created to 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 environment. Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission (by county) Source: Compiled by CRS using data from 40 U.S.C. §14102, Esri Data and Maps, and the Appalachian Regional Commission, “About the Appalachian Region,” https://www.arc.gov/about-the-appalachian-region/. 8 40 U.S.C. §§14101-14704. Congressional Research Service 3 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 amended,9 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 serves as the state co-chair for a term of “at least one year.”10 The federal co-chair is appointed by 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 partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal government and member states, while economic development activities are funded by congressional appropriations. There are 74 ARC-associated LDDs. They may be conduits for funding for other eligible organizations, and may also themselves be ARC grantees.11 State and local governments, governmental entities, and nonprofit organizations are eligible for ARC investments, including both federal- and state-designated tribal entities. State-designated tribal entities that are not federally recognized (or “lack federal recognition”) are nevertheless eligible to receive ARC funding. This is rare, as usually federal funding requires federal recognition.12 Strategic Plan According to authorizing legislation and the ARC Code,13 the ARC’s programs abide by a Regional Development Plan (RDP), which includes documents prepared by the states and the commission. The RDP is comprised of the ARC’s strategic plan, its bylaws, member state development plans, each participating state’s annual strategy statement, the commission’s annual program budget, and the commission’s internal implementation and performance management guidelines. 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, 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 financially supported by the ARC and advise on local priorities.14 9 P.L. 89-4. 10 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC Code, 2022, https://www.arc.gov/arc-code. 11 Appalachian Regional Commission, Local Development Districts, https://www.arc.gov/local-development-districts/. 12 See U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Indian Issues: Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes, 12-348, April 2012, https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590102.pdf. 13 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. 14 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). Congressional Research Service 4 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function ARC’s strategic plan is a five-year document, reviewed annually, and revised as necessary. The current strategic plan, adopted in October 2021,15 prioritizes five investment goals: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. entrepreneurial and business development; workforce development; infrastructure development; natural and cultural assets; and leadership and community capacity. The ARC’s 13 member states also develop four-year plans and annual strategy statements that outline their states’ funding priorities for ARC projects.16 Designating Distressed Areas The ARC is statutorily obligated to allocate at least 50% of funding to distressed areas.17 The ARC is also statutorily obligated to designate counties by level of economic distress.18 Distress designations influence funding priority and determine grant match requirements. Using an indexbased classification system, the ARC compares each county within its jurisdiction with national averages based on three economic indicators:19 (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, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress levels. Each distress level corresponds to a given county’s ranking relative to that of the United States as a whole. These designations are defined as follows by the ARC, starting from “worst” distress:20 • • • • • distressed counties, or those with values in the “worst” 10% of U.S. counties; at-risk, which rank between worst 10% and 25%; transitional, which rank between worst 25% and best 25%; competitive, which rank between “best” 25% and best 10%; and attainment, or those which rank in the best 10%. 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 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 (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 sub-county areas are considered to be at higher levels of distress, and/or in those cases where the 15 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia Envisioned: A New Era of Opportunity, Strategic Plan FY 2022- 2026, https://www.arc.gov/strategicplan/. 16 See, for example, state plans available at Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian States, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-states/. 17 40 U.S.C. §14524. ARC reports that it generally provides over 50% of its appropriations to distressed counties and areas. In FY2024, 73% of its appropriations were awarded to projects in distressed counties or areas. See Appalachian Regional Commission, FY 2026 Congressional Justification, p. 11, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ ARC-FY-2026-Congressional-Justification.pdf. 18 40 U.S.C. §14526. 19 Appalachian Regional Commission, Classifying Economic Distress in Appalachian Counties, https://www.arc.gov/ classifying-economic-distress-in-appalachian-counties. 20 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 5 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 matches, and match requirements may be met with other federal funds. Recent Activities21 ARC makes grant investments through the following core programs:22 • • • • • • Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies (ARISE). ARC established the ARISE initiative in 2022 to support large-scale, multi-state projects.23 Appalachian Regional Energy Hub Initiative. ARC launched a grant program to fund energy hub research and implementation projects in FY2024.24 Area Development (i.e., the “base” grant program). This funding is for building community capacity and supporting economic growth broadly. This program also provides funding for local development districts (LDDs), access to capital initiatives, and funding for business development revolving loan funds (RLFs).25 Initiative for Substance Abuse Mitigation (INSPIRE). INSPIRE funding is provided to 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.26 Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative. The POWER Initiative provides funding for ARC communities disproportionately affected by the downturn of the coal industry.27 Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Grant Initiative. ARC partners with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration to design workforce development initiatives, with funding provided through the Department of Labor (DOL).28 21 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. 22 Appalachian Regional Commission, About ARC Grants, https://www.arc.gov/about-arc-grants/; and Grants and Opportunities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities. 23 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies, https://www.arc.gov/ arise. 24 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) authorized ARC to fund energy hub activities. See Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Regional Energy Hub Initiative, https://arc.gov/energyhub. 25 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 (EDRLFs), 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/. 26 Appalachian Regional Commission, Investments Supporting Partnerships in Recovery Ecosystems Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/sud. 27 Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/power. For additional information, see CRS Report R46015, The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development, by Julie M. Lawhorn. 28 Appalachian Regional Commission, Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-andopportunities/worc/; and Department of Labor, Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Initiative, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/dislocated-workers/grants/workforce-opportunity. Congressional Research Service 6 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function In addition to its grant programs, ARC activities include various partnerships and ongoing initiatives (e.g., the J-1 Visa waiver program,29 READY Appalachia,30 and various academies and institutes).31 ARC collaborates with federal, state, and local agencies to develop the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) and Local Roads program.32 Additionally, ARC’s research office issues Requests for Proposals for research and evaluation contracts on topics directly affecting economic development in the Appalachian region.33 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 projects that meet the purposes of USDA Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP). The funding is used to support rural economic development 29Appalachian Regional Commission, J-1 Visa Waivers, https://www.arc.gov/j-1-visa-waivers/. 30 In FY2025, ARC provided five grant opportunities designed to strengthen economically distressed communities through the READY Appalachia initiative. The grants supported projects intended to build individual, organizational, and/or community capacity. Appalachian Regional Commission, Ready Appalachia, https://www.arc.gov/ready/. 31 See Appalachian Regional Commission, Grants and Opportunities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities. 32 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/appalachiandevelopment-highway-system; and Transportation in Appalachia, https://www.arc.gov/transportation-in-appalachia. 33 Appalachian Regional Commission, Research and Data, https://www.arc.gov/research-and-data. Congressional Research Service 7 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function activities in the Appalachian region.34 Other federal partners include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Defense (DOD),35 the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), among others.36 Legislative History Appalachian Regional Development Act In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Appalachian Regional Development Act,37 which created the ARC to address the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission (PARC) recommendations, and added counties in New York and Mississippi. The ARC was directed to administer or assist in the following initiatives: • • • • • • • • The creation of the Appalachian Development Highway System; 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 Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia governors formed the Council of Appalachian Governors to highlight Appalachia’s extended economic distress and to press for increased federal involvement. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy formed the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission (PARC) and charged it with developing an economic development program for the region. PARC’s report, issued in 1964, called for the creation of an independent agency to coordinate federal and state efforts to address infrastructure, natural resources, and human capital issues in the region. The PARC also included some Ohio counties as part of the Appalachian region.38 Major Amendments to the ARC Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 1975 In 1975, the ARC’s authorizing legislation was amended to require that state governors themselves serve as the state representatives on the commission, overriding original statutory language in which governors were permitted to appoint designated representatives.39 The amendments also included provisions to expand public participation in ARC plans and programs. 34 For example, in FY2026, P.L. 119-37 provided $10 million for the ARC, DRA, NBRC, and SBRC regions for any Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP) purposes (as described in section 381E(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act). 35 The Department of Defense is “using a secondary Department of War designation,” under Executive Order 14347 dated September 5, 2025. See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/10/2025-17508/restoring-the-unitedstates-department-of-war. 36 Appalachian Regional Commission, FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 6-7, https://www.arc.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2024/03/FY-2025-ARC-Budget-Congressional-Justification.pdf. 37 P.L. 89-4. 38 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. 39 P.L. 94-188. Congressional Research Service 8 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function 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. Appalachian Regional Development Reform Act of 1998 Legislative reforms in 1998 introduced county-level designations of distress.40 The legislation organized county-level distress into three bands, from “worst” to “best”: distressed counties; competitive counties; and attainment counties. The act imposed limitations on funding for economically strong counties: (1) “competitive,” which could only accept ARC funding for 30% of project costs (with the 70% balance being subject to grant match requirements); and (2) “attainment,” which were generally ineligible for funding, except through waivers or exceptions. In addition, the act withdrew the ARC’s legislative mandate for certain programs, including the land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control program; the timber development program; 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 treatment works program; and amendments to the Housing Act of 1954 from the original 1965 act. Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2002 Legislation in 2002 expanded the ARC’s ability to support LDDs, introduced an emphasis on ecological issues, and provided for a greater coordinating role by the ARC in federal economic development activities.41 The amendments also provided new stipulations for the ARC’s grant making, limiting the organization to funding 50% of project costs or 80% in designated distressed counties. The amendments also expanded the ARC’s efforts in human capital development 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 ARC’s grant authorities and extended its geographic reach. The amendments included 1. 2. 3. 4. various limitations on project funding amounts and commission contributions; the establishment of an economic and energy development initiative; the expansion of county designations to include an “at-risk” designation; and the expansion of the number of counties under the ARC’s jurisdiction.42 The 2008 amendments introduced funding limitations for ARC grant activities as a whole, as well as to specific programs. According to the 2008 legislation, “the amount of the grant shall not exceed 50 percent of administrative expenses.” However, at the ARC’s discretion, an LDD that included a “distressed” county in its service area could provide for 75% of administrative expenses of a relevant project, or 70% for “at-risk” counties. Eligible activities could only be funded by the ARC at a maximum of 50% of the project cost,43 or 80% for distressed counties and 70% for “at-risk” counties. The act introduced special project categories, including 40 P.L. 105-393. 41 P.L. 107-149. 42 P.L. 110-371. 43 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 9 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function • • • • • demonstration health projects; assistance for proposed low- and middle-income housing projects; the telecommunications and technology initiative; the entrepreneurship initiative; and the regional skills partnership. Finally, the “economic and energy development initiative” provided for the ARC to fund activities supporting energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The legislation expanded distress designations to include an “at-risk” category, or counties “most at risk of becoming economically distressed.” This raised the number of distress levels to five.44 The legislation also expanded 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 June 2018, authorized the ARC to support projects and activities that address substance abuse, including opioid abuse, in the region.45 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 ARC’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 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 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 ARC’s broadband authorization, and outlined additional aspects of the agency’s broadband and regional energy hub initiatives. The act also required congressional notification for grants over $50,000.46 Additionally, three counties in two states were added to the ARC. 47 44 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. 45 P.L. 115-271, Title VIII, Subtitle E—Treating Barriers to Prosperity, §8062. 46 Division A, §11506 of P.L. 117-58. 47 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). Congressional Research Service 10 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function The Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA) of 2024 The ARC was not reauthorized in EDRA. As aforementioned, the ARC was reauthorized in the IIJA (P.L. 117-58) through FY2026.48 However, EDRA allowed ARC (and other FRCA) funding to be used for the nonfederal match in EDA projects.49 Funding History 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 also the highest-funded of the FRCAs. Its funding increased 174% from approximately $73 million in FY2008 to $200 million in FY2026 (excluding advanced appropriations provided by the IIJA). In FY2026, 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.50 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. The ARC’s funding growth is attributable to incremental increases in appropriations along with an increase in annual appropriations set aside since FY2016 to support the Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative.51 The POWER Initiative began in 2015 to provide economic development funding for addressing economic and labor dislocations caused by energy transition principally in coal communities in the Appalachian region.52 In FY2023, FY2024, and FY2026, Congress directed ARC to allocate $65 million each year to the POWER Initiative.53 48 The Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027 (P.L. 119-103, enacted September 2, 2026), provides FY2027 funding on a temporary basis for the FRCAs that were funded in the FY2026 appropriation act (P.L. 119-74) at the same rate and under the same conditions through December 11, 2026 (see Division A). P.L. 119-103 also includes provisions covering the extension period that extend the ARC’s authorization and funding authorization through FY2027 and provisions that extend funding authorizations for two specific ARC initiatives through FY2027 (see Division C). 49 P.L. 118-272, Section 2215. 50 P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III. The IIJA also provided $1.25 billion over five years (FY2022-FY2026) for the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) through the Federal Highway Administration (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title VIII). 51 P.L. 114-113. 52 For more information on the POWER Initiative, see CRS Report R46015, The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development, by Julie M. Lawhorn; and The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, FACT SHEET: The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, March 27, 2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforceand-economic-revitaliz. 53 Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/funding/POWER.asp. For FY2023 amounts, see Senator Patrick Leahy, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Leahy, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 2617, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023,” Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 168, no. 198 (December 20, 2022), S8417, https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/12/20/168/198/CREC-2022-12-20-pt1-PgS7819-2.pdf. For FY2024, amounts were specified in the House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports—see H.Rept. 118-126, p. 185, https://www.congress.gov/118/crpt/hrpt126/CRPT-118hrpt126.pdf, and S.Rept. 118-72, https://www.govinfo.gov/ content/pkg/CRPT-118srpt72/html/CRPT-118srpt72.htm. For FY2026, see Representative Tom Cole, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Cole, Chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 6938, Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026,” (continued...) Congressional Research Service 11 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Table 1. ARC: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 ($ in millions) FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 Appropriated Funding 152 155 165 175 180 395 400 400 400 400 Authorized Funding 110 110 110 110 110 200 200 200 200 200 Sources: Authorized funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 110-234, P.L. 113-79, P.L. 115-334, P.L. 116-159, and P.L. 117-58. Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from 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, P.L. 119-4, and P.L. 119-74 Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1. The appropriated funding amounts for FY2022-FY2026 include $200 million for each fiscal year provided by the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III). The IIJA provided $200 million 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 Development Highway System (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title VIII). Delta Regional Authority The Delta Regional Authority was established in 2000 to address economic distress in the Mississippi River Delta region.54 The DRA aims to “create jobs, build communities, and improve the lives of those that reside in the region,”55 which includes 255 designated counties and parishes in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee (Figure 2). Congressional Record, House, vol. 172, no. 5 (January 8, 2026), p. H446, https://www.congress.gov/119/crec/2026/01/ 08/172/5/CREC-2026-01-08-bk3.pdf#page=192. 54 P.L. 106-554, Appendix D, Title V—Lower Mississippi River Region. 55 Delta Regional Authority, About Delta Regional Authority, https://dra.gov/about. Congressional Research Service 12 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority (by county or parish) Source: Compiled by CRS using data from 7 U.S.C. §2009aa, Esri Data and Maps, and the Delta Regional Authority, “Service Area Map,” https://dra.gov/map-room/. Overview of Structure and Activities Authority Structure 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 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 generally serves as the state alternate.56 Entities that are eligible to apply for DRA funding opportunities include state and local governments (state agencies, cities, and counties/parishes); nonprofit entities, including special purpose districts; regional and economic development organizations; community and faith-based organizations; colleges, trade schools, and minority-serving institutions; and federally recognized tribes.57 These entities must apply for projects that operate in or are serving residents and communities within the 255 counties/parishes of the DRA’s jurisdiction. Unlike other FRCAs, the DRA’s service area is defined not in any one piece of legislation but through multiple legislative developments (see “Legislative History”). In addition, there 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 103rd Congress (P.L. 103-433), which incorporated H.R. 4043, the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiatives Act of 1994 as Title XI of the bill.58 56 7 U.S.C. §2009aa. 57 Delta Regional Authority, Programs, https://dra.gov/programs/. 58 Of the counties reported by the DRA to fall within its service area, 219 were incorporated through P.L. 100-460. (continued...) Congressional Research Service 13 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Strategic Plan Funding determinations are assessed according to the DRA’s authorizing statute, its strategic plan, distress designations, and state priorities. The DRA strategic plan articulates the authority’s highlevel economic development priorities. The current strategic plan—Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV—was released in February 2023 for the 20232027 period.59 The strategic plan lists four primary goals: 1. 2. 3. 4. Invest in public infrastructure; Nurture local workforce ecosystems; Promote business growth and entrepreneurship; and Support community place-making and capacity-building. States provide development plans that reflect the economic development goals and priorities of member states and LDDs.60 DRA projects are developed in coordination with its 45 LDDs.61 LDDs are multicounty economic that advise on local priorities, identify opportunities, conduct outreach, and administer grants. LDDs may receive financial assistance from the DRA, including 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 above that amount.62 DRA launched the LDD Community Support Pilot Program in 2023 to expand assistance and activities with LDDs.63 Designating Distressed Areas The DRA determines a county or parish as distressed on an annual basis through the following criteria: 1. an unemployment rate of 1% higher than the national average for the most recent 24-month period; and 2. a per capita income of 80% or less than the national per capita income.64 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 distressed counties and parishes and isolated areas within non-distressed counties and parishes;65 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. 59 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. 60 See, for example, Delta Regional Authority, Regional Development Plan: State Economic Development Plans, https://dra.gov/about/strategic-development-plan. 61 Delta Regional Authority, Local Development Districts, https://dra.gov/resources/local-development-districts; and FY2025 Performance and Accountability Report, p. 49, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/DRA-FY2025PAR-FINAL.pdf. 62 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. 63 Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 28. 64 Delta Regional Authority, Map Room, https://dra.gov/map-room. 65 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(b). Congressional Research Service 14 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function half of those funds must target transportation and basic infrastructure.66 As of FY2024, 227 of DRA’s counties and parishes are economically distressed and 136 are in persistent poverty.67 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).68 The DRA also analyzes census tracts in order to designate isolated areas of non-distressed counties or parishes as distressed.69 Recent Activities70 By statute, DRA is required to provide funding for the following four categories: • • • • Basic public infrastructure in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress; Transportation infrastructure for the purpose of facilitating economic development in the region; Business development, with emphasis on entrepreneurship; and Job training or employment‐related education, with emphasis on the use of existing public educational institutions located in the region.71 DRA categorizes its core programs as critical infrastructure or human infrastructure programs. Critical infrastructure programs include72 • • • the States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP); the Community Infrastructure Fund; and the Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance (PWEAA) Program.73 Human infrastructure programs include74 • the Workforce Grant Programs (e.g., the Delta Workforce Grant Program, the Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) program);75 66 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(d). 67 Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 23. 68 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. 69 See 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(a) and Delta Regional Authority, Map Room. 70 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on other DRA activities, see https://dra.gov. 71 7 U.S.C. §2009aa. 72 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. For a summary of DRA’s critical infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/criticalinfrastructure/. 73 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. 74 For a summary of DRA’s human infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure. 75 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/. Congressional Research Service 15 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function • • • the Delta Health Collaborative Programs (e.g., the Delta Doctors Program;76 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).77 DRA collaborates with various federal agencies on programs and initiatives. Since 2003, Congress has directed USDA to provide funding to DRA for any USDA Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) purposes that support rural economic development activities in the DRA region.78 Other federal partners include the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the Department of Defense, Department of State, DOL, and HRSA, among others.79 States’ Economic Development Assistance Program The principal investment tool used by the DRA is the States’ Economic Development Assistance Program, which is used to fund grants for basic public infrastructure; transportation infrastructure; business development and entrepreneurship; and workforce training and education.80 The SEDAP funding is made available to each state according to an allocation that has been approved by the Authority.81 While all projects must be associated with one of the DRA’s four funding priorities, additional review criteria include county-level distress designations; adherence to at least one of the DRA Regional Development Plan goals (from the strategic plan); and alignment with an existing local, regional or state economic development plan and/or workforce strategy.82 Legislative History 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 76 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/. 77 Delta Regional Authority, Programs, https://dra.gov/programs. 78 For example, P.L. 119-37 provided $10 million for the ARC, DRA, NBRC, and SBRC regions for any RCAP purpose (as described in section 381E(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act). 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. 79 Delta Regional Authority, FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification. 80 Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification. 81 Delta Regional Authority, 2025 Congressional Budget Justification. 82 Delta Regional Authority, States’ Economic Development Assistance Program Notice of Funding Availability, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-Delta-Regional-Authority-SEDAP-NOFAAnnouncement_July2025.pdf. Congressional Research Service 16 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function 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 economic development plan. The LMDDC consisted of two commissioners appointed by the 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 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 expanded federal role in Mississippi Delta regional economic development. P.L. 100-460’s $2 million in appropriations were made available to “carry out H.R. 5378 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.” Using this language, those previously un-enacted bills were “incorporated by reference” and enacted. P.L. 100-460 also provided a definition of the Lower Mississippi Delta region through the incorporation of H.R. 5378 and S. 2836 (110th Congress). In 1994, Congress enacted the Lower Mississippi Delta Region Heritage Study Act, which built on the LMDDC’s recommendations. In particular, the 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. 106th Congress • • In 1999 and 2000, several bills that included legislative text to establish the DRA were introduced and referred to committees (i.e., H.R. 2911, S. 1622, and S. 2936). In March 2000, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, held a special hearing on “Economic Development in the Mississippi Delta” that included discussions of the proposed DRA, as well as H.R. 2911, and S. 1622.83 In 2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) 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 counties and Natchitoches Parish in Louisiana.84 107th Congress • 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 Alabama counties to the DRA.85 108th Congress • The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act to authorize the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (H.R. 678) would have amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009aa(1)) to rename the DRA as the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (DBBRA). Among other 83 U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, Economic Development in the Mississippi Delta, S. Hrg. 106-825, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., March 14, 2000, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106shrg63943/pdf/CHRG-106shrg63943.pdf. 84 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. 85 P.L. 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This law added Butler, Conecuh, Escambia, and Monroe counties. Congressional Research Service 17 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function • changes, the legislation would have extended the geography of the region to include parts of the area now covered by the SCRC as well as areas in other states. The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted. The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 3196) would have reauthorized the DRA as the “Delta Regional Commission.” The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted. 109th Congress • • The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2005 (H.R. 1349) would have reauthorized the DRA as the “Delta Regional Commission.” The bill was not enacted.86 The Southern Empowerment and Economic Development Act (H.R. 5082) would have amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to rename the DRA as the Delta Black Belt Regional Authority (DBBRA). The legislation would have extended the region to include parts of the area now covered by the SCRC as well as areas in other states. The bill was referred to several committees and subcommittees and was not enacted. 110th Congress • The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) reauthorized the DRA from FY2008 through FY2012 and added 10 parishes in Louisiana and two counties in Mississippi to the DRA region.87 113th Congress • The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) reauthorized the DRA through FY2018.88 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.89 118th Congress The Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024 (P.L. 118-272, Division B, Title II, Subtitle B) made several changes to the DRA. EDRA 86 Representative James L. Oberstar, “Introducing the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act,” Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 151, no. 33 (March 17, 2005), E475-E476, https://www.congress.gov/ congressional-record/volume-151/issue-33/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/E475-2. 87 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. 88 P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014. 89 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. Congressional Research Service 18 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function • • • • • • • repealed the sunset (or termination of authority) provision for DRA’s authority;90 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;91 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.92 Funding History The DRA consistently received funding authorizations of $30 million annually since it was first authorized in FY2001 through FY2023.93 EDRA provided a funding authorization of $40 million for each fiscal year from FY2025 through FY2029 (see Table 2).94 However, the actual appropriations provided have fluctuated over the years. Although the DRA was appropriated $20 million in the same legislation authorizing its creation,95 that amount was halved in 2002,96 and continued a downward trend to a low point of $5 million in FY2004, rebounding in FY2006 to $12 million, where it stabilized until FY2016 (see Table C-1). DRA received supplemental appropriations in FY2022 and FY2025. In FY2022, the IIJA provided the DRA with $150 million in supplemental appropriations—five times its annual appropriation at the time.97 In FY2025, the American Relief Act, 2025 (P.L. 118-158) provided $1.51 billion to the U.S. Economic Development Administration 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 90 The Economic Development Reauthorization Act (EDRA) of 2024 repealed 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–13. 91 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. 92 P.L. 118-272, Section 2215. 93 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–12. 94 P.L. 118-272. 95 P.L. 106-554. 96 P.L. 107-66. 97 The DRA allocated 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. The DRA’s FY2025 CBJ also notes that it will use 4% of IIJA funding to cover administrative expenses. Congressional Research Service 19 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function 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.).”98 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. In FY2026, P.L. 119-74 provided the DRA with $32 million in annual appropriations. Table 2. DRA: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 ($ in millions) FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 Appropriated Funding 25.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 180.1a 30.1 31.1 31.1 32.0 Authorized Funding 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 — 40.0 40.0 Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the following: P.L. 115-31, P.L. 115141, P.L. 115-244, P.L. 116-94, P.L. 116-260, P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-42, P.L. 119-4, and P.L. 119-74. Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1. a. FY2022 includes $30.1 million provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103, Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $150 million from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III). Denali Commission The Denali Commission was established in October 1998 to support rural economic development in Alaska.99 It is “designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska.” 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 administrative expenses, rather than a combination of federal and state contributions for these expenses.100 98 For additional information, see CRS Insight IN12632, Delta Regional Authority Disaster Economic Recovery Funding (P.L. 118-158), by Julie M. Lawhorn. 99 P.L. 105-277. 100 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF12165, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Administrative Expenses, by Julie M. Lawhorn. Congressional Research Service 20 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission (by borough or census area) Source: Compiled by CRS using data from 42 U.S.C. §3121 note, Esri Data and Maps, and the Denali Commission, “Denali Commission Story,” https://denali.gov/. Overview of Structure and Activities The 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.101 For decades, the commission has provided substantial funding to coastal infrastructure protection and energy infrastructure and fuel storage projects.102 The commission continues to invest in energy and bulk fuel programs and climate adaptation activities.103 In FY2020, the commission reopened its general economic development and workforce development portfolios.104 101 42 U.S.C. §3121 note. 102 Denali Commission, Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/. 103 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.” 104 Denali Commission, Strategic Plan FY2023-FY2027, pp. 19-20, https://www.denali.gov/strategic-plans/. Congressional Research Service 21 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. 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 cochair (or his/her designated representative); the University of Alaska president; the Alaska Municipal League president; the Alaska Federation of Natives president; the Alaska State AFLCIO president; and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska president.105 These structural novelties offer a different model compared to the organization typified by the ARC and broadly adopted by the other functioning FRCAs. For example, the federal co-chair’s appointment by the Secretary of Commerce, and not the President with Senate confirmation, allows for a potentially more expeditious appointment of a 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 proposals, guides activities, and informs a five-year strategic plan.106 The work plan is reviewed by the federal co-chair, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget, and is subject to a public comment period. The latest strategic plan, released in March 2024, lists seven strategic goals and objectives: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. infrastructure for distressed communities; village infrastructure protection and climate resiliency; energy, including storage, production, heating, and electricity; workforce development; transportation; sanitation, health facilities, housing, and broadband programs; and innovation and collaboration.107 Designating Distressed Areas The Denali Commission’s authorizing statute obligates the commission to address economic distress in rural areas of Alaska.108 The commission utilizes two overlapping standards to assess distress: a “surrogate standard,” adopted by the commission in 2000, and an “expanded standard.” 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. DOL&WD uses the most current population, employment, and earnings data available to identify Alaska communities and Census Designated Places considered “distressed.”109 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 “must 105 P.L. 105-277. 106 Denali Commission, Work Plans, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/. 107 Denali Commission, Strategic Plan FY2023-FY2027, https://www.denali.gov/strategic-plans/. 108 P.L. 105-277. 109 Denali Commission, 2025 Distressed Communities Report, https://denali.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ 2025DistressedCommunitiesReport.pdf. Congressional Research Service 22 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function come from a verifiable source, and be robust and representative of the entire community and/or population.” Appeals are accepted and adjudicated only for the same reporting year in question. Recent Activities110 The Denali Commission’s scope is more constrained compared to the other FRCAs. Since the Denali Commission’s founding, bulk fuel safety and security, energy reliability and security, transportation system improvements, and health care projects have commanded the vast majority of Commission projects.111 In recent years, the Denali Commission’s core programs have focused on grants for energy reliability and security and bulk fuel safety and security projects.112 In 2015, the commission launched the village infrastructure protection program launched to address community infrastructure threatened by erosion, flooding, and permafrost degradation.113 The Denali Commission has generally funded fewer “traditional” economic development projects, such as housing, workforce development, and general economic development activities, due to funding constraints.114 On an occasional basis since FY2020, the commission has reported that it supported certain economic development activities.115 For several years before the enactment of the IIJA, the Denali Commission had not received dedicated funding for transportation, sanitation, health facilities, housing, broadband, and general economic development activities.116 However, the commission’s FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025 Work Plans and the FY2022-FY2026 IIJA Work Plan indicate support for these and related activities.117 The Denali Commission is to allocate IIJA funding to the following activities: (1) infrastructure; (2) village infrastructure protection; (3) energy reliability and security; (4) emergency fund; and (5) workforce and economic development. In recent years, the Denali Commission has received funding from other state and federal sources, aside from its own appropriation. Other sources 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;118 110 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on additional Denali Commission activities, see https://www.denali.gov. 111 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Investment Summary, March 2022, https://www.denali.gov/programs/. 112 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, FY2025Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8, https://x11.6e7.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ DenaliCommissionCJ2025Final_withAddendum_Final.pdf. 113 Denali Commission, Village Infrastructure Protection, https://www.denali.gov/programs/village-infrastructureprotection/. 114 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/. 115 Denali Commission, Strategic Plan FY2023-FY2027, pp. 19-20, https://www.denali.gov/strategic-plans/. 116 Denali Commission, Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/. 117 Denali Commission, Work Plans, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/. 118 Denali Commission’s Strategic Plan, p. 15, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ FY23-27StrategicPlanFINAL_v21.pdf. Congressional Research Service 23 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function • • • Various federal agencies, such as the EPA, Department of Health and Human Services, USDA, and others;119 The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund, for the commission’s bulk fuel safety and security activities,120 and The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for a three-year project to upgrade bulk fuel infrastructure in rural communities.121 The Denali Commission also uses its transfer authority to receive funding from other federal agencies, which it uses to issue grants on the agencies’ behalf.122 Legislative History 105th Congress • The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277, enacted October 21, 1998) established the Denali Commission to support rural economic development in Alaska. P.L. 105-277 also established an annual transfer of interest from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (from the investment of the TAPL)123 to the Denali Commission and directed that it be used by the Denali Commission “to repair or replace bulk fuel storage tanks in Alaska which are not in compliance with federal law.” 106th Congress • • The 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-31, Title I, Section 105) authorized the Denali Commission to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements, award grants, and make payments “necessary to carry out the purposes of the commission.” The act also established the federal cochair’s compensation schedule, and prohibited using more than 5% of appropriated funds for administrative expenses. P.L. 106-31 amended the Inspector General Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-452) to require the Denali Commission to have an Inspector General. In 1999, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113) established “demonstration health projects” as authorized activities and authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to the commission to that effect. 119 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/FY2327StrategicPlanFINAL_v21.pdf. 120 The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund provides approximately $3 million each year in FY2024 and FY2024. See Denali Commission, Funding, https://www.denali.gov/about/funding-2/; and FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 7, https://x11.6e7.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ DenaliCommissionCJ2025Final_withAddendum_Final.pdf. 121 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Awards $100 Million to Address Urgent Fuel Infrastructure Needs in Rural Alaska, July 17, 2025, https://denali.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-07-17pressrelease_Final_v3.pdf. 122 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-Year2024-Final.pdf. 123 P.L. 101-380 established the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Congressional Research Service 24 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function 108th Congress • • • The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-7) authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to make payments to the Denali Commission to address deficiencies in solid waste disposal sites. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) created an Economic Development Committee within the commission chaired by the Alaska Federation of Natives president, and included the Alaska Commissioner of Community and Economic Affairs, a representative of the Alaska Bankers Association, the chairman of the Alaska Permanent Fund, a representative from the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from each region. 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.124 109th Congress • 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 System Program among the commission’s authorized activities. The program was part of its surface transportation efforts, which were active from 2005 through 2009.125 112th Congress • 2012’s Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21 (P.L. 112141), authorized the commission to accept funds from federal agencies, allowed it to accept gifts or donations of “service, property, or money” on behalf of the U.S. government, and included guidance regarding gifts. 114th Congress • 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 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 also allowed for the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interim federal cochair, and included clarifying language on the nonfederal status of commission staff and ethical issues regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure. 117th Congress • Division A of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58) extended funding authorization for five years to carry out the Denali Access System Program.126 The act also allowed the Denali Commission to consider funding from another federal agency as no longer subject to requirements 124 42 U.S.C. §3121 note. 125 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. 126 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)). Congressional Research Service 25 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function previously attached to those funds, including any regulatory actions by the transferring agency.127 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);128 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);129 repealed the commission’s special function related to rural utilities;130 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;131 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;132 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).133 Funding History Under its authorizing statute, the Denali Commission received authorizations for $20 million for FY1999,134 and “such sums as necessary” for FY2000 through FY2003. Legislation passed in 2003 extended the commission’s uncapped funding authorization through 2008.135 Its authorization lapsed after 2008; reauthorizing legislation was introduced in 2007,136 but was not enacted. The commission continued to receive annual appropriations for FY2009 and several years thereafter.137 In 2016, legislation was enacted reauthorizing the Denali Commission through 127 P.L. 117-58, Division A, §11507(b). 128 P.L. 118-272, Section 2251. 129 P.L. 118-272, Section 2215 and Section 2251. 130 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). 131 P.L. 118-272, Section 2251. 132 P.L. 118-272, Section 2252. 133 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. 134 P.L. 105-277. 135 P.L. 108-7, §504. 136 S. 1368, 110th Cong. (2007). 137 P.L. 111-8. Congressional Research Service 26 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function FY2021 with a $15 million annual authorization 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).138 Between FY2017 and FY2026, annual appropriations for the Denali Commission averaged $17.4 million. In FY2022, the IIJA provided the Denali Commission with $75 million in supplemental appropriations—approximately five times its annual appropriation at the time (see Table 3).139 In addition to annual appropriations, the Denali Commission also receives funding from the TransAlaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL), the state of Alaska, and other federal agencies.140 As noted, the Denali Commission is authorized to receive transfers from other federal agencies.141 Table 3. Denali Commission: Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2017-FY2026 ($ in millions) Appropriated Funding Authorized Funding FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 15.0 30.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 90.1a 17.0 17.0 17.0 18.0 — 40.0b 40.0b 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 — — Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the following: P.L. 115-31, P.L. 115141, 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, P.L. 119-4, and P.L. 119-74. Amounts provided by the Trans-Alaska 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 appropriated funding amounts include $15.1 million provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103, Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $75 million provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III). 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 (P.L. 117-328, Division O, Title IV, §401) amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Great Lakes Authority. 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 (i.e., 2008 farm bill).142 The authorizing legislation requires that before the GLA may convene, the President must nominate and the Senate must confirm a federal co-chairperson. On May 2, 2024, President Biden nominated a federal co-chair 138 P.L. 118-272, Section 2251 and Section 2252. 139 P.L. 114-322. 140 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). 141 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/wpcontent/uploads/2024/03/Denali-Commission-CJ-2025-Final.pdf. 142 P.L. 110-234. Congressional Research Service 27 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function for the GLA.143 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 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 U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)), in each of the following States: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.144 The GLA region includes counties that are also in the NBRC and NGRPA regions (see Table D4). Figure 4. Map of the Great Lakes Authority (by county) Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data in 40 U.S.C. §15734 and U.S. Geological Survey data. Note: The GLA region consists of counties—in areas specifically designated by statute—within the watershed of the Great Lakes and Great Lakes System. Overview of Structure and Activities As authorized, the GLA would share a structure with the NBRC, MARC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC, as all share 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 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. 143 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/. 144 P.L. 118-272. Congressional Research Service 28 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function 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 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 that of the NBRC, MARC, SBRC, SCRC, and SNERC.145 Recent Activities 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, the President has not nominated a federal co-chair for the GLA. For 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).146 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. GLA also received $5 million in FY2026. 145 40 U.S.C. §15702. 146 40 U.S.C. §15751. Congressional Research Service 29 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Table 4. Great Lakes Authority Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2023-FY2026 ($ in millions) FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 Appropriated Funding — 5.0 5.0 5.0 Authorized Funding 33.0 — 40.0 40.0 Source: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 118-42, P.L. 119-4, and P.L. 11974. 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. §15301(a) to establish the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission. The structure and functions of the MARC 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).147 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 a 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 (by county) Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data in 40 U.S.C. §15735 and Esri Data and Maps. 147 P.L. 110-234. Congressional Research Service 30 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function 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 a 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.148 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.149 Recent Activities The MARC is not currently active. A 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. 148 40 U.S.C. §15702. 149 EDRA also waived these exceptions for the SNERC. See 40 U.S.C. §15702(c)(3). Congressional Research Service 31 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Funding History Although EDRA did not provide direct funding for MARC, it did include an authorization of appropriations for MARC of $40 million for each of FY2025 through FY2029 (P.L. 118-272).150 As of the date of this publication, the MARC has not received appropriations. Table 5. Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission Appropriated Funding and Authorized Funding Level, FY2025-FY2026 ($ in millions) FY2025 FY2026 Appropriated Funding — — Authorized Funding 40.0 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 was created by the 2008 farm bill.151 The act also created the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. All three commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC. The NBRC is the only one of these three commissions that has been both reauthorized and 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 Hampshire, New York, and, as of 2018, the entire state of Vermont (see Figure 6).152 The NBRC region includes counties that are also in the ARC and GLA regions (see Table D-5 and Figure B1). 150 40 U.S.C. §15751. 151 P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 152 The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) included six of Vermont’s 14 total counties in the definition of the NBRC region. In FY2018, P.L. 115-334 added the remaining eight Vermont counties to the definition of the NBRC region. See 40 U.S.C. §15733. Congressional Research Service 32 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function Figure 6. Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission (by county) Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data in 40 U.S.C. §15733, Esri Data and Maps, and NBRC, “Member States,” https://www.nbrc.gov/member-states. Note: Vermont is the only state with all counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction. The stated mission of the NBRC is “to catalyze community vitality and economic prosperity in the northern border region with flexible funding and strategic support.”153 Eligible counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction may receive funding “for community and economic development” projects pursuant to regional, state, and local planning and priorities (see Table D-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 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 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, reviewing, and recommending economic development projects to the full membership.154 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 votes, applications are ranked by priority, and are approved in that order as grant funds allow. 153 Northern Border Regional Commission, About NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about. 154 Northern Border Regional Commission, About NBRC. Congressional Research Service 33 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function The NBRC also uses multicounty LDDs to advise on local priorities, identify opportunities, conduct outreach, and administer grants, from which the LDDs may receive fees. NBRC launched the LDD Partnership Program in 2023 to expand assistance and activities with LDDs.155 Strategic Plan The NBRC’s activities are guided by a five-year strategic plan, which is developed through “extensive engagement with NBRC stakeholders” alongside “local, state, and regional economic development strategies already in place.” 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.156 The strategic plan also takes stock of various socioeconomic trends in the northern border region, 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.157 Designating Distressed Areas The NBRC is statutorily obligated to assess distress according to economic as well as demographic factors. These designations are made and refined annually. The NBRC defines levels of “distress” for counties that “have high rates of poverty, unemployment, or outmigration” and “are the most severely and persistently economic distressed and underdeveloped.”158 The NBRC is required to designate isolated areas of distress in attainment counties and allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress.159 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%). 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 “high rates of poverty, unemployment, or outmigration.” Attainment counties are not allowed to be funded by the NBRC except for those projects that are located within an “isolated area of distress,” or have been granted a waiver.160 Distress is calculated in tiers of primary and secondary distress categories, with each category having three factors: 155 Northern Border Regional Commission, How LDDs Work with NBRC, https://www.nbrc.gov/how-ldds-work-nbrc. 156 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission: 2024-2029 Strategic Plan. 157 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission: 2024-2029 Strategic Plan. 158 P.L. 110-234. 159 See 40 U.S.C. §15702(b) and Project Eligibility and Match Determination, https://www.nbrc.gov/projecteligibility-and-match-determinationf. 160 Northern Border Regional Commission, Project Eligibilit [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR45997. Public record. Not legal advice.