The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), under the authority of Congress as enunciated in periodic farm legislation, provides support to the U.S. farm economy through a variety of federal farm programs. Direct support can often involve the transfer of billions of dollars each year. For example, USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) outlays on farm support programs have averaged $13.7 billion per year from 1996 through 2017. Program payments vary across commodities and regions as well as by size of farm operations. This variation has generated considerable interest—by both the general public and Congress—in who is eligible to participate in farm programs and, thus, may receive payments. The concern over program eligibility also derives, in part, from instances where farm payments have accrued to individuals who have never engaged in farming. Program eligibility requirements and payment limits are central to how many U.S. farm programs operate and how support dollars are distributed across the nation. In particular, eligibility requirements and payment limits determine who receives federal farm program payments and how much they receive. A number of statutory and regulatory requirements govern federal farm program eligibility for benefits under various programs. A key aspect of eligibility for major farm revenue support programs is the requirement that a person be "actively engaged in farming" (AEF)—that is, that a person contribute either labor or management time (or both) to the farm's operation. Not all farm programs are subject to the same AEF criteria, and the criteria often apply differently based on the type of legal entity owning the farm operation. This is the first of two reports on the subject of program eligibility and payment limits. This report focuses on current requirements to successfully be determined as AEF and thus eligible for certain farm program payments. Another report (CRS Report R44739, U.S. Farm Program Eligibility and Payment Limits ) focuses on farm program payment limits, conservation compliance, and adjusted gross income (AGI) restrictions. This report begins by briefly discussing the historical development of congressional efforts to define and tighten eligibility criteria for farm program payments. This is followed by a description of all of the key terms and concepts involved in defining a farm business and farm program payment recipient, including the three major types of farm business organizations (sole proprietorship, partnership, and corporation). Then the report discusses current requirements used to define a person or entity as being "actively engaged in farming" (AEF) by type of legal entity. This is followed by a description of a 2015 USDA rule—released subsequent to the 2014 farm bill ( P.L. 113-79 )—that clarifies what constitutes AEF for nonfamily members of a farming operation, how more than one nonfamily person may qualify as an active farm manager (subject to a limit of three farm managers), and the recordkeeping requirements necessary to meet this new criteria. Finally, the report discusses several issues that may be of potential interest to Congress concerning regulations governing the implementation and monitoring of AEF criteria. A 2014 discussion of farm program payment limit and eligibility issues by farmdoc daily states: Payment limits are a technical and legal issue. Any decision on the number of entities receiving payments should be made with due diligence, including careful consideration of the business and legal implications, and should be discussed with both the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and a lawyer who is an expert on payment limits. This report is not a legal brief, nor does it represent a CRS legal analysis. Nor does this report intend to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of federal farm program payments. Given its complexities, a review of U.S. farm program eligibility and annual payment limit policy can facilitate a conceptual understanding of issues of potential interest to Congress. The initial attempt to restrict payments to actual farmers was in 1987, when Congress enacted what is commonly known as the Farm Program Payments Integrity Act (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, P.L. 100-203 , §§1301-1307). According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress was motivated to pass the Farm Program Payments Integrity Act after hearing several concerns about farm payments going to individuals not involved in farming. This law required that an individual or entity meet AEF criteria to receive farm commodity payments. Since their establishment, AEF criteria have been a requirement for payment eligibility for most farm revenue support programs. Since 1996, an average of about $9 billion per year in farm support program payments have been subject to the AEF criteria. Thus, significant taxpayer resources are at stake. However, designing a transparent and comprehensive definition of what it means to be AEF has proven difficult. In 2004, GAO contended that USDA regulations failed to specify a measurable standard for what constituted "a significant contribution of active personal management." Furthermore, GAO argued that, by not specifying such a measurable standard, USDA allowed individuals with little or no involvement in a farming operation to qualify for payments. As a consequence of such criticism, the definition of AEF has evolved over the years as Congress and USDA—via its regulatory powers—have attempted to tighten payment eligibility criteria. For example, the 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 ) added more specificity to the definition of person and legal entity . It limited qualifying payments via direct attribution to persons or legal entities with ownership interests in joint ventures that pooled the resources of multiple payment recipients. It also expanded a separate payment limit to the spouses of qualifying farm payment recipients. Yet GAO continued to argue that further specificity was needed for AEF criteria. The 2014 farm bill ( P.L. 113-79 , §1604) required USDA, in new regulations, to add more specificity to the role that a nonfamily producer who is a member of a legal entity—primarily a partnership or joint venture—must have to qualify for farm program benefits. In general, family farms receive special treatment in which every adult family member 18 years or older who receives income based on the farm's operating results is deemed to meet the AEF requirements. Prior to the 2018 farm bill, family membership was based on lineal ascendants or descendants but was also extended to siblings and spouses. The 2018 farm bill (§1703) further extended the definition of family member to include first cousins, nieces, and nephews. As a result, the current set of laws and rules governing farm program eligibility—particularly for family members of a farm operation—remain subject to considerable scrutiny and criticism from both rural and farm advocacy groups as well as certain Members of Congress. Critics contend that current USDA eligibility criteria—especially for providing active personal management—remain broad and subjective and may represent a low threshold to qualify for payments, thus facilitating the creation of partnership members to increase the farm business's payment limit and expand its farm payment receipts. Many types of farm business entities own and operate some sort of agricultural production activity. For purposes of determining the extent to which the participants of a farm operation qualify as potential farm program participants, three major categories are considered ( Table 1 ). 1. Sole proprietorship or family farm . The farm business is run by a single operator or multiple adult family members—the linkage being common family lineage—where each qualifying member is subject to an individual payment limit. Thus, a family farm potentially qualifies for an additional payment limit for each family member (18 years or older) associated with the principal operator who participates in the farming operation. Family farm or sole proprietorships comprised nearly 87% of U.S. farm operations in 2012. 2. Joint operation . Each member is treated separately and individually for purposes of determining eligibility and payment limits. Thus, a partnership's potential payment limit is equal to the number of qualifying members (plus any special exemptions such as spouses) times the individual payment limit. 3. Corporation. A legally defined association of joint owners or shareholders that is treated as a single person for purposes of determining eligibility and payment limits. This includes corporations, limited liability companies, and similar entities. Most incorporated farm operations are family held. These three categories represent over 98% of U.S. farm operations ( Table 1 ). Special rules exist for evaluating both the eligibility of and relevant payment limits for institutional and other exceptional types of potential legal entities. However, because of their small number (less than 2% of U.S. farm operations) and unique nature, they are not discussed further in this report. Generally, program eligibility begins with identification of participants. Identifying who or what is participating and therefore how payments may be attributed is the cornerstone to most farm program eligibility. To be eligible to receive any farm program payment, every person or legal entity—including both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens—must provide a name and address, and have either a social security number (SSN) in the case of a person, or a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) or Employee Identification Number (EIN) in the case of a legal entity with multiple persons having ownership interests. In this latter situation, each person with an interest must have a TIN or EIN and must declare an interest share in the joint entity using the requisite USDA forms. All participants in programs subject to payment eligibility and payment limitation requirements must submit to USDA two completed forms. The first, CCC-901 (Members' Information), identifies the participating persons and/or entities (through four levels of attribution if needed) and their interest share in the operation. The second form, CCC-902 (Farm Operating Plan), identifies the nature of each person's or entity's stake—that is, capital, land, equipment, active personal labor, or active personal management—in the operation. These forms need be submitted only once (not annually) but must be kept current in regard to any change in the farming operation. Critical changes to a farming operation might include adding a new family member, changing the land rental status from cash basis to share basis, purchasing additional base acres equivalent to at least 20% of the previous base, or substantially altering the interest share of capital or equipment contributed to the farm operation. This information is critical in determining the extent to which each person is actively engaged in the farming operation as described below. AEF criteria are a required component of eligibility for payments under the principal revenue support programs of the 2018 farm bill, including the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs and benefits under the Marketing Assistance Loan (MAL) program. In addition, two direct payment programs established by the Secretary of Agriculture under the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act require that payment recipients meet all AEF criteria—the Cotton Ginning Cost-Share program and the Market Facilitation Program. Finally, benefits under the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers also require that participants meet AEF requirements. To be eligible for payments under any of these programs, participants—individuals as well as other types of legal entities—must meet specific requirements concerning their "active participation" in the farming operation. In contrast, AEF criteria are not applicable for other farm programs including crop insurance and conservation programs ( Table 4 ). The AEF requirements apply equally to U.S. citizens, resident aliens, and foreign entities. This section briefly reviews the specific requirements for each type of legal entity to qualify as AEF. To understand what it means to be AEF, consider first the case of a single producer. The 2014 farm bill (§1111) defined a producer as an owner, operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper that shares in the risk of producing a crop and is entitled to a share of the crop that is produced on the farm. The 2018 farm bill retained this definition of a producer. A person, as an individual producer, must meet the following three AEF criteria: P1. The person, independently and separately from other individuals with an interest in the farm business, makes a significant contribution to the operation of: a. capital, equipment, or land; and b. active personal labor, active personal management, or a combination of personal labor and active personal management; P2. The person's share of profits or losses is commensurate with his/her contribution to the farming operation; and P3. The person shares in the risk of loss from the farming operation. However, with respect to the latter two criteria (P2 and P3), USDA has generally interpreted them as having been met if a person or entity participating in a farm program receives income based on the farm's operating results and, thus shares in the profits and losses from the crop. The criteria for meeting ownership or rental control of farm assets (P1.a.) are straightforward. The active personal labor and/or management requirement (P1.b.) are described in more detail below. "Active personal labor" means personally providing physical activities necessary in a farming operation, including activities involved in land preparation, planting, cultivating, harvesting, and marketing of agricultural commodities in the farming operation. Other physical activities include those required to establish and maintain conserving cover crops on Conservation Reserve Program acreages and those physical activities necessary in livestock operations. The personal labor contribution by an individual must be at least the smaller of 1,000 hours annually or 50% of the total hours needed to conduct a farming operation comparable in size to the individual's ownership interest in the operation. The requirement for active personal management is less specific. For an individual it means personally providing and participating in management activities "critical to the profitability of the farming operation." Such management activities may be performed under one or more of the following categories: Capital (which includes arranging financing and managing capital), acquiring equipment, acquiring land and negotiating leases, managing insurance, and managing participation in USDA programs; Labor (which includes hiring and managing of hired labor); and Agronomics and marketing (which includes selecting crops and making planting decisions), acquiring and purchasing crop inputs, managing crops and making harvest decisions, and pricing and marketing of crop production. The GAO, in a 2013 report to Congress, pointed out that this broad definition of active personal management made it very difficult for USDA to determine whether individual contributions are significant. Furthermore, GAO suggested that, under this broad definition, management responsibilities could be distributed among farm operation members so as to increase the number of individuals who can claim eligibility for payments based on management contributions. In terms of evaluating an individual's eligibility for program payments, the "active" personal labor requirement clearly implies that a person must be routinely "on site" to undertake physical activities in support of the farming operation. The "active" personal management requirement is less clear on physical location and potentially allows a person to make significant contributions of active personal management without physically visiting the farming operation. Current law allows for special treatment of a spouse. If one spouse is determined to be actively engaged in farming, then the other spouse shall also be determined to have met the requirement. Thus, a married farmer and spouse qualify for a doubling of the individual payment limit. Family membership in a farm business is defined by being a sibling, spouse, lineal ancestor (e.g., great-grandparent, grandparent, or parent), lineal descendant (e.g., son, daughter, grandchild, or great-grandchild), niece, nephew, or cousin of the principal operator. Every adult family member 18 years or older who receives income based on the farm's operating results is deemed to meet the AEF requirements. An exception is also made for landowners who may forgo the AEF labor and management requirement and still be deemed in compliance with all AEF requirements if the landowner receives income based on the farm's operating results and, thus, shares in the risk of profits (P2) and losses (P3) from the crop. Any person or legal entity that does not satisfy the AEF requirements will not be eligible for farm program benefits under relevant programs. For example, a landowner who rents farmland to another farming operation for a fixed rental rate (i.e., under a fixed cash-rental arrangement) would bear no risk nor be subject to any potential loss from the farming operation. In other words, the landowner would fail to meet AEF criteria P2 and P3 described earlier. In such cases, the landowner would not be eligible for the relevant farm program benefits. Similarly, a landlord who rents land to a farming operation for a share of the crop that is guaranteed in volume or value independent of the actual harvest results would also not bear any risk and, thus, not be eligible for farm program benefits. In the case of a joint operation, the amount of farm payments that can be earned in a year depends on the number of qualifying members and their ownership share. Each partner or member must separately meet all of the AEF criteria required for a person. In particular, each partner or member with an ownership interest must contribute active personal labor and/or active personal management to the farming operation (but subject to certain exemptions, such as the spousal and landlord exceptions listed above). The contribution must be identifiable and documentable, separate and distinct from the contributions made by any other partner or member, and critical to the profitability of the farming operation. Since a partnership's potential payment limit is equal to the number of qualifying members (plus qualifying exemptions) times the individual payment limit, the partnership's total limit could be expanded by the addition of each new qualifying member. Similarly, the partnership's total limit could be reduced by one individual payment limit for each member that fails to meet the AEF requirements and any other eligibility criteria. There is an exception to the AEF criteria for certain partnerships. When a partnership owns all of the land it uses for farming (i.e., no land is rented), then its members are automatically deemed to be actively engaged in farming, provided that the partners receive income based on the farm's operating results and, thus, share in the risk of profits and losses from the crop. In the case of a nonfamily member of a joint venture seeking to satisfy AEF criteria, his or her individual labor and management contributions must be recorded in a special log to verify that a "significant contribution" has been achieved. This is described later in this report in the section entitled " Recordkeeping Requirement of Personal Hours Worked ." In the case of a corporation or similar entity with multiple owners (or shareholders), the entity is essentially treated as a single individual. It is considered as "actively engaged in farming" with respect to a farming operation if: C1.The corporation makes a significant contribution of capital, equipment, or land (or a combination thereof); C2.Each member with an ownership interest in the corporate entity makes a significant contribution of personal labor or active personal management—whether compensated or not—to the operation that are: a. performed on a regular basis; b. identifiable and documentable; and c. separate and distinct from such contributions of other members; C3.The collective contribution of corporate members is significant and commensurate with contributions to the farming operation; and C4.The corporation also meets the AEF criteria cited above for a person of (P2) sharing commensurate profits or losses, and (P3) bearing commensurate risk. If any member of the corporation fails to meet the labor and management requirements of C2 above, then any program payment or benefit to the corporation will be reduced by an amount commensurate with the ownership share held by that member. An exception to this requirement applies if (a) at least 50% of the entity's stock is held by members that are "actively engaged in providing labor or management," and (b) the total annual farm program payments received collectively by the stockholders or members of the entity is less than one payment limitation. There is an additional exception to the AEF criteria for certain corporate entities. When a corporation owns all of the land it uses for farming (i.e., no land is rented), then the corporation is automatically deemed to meet the AEF criteria provided the corporation receives income based on the farm's operating results and, thus, shares in the risk of profits and losses from the crop. When considering institutional recipients of farm payments subject to AEF criteria (i.e., ignoring family and individual payment recipients and recipients of farm payments not subject to AEF criteria), USDA data for 2015 suggests that there were 95,417 qualifying institutional arrangements ( Table 2 ). A nonfamily member of a farming operation is, by default, anyone who fails to meet the criteria of family membership. The 2014 farm bill (§1604) required USDA to add more specificity to the role that a nonfamily producer who is a member of a legal entity—primarily a partnership or joint venture—must play to qualify for farm program benefits. In the rule, USDA was directed to explicitly 1. Define what constitutes a " significant contribution of active personal management " for the purpose of payment eligibility. 2. Consider limits on the number of persons per farming operation who may be considered actively engaged in farming based on a significant contribution of active personal management . Such consideration should take into account: the size, nature, and management requirements of a farming operation; the changing nature of active personal management due to advancements of farming operations; and the degree to which these new regulations will adversely impact the long-term viability of the farming operation. 3. Exclude operations comprised solely of family members from these provisions. 4. Include a plan for monitoring the status of compliance reviews. The resulting USDA rule, published on December 16, 2015, specifies how legal entities comprised, either entirely or in part, of nonfamily members may be determined eligible for payments, based on a contribution of active personal management. The provisions of this rule do not apply to persons or entities comprised entirely of family members. It is noteworthy that, based on 2012 evidence in Table 1 , nonfamily farm operations comprise a relatively small share (less than 9%) of total farm operations. USDA estimated that the rule's limit on the number of farm managers could affect around 1,400 general partnerships and joint ventures, reducing USDA outlays (and benefits to producers) by about $50 million total for crop years 2016 through 2018, with an annual impact of $4 million to $38 million. As a result of the rule, several additional requirements now apply to nonfamily farming operations seeking to qualify more than one farm manager. Specifically, in addition to the existing AEF requirements, a limit is placed on the number of nonfamily members of a farming operation that can be qualified as a farm manager. Also, an additional recordkeeping requirement now applies for each member of such farming operations contributing any active personal management. This rule restricts the number of nonfamily farm managers per farming operation to o ne f arm m anager , with the following exceptions: Two f arm m anagers permissible . If one person of the farming operation meets the AEF requirements by making a contribution of active personal management, and that farming operation seeks to qualify a second farm manager, the farming operation must also meet the requirement that it is either a large operation or a complex operation. T hree f arm m anagers permissible . To qualify a total of three farm managers, the operation is required to meet the requirements for both size and complexity. No m ore t han t hree f arm m anagers . Under no circumstances is a nonfamily farming operation allowed to qualify more than three persons as farm managers. If a farming operation (comprised, in part, of nonfamily members) seeks to qualify one or more nonfamily farm managers as actively engaged in farming, then all persons that provide any management to the farming operation are required to maintain contemporaneous records or activity logs of their management activities, including the management activities that may not qualify as active personal management under this rule. Specifically, activity logs must include information about the location of where the management activity was performed (either on-site or remote) and the time expended or duration of the management and/or labor (see below) performed for the farming operation. In addition, a person's contributions must be identifiable and documentable, separate and distinct from the contributions of other members of the farm operation, and critical to the profitability of the farming operation. The new definition for a significant contribution of active personal management (for nonfamily members only) requires an annual contribution of 500 hours of management or at least 25% of the total management required for that operation. Eligible management activities must be performed under one or more of the management categories listed earlier in the report section entitled " Active Personal Management ." The final rule also takes into consideration all of the actions of the farming operation associated with the financing. Passive management activities such as attendance at board meetings or on conference calls, or watching commodity markets or input markets (without making trades), are not considered as making a significant contribution of active personal management. The final rule, in response to public comment on the difficulty in discriminating between management and labor for farming operations, expanded the measurable standard of what constitutes a significant contribution to include a potential combination of both active personal labor and active personal management. A minimum hourly requirement for a significant contribution of active personal labor of 1,000 hours was established and joined with the hourly standard of 500 hours adopted for defining a significant contribution of active personal management. USDA published a table showing the qualifying minimum combinations of hours contributed to management and labor activities. The table includes five minimum thresholds of combined hours, ranging from 550 hours with predominantly management-identified hours to 950 hours with predominantly labor-identified hours. Since 1987, when Congress first introduced the term "actively engaged in farming" and required that an individual or entity meet AEF criteria to receive farm program payments, U.S. legislators have continued their efforts to limit payments to those who are actual farmers. However, long-standing concerns remain that some farm operations are organized to overcome program payment limits and maximize the amount of their farm program payments. In particular, some advocacy groups suggest that USDA's new rule did not go far enough in tightening AEF criteria and that it continues to allow for a high number of farm managers and associated payment limits for both family and nonfamily farm operations. These concerns include the lack of specificity in eligibility criteria that continues to allow for as many as three nonfamily farm managers (each, plus their spouses, qualifying for a full payment limit) and no limit on the number of potential farm managers from family-held farm operations. This is noteworthy because family-operated farm businesses represent over 91% of all farm operations. As an example of the lack of specificity, critics point out that the 2014 farm bill provision (§1604) permits exceptions under the rationale of "concern for the long-term viability" of the farming operation. Furthermore, critics contend that, under the current monitoring system, it can be difficult for USDA to verify the management claims of farm operation partners. Several of these concerns are briefly described here. GAO has undertaken several studies of program eligibility and of USDA efforts to monitor and enforce program payment limits. GAO has cited three principal hindrances to USDA oversight and enforcement of AEF regulations for members—both family and nonfamily alike—of a farming operation that claim AEF compliance by providing active personal management: (1) the definition of active personal management is broad and can be interpreted to include many potential activities, (2) requirements of what constitutes significant contributions of management are subjective, and (3) it is difficult to verify individuals' evidence of claimed contributions of active personal management and personal labor—often depending on interviews with individual payment recipients. GAO has said that the three concerns cited above prevent USDA from rigorously enforcing payment eligibility criteria. As a result, large farm operations can distribute various management activities among a partnership's members so as to increase the number of individuals who can claim eligibility for payments based on different types of management contributions. Furthermore, broad regulations allow members to claim that they are making a significant management contribution without physically visiting the farming operation. Thus, the federal government risks distributing payments to individuals who may have little actual involvement in farming operations. In a 2010 regulation, USDA recognized that it has the regulatory authority to tighten eligibility criteria but that it is unlikely to use that authority unless explicitly directed to do so by Congress: The definition of what constitutes a significant contribution is provided by regulation, not by statute and could be changed. We recognize the difficulty in determining the significance of a management contribution under the current definition and the desirability of a measurable, quantifiable standard. However, unlike labor, the significance of a management contribution is not appropriately measured by the amount of time a person spends doing the claimed contribution. The current regulatory definition of a significant contribution of active personal management has been in effect for over 20 years; Congress has not mandated a more restrictive definition during that time, including in the 2008 Farm Bill. As a result, GAO stated that "it appears unlikely that FSA will change its regulatory definition of active personal management in view of its 2010 statements in the Federal Register ." USDA data from 2015 ( Table 3 ) demonstrated that partnerships and joint ventures with larger numbers of members relied more heavily on active personal management criteria to meet AEF qualifications. Congress—in the 2014 farm bill (§1604)—explicitly directed USDA to design new regulations for AEF criteria but only for nonfamily members of farming operations. Furthermore, Congress directed that the new AEF criteria avoid any new regulatory obligations that would add to any paperwork or management burden of family farm operations. USDA released the rule in 2015. Under the 2014 farm bill and 2015 USDA rule, a farm operation—operated primarily by nonfamily members—that meets both the size and complexity criteria discussed above could qualify three farm managers (and potentially their spouses) in addition to those persons qualifying under the personal labor criteria. Thus, a large nonfamily farming operation could have a payment limit that is over $1 million per year. Family-managed farm operations have no limit on the number of potential qualifying members and, thus, on the overall payment limit. Members of Congress may be interested in reviewing the number of farm managers allowed, possibly by establishing an explicit limit on the number a farming operation could claim. For example, everyone on a farm operation who qualifies as a working farmer (i.e., provides land, capital, or equipment and meets the personal labor requirement) could remain eligible to participate in farm programs and receive program payments. However, a restriction could be developed whereby only a single farm manager would be eligible to qualify without providing any farm labor. The spouses of the qualifying persons—both workers and manager—could continue to qualify for payments. The 2014 farm bill (§1604(b)(3)) instructed USDA to consider the extent to which new regulations would "adversely impact" the long-term viability of the farming operation. The basis for determining whether a "significant contribution" of managerial activity has occurred is a subjective assessment. Some wonder whether it might negate any farm manager limit—even on nonfamily farm operations—since one could argue that all farm managers are critical for a farm's long-term viability. The farm manager restrictions related to the 2015 USDA regulation are relevant only for nonfamily members of a farming operation. The 2014 farm bill (§1604(c)) explicitly directs USDA to not apply any new restrictions to farm operations comprised solely of family members. An adult family member is considered actively engaged in farming if he or she receives income based on the farm's operating results. It is assumed that such a family member meets any input or labor requirements, and no recordkeeping is required to verify that sufficient labor hours have been worked on the farm operation or that sufficient managerial time has been made. Various Members of Congress will likely be interested in monitoring the success of USDA's efforts to impose new payment disciplines on nonfamily participants while preventing new management burdens on family farms. Furthermore, they will likely be interested in the extent, if any, to which large farm operations are able to avoid eligibility and payment requirements. 
In 1987, Congress enacted what is commonly known as the Farm Program Payments Integrity Act (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, P.L. 100-203, §§1301-1307), which requires that an individual or legal entity be "actively engaged in farming" (AEF) to be eligible for federal commodity revenue support programs. AEF requirements apply equally to U.S. citizens, resident aliens, and foreign entities. Designing a transparent and comprehensive AEF definition has proven difficult and has evolved over the years. The current set of laws and rules governing farm program eligibility—for both family and nonfamily members on farm operations—remain subject to considerable scrutiny and criticism from both rural and farm advocacy groups as well as certain Members of Congress. In particular, critics contend that current U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) eligibility criteria—especially for providing active personal management—remain broad and subjective and may represent a low threshold to qualify for payments, thus facilitating the creation of new farm operation members simply to expand an operation's farm payment receipts. Three major categories of legal entities are subject to AEF requirement for program payment eligibility: an individual, a partnership, and a corporation. An individual must meet three specific AEF criteria. First, independently and separately from other individuals with an interest in the farm business, the person makes a significant contribution to the operation of: (a) capital, equipment, or land; and (b) active personal labor and/or active personal management. Second, the person's share of profits or losses is commensurate with his/her contribution to the farming operation. Third, the person shares in the risk of loss from the farming operation. An individual that meets the AEF criteria is eligible for farm program payments but subject to annual payment limits. If a married person meets the AEF requirements, any spouse will also be considered to have met the AEF requirements, thus effectively doubling the individual payment limit. Also, every family member 18 years or older who receives income based on the farm's operating results is deemed to meet the AEF requirements and is eligible for a separate payment limit. Another exception to AEF requirements is made for landowners provided they receive income based on the farm's operating results. A general partnership is an association of multiple persons whereby each member is treated separately and individually for purposes of determining eligibility and payment limits. A partnership's potential payment limit is equal to the limit for a single person times the number of persons or legal entities that comprise the operation's ownership and meet the AEF requirements. Thus, adding a new member can potentially provide an additional payment limit. A corporation is an association of joint owners that is treated as a single person for purposes of determining eligibility and payment limits, provided that the entity meets the AEF and other eligibility criteria. Adding a new member generally does not affect a corporation's payment limit but only increases the number of members that can share a single payment limit. In accordance with a provision in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79; §1604), USDA added more specificity to the role that a nonfamily member of a partnership or joint venture must play to qualify for farm program benefits. However, considerable issues remain that may be of interest to Congress. Long-standing concerns remain that some farm operations are organized to overcome program payment limits and maximize the amount of their farm program payments. In particular, some advocacy groups suggest that USDA's new rule did not go far enough in tightening AEF criteria and that it continues to allow for a high number of farm managers and associated payment limits for both family and nonfamily farm operations.