H.R.3572 would amend Section 173 of Title 23 to extend Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program eligibility to counties that meet specific agricultural production thresholds. It creates a new concept of “covered county,” adds a farm-to-market road definition, and directs the Secretary to reserve a portion of program funds for farm-to-market road projects.
It also requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Agriculture Secretary, to compile and annually update a list of covered counties. These changes shift how rural transportation dollars are distributed, prioritizing counties with substantial agricultural output and dedicated farm-to-market infrastructure.
For policy professionals, the bill signals a targeted approach to rural infrastructure funding, tying eligibility to measurable agricultural metrics and creating a dedicated funding stream for farm-to-market routes. This could affect project pipelines, grant competition, and interagency coordination between transportation and agriculture departments.
The practical question is how many counties will qualify under the new thresholds and how the 10% reserve will interact with existing grant priorities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a formal definition of a “covered county” based on annual gross agricultural production and production density, and it creates a new category of eligible projects called “farm-to-market roads.” It also requires a 10% annual set-aside within the Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program for farm-to-market road projects. In addition, it requires a published, annually updated list of covered counties.
Who It Affects
counties that meet the thresholds, the Department of Transportation and state DOTs, and local agencies managing rural road projects; farm-to-market road proponents and agricultural producers in those counties.
Why It Matters
It concentrates federal rural transportation funding on agriculturally intense counties and guarantees a dedicated stream for farm-to-market roads, potentially accelerating improvements in rural freight and farm supply chains.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 173 of Title 23 would be amended to define which counties can receive Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program funds. A new term, “covered county,” is created, defined by two agricultural metrics: (1) at least $1 billion in annual gross agricultural production value and (2) at least $500,000 in agricultural production per square mile, with figures adjusted annually for inflation.
A farm-to-market road would be defined as a road located within a covered county.
The bill also adds a new funding mechanism: 10 percent of the program’s annual funds must be reserved for eligible farm-to-market road projects, with the Secretary responsible for administering and approving these projects. In subsection (k), the bill reorganizes references to accommodate the new farm-to-market road provisions, including renumbering paragraphs and ensuring cross-references point to the correct subparagraphs.
Finally, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, must create and annually update a list of covered counties.Together, these changes shift federal rural transportation funding toward counties with substantial agricultural economies and establish a dedicated funding lane for farm-to-market road improvements. The outcome will depend on how many counties qualify under the thresholds and how the set-aside interacts with existing program priorities and funding levels.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a 'covered county' as meeting two thresholds: (1) at least $1,000,000,000 in annual gross agricultural production value and (2) at least $500,000 in agricultural production per square mile, with inflation adjustments.
The term 'farm-to-market road' is introduced as a road located within a covered county and eligible for dedicated grants.
The Secretary must reserve 10 percent of Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program funds each fiscal year for farm-to-market road projects, in any amount.
The bill changes cross-references in subsection (i) to reflect new subparagraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (k), and redesignates later paragraphs accordingly.
The Secretary, with the Secretary of Agriculture, must create and annually update a list of covered counties, guiding which counties qualify for the program.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition of Covered County
Adds a new definition for “covered county” with two criteria: (1) annual gross agricultural production value of at least $1,000,000,000 and (2) agricultural production of at least $500,000 per square mile, across all crops and livestock, adjusted for CPI. This creates a formal eligibility gate for Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program funding and aligns rural road investments with the scale of agricultural activity in a county.
Cross-reference Adjustment
Strikes the prior cross-reference to subsection (k)(1) and updates it to refer to paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (k). This ensures the new farm-to-market road provisions and the additional threshold-based definitions are consistently integrated across the statute.
Farm-to-Market Roads—10% Set-Aside
Adds a new paragraph establishing a 10% annual set-aside of funds for farm-to-market road projects located in eligible counties. The mechanism allows grants for eligible projects in any amount, directing resources specifically toward farm-to-market infrastructure within covered counties.
Renumbering and References
Renumbers the new or amended subparagraphs so that (4) becomes (5) and other references align with the revised structure. This maintains internal consistency within the Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program provisions.
Eligible Covered Counties List
Requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to create and annually update a list of covered counties. This governs annual eligibility for the rural grant program and ties county qualification to the defined agricultural thresholds.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Boards of county commissioners in counties that meet the thresholds gain eligibility to apply for Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program funds for projects within their jurisdictions.
- Farmers and ranchers in covered counties benefit from improved farm-to-market roads, reducing transport times and costs for agricultural goods.
- Local and regional planning agencies and state DOT districts gain clearer criteria and dedicated funding streams for rural road projects tied to agricultural productivity.
- Rural road contractors and construction firms operating in covered counties gain access to grant-funded farm-to-market road projects, expanding bid opportunities.
- State DOTs coordinate with the Agriculture Department to implement farm-to-market road projects, potentially improving interagency collaboration and project pipelines.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal funds allocated to the Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program may be directed toward the set-aside, reducing the flexible pool available for non-farm-to-market rural projects.
- Administrative costs for the Department of Transportation and state DOTs increase due to new eligibility determinations and annual county list updates.
- Counties that do not meet the thresholds may see no direct increase in funding and could experience continued funding gaps for non-farm-to-market rural infrastructure.
- Coordination requirements with the Department of Agriculture may add to interagency workload and reporting.
- Non-covered counties and stakeholders relying on existing grant distributions may face shifting priorities as allocations adjust to the new eligibility criteria.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing targeted assistance to agriculturally dense counties with the equity of universal rural infrastructure access, while managing the trade-off between a dedicated farm-to-market set-aside and the flexibility of the overall grant program.
The bill's threshold-based approach concentrates funding on counties with large agricultural economies, which may leave other rural areas underserved if they do not meet the criteria. The 10% set-aside for farm-to-market road projects, while targeted, reduces the portion of the grant program available for broader rural infrastructure needs and could affect project selection and timing in non-farm contexts.
Administrative implementation—defining covered counties, maintaining annual lists, and coordinating with the Department of Agriculture—will require robust data collection and interagency processes to avoid gaps or delays.
Core Tension: Policymakers must balance targeted support for agriculturally intensive counties with the broader goal of improving rural infrastructure across all communities. The thresholds offer precision but risk excluding counties that still have urgent road needs; the set-aside guarantees farm-to-market funding but may compress the flexible grant pool.
The success of the measure depends on administrative execution, data accuracy, and the interplay with other federal transportation programs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.