The 37 Factors of 7 CFR Part 5001, Fully Enumerated and Annotated

Ask ten participants in USDA guaranteed lending what the regulation actually requires a feasibility study to contain, and the answers converge on the same evasion: a gesture toward "the framework in Part 5001," perhaps a recitation of the five feasibility components, then a change of subject. There is a structural reason for this. The one place where USDA enumerates the factors, Appendix A to Subpart D of 7 CFR Part 5001, was published in the Federal Register as two scanned images (1). Not text. Images. For more than five years, the most operationally important table in the OneRD regulation has been invisible to search engines, uncopyable from the eCFR, and, as far as MMCG has been able to determine, never fully transcribed and annotated anywhere on the public web.

This analysis closes that gap. Below is every factor in Appendix A, transcribed directly from the codified graphics at 85 FR 42518, counted, and annotated against the lender's credit evaluation duties in 5001.202 and the feasibility study triggers in 5001.303 through 5001.307. There are 37 of them: five economic, six market, nine technical, twelve financial, and five management. For any institution that underwrites, reviews, or relies upon feasibility studies for USDA Community Facilities, Water and Waste Disposal, Business and Industry, or REAP guaranteed loans, this is the reference the regulation never made convenient.

A note on method, because precision is the entire point of the exercise. The factor text below was transcribed character for character from the two Federal Register graphics (image identifiers ER14JY20.008 and ER14JY20.009) and cross-verified against the text-identical companion appendix USDA codified for the REAP program at 7 CFR Part 4280, Subpart B, Appendix D, and against RD Instruction 5001 (2)(3). Two typographic quirks in the source graphic reward the reader who has actually examined it. The graphic's internal header reads "Elements of an Acceptable Feasibility Study" while the appendix's codified title is "Feasibility Study Components." And the Financial section writes "cashflow" as a single word, where the 5001.3 definition of financial feasibility spells it "cash flow." Neither affects the enumeration. Both are the kind of detail visible only to those who have read the actual images, which is precisely what most of the market has never done.

Interactive Chart.js emblem: the 37 factors visualized by component (Economic 5, Market 6, Technical 9, Financial 12, Management 5), hover state revealing verbatim factor text and MMCG annotation for each, green hero gradient, gold eyebrow "THE COMPLETE FRAMEWORK"

Where the 37 Factors Live: The Architecture of Part 5001

7 CFR Part 5001 is the OneRD Guaranteed Loan regulation, the single rule that has governed origination and servicing of USDA's four flagship guaranteed loan programs since October 1, 2020: Community Facilities, Water and Waste Disposal, Business and Industry, and the Rural Energy for America Program (4). It was promulgated at 85 FR 42494 on July 14, 2020, replacing six legacy regulatory regimes, including the former B&I rules at 7 CFR Part 4279 that many practitioners still cite from memory (4).

The regulation defines a feasibility study at 5001.3 as "a report including an opinion or finding conducted by an independent qualified consultant(s) evaluating the economic, market, technical, financial, and management feasibility of the proposed project or operation in terms of its expectation for success as outlined in appendix A to subpart D of this part" (5). That definition accomplishes two things simultaneously. It fixes the five components every study must address, and it delegates the substance, the actual factors a consultant must consider under each component, to Appendix A.

Appendix A is structured as a two-column table for each component: "What is it?" defines the component, and "What are the factors to consider?" lists the factors. Wrapped around the five components sit an Executive Summary at the front and a Recommendation and Qualifications statement at the back. The Executive Summary, Recommendation, and Qualifications sections contain no enumerated factors of their own; they are narrative frames. The 37 factors sit entirely within the five components, and the arithmetic is unambiguous: 5 + 6 + 9 + 12 + 5 = 37.

One clarification the market persistently gets wrong. The 37 factors are not the "Five Cs of credit." The Five Cs (character, capacity, capital, collateral, conditions) belong to the lender's credit evaluation under 5001.202, a separate obligation that the lender, not the feasibility consultant, must perform (6). The two frameworks interlock, and this analysis maps that interlock factor by factor below, but conflating them is the single most common analytical error in secondary commentary on this regulation.

The Executive Summary requirement deserves one further observation before the enumeration begins. Appendix A requires the summary to "include a summary of the feasibility determinations made for each applicable component" (1). Determinations, plural, one per component. A study that describes a market without determining market feasibility, or models cash flow without determining financial feasibility, fails the appendix on its face. USDA did not ask for research. It asked for findings.

The 37 Factors, Fully Enumerated and Annotated

What follows is the complete enumeration. For each factor: the verbatim text from Appendix A, followed by MMCG's annotation on what the factor means in practice and where it lands in the lender's file.

Economic Feasibility: The Five Cost-Benefit Factors

Appendix A defines the economic component in three words: "Cost benefit analysis" (1). The brevity is deceptive; the five factors beneath it reach from input sourcing to community impact.

Factor 1. "Minimum amount of inputs (labor, infrastructure, utilities, renewable resources, feedstocks) to operate successfully." A floor question, not a wish list. The consultant must establish the least the project needs, in workforce, utility capacity, road and broadband access, and raw material supply, to function, and then demonstrate that the site and market can deliver it. For a rural meat processor, that means documented livestock supply within economic haul distance. For an RV resort, it means water, sewer or septic capacity, and seasonal labor. Studies fail here when they assume inputs rather than source them.

Factor 2. "Contracts in place and contracts to be negotiated, including terms and renewals." The distinction between executed and aspirational contracts is where economic feasibility is won or lost. A signed ten-year off-take agreement with renewal options is evidence; a letter of intent is a footnote. A compliant study inventories both categories honestly, which means it will sometimes state, plainly, that critical contracts do not yet exist.

Factor 3. "Environmental risks." Not an environmental site assessment, and not a substitute for the Agency's own environmental review. This factor asks whether environmental exposures, floodplain siting, permit contingencies, regulatory trajectory for the industry, threaten the economics of the project. The consultant flags and quantifies; environmental professionals investigate.

Factor 4. "Cost of project relative to the increase in revenues or benefits provided." The pure cost-benefit ratio. A $12 million expansion producing $400,000 of incremental annual revenue has an economics problem no narrative can cure. This factor forces the study to state the relationship between total development cost and the revenue or community benefit it purchases.

Factor 5. "Overall economic impact of project including new markets created and economic development." The only factor in the appendix that looks outward to the community rather than inward to the borrower. It exists because USDA's statutory mission is rural development, not credit enhancement. Jobs created, markets opened, services restored: these belong in the study, quantified where possible.

Market Feasibility: The Six Demand Factors

The component definition: "Analysis of the current and future market potential, competition, sales or service estimations including current and prospective buyers or users" (1).

Factor 6. "Competition." Named first for a reason. A market section that inventories demand without inventorying supply is half a study. The consultant must identify existing and pipeline competitors, their capacity, and their competitive posture relative to the proposed project.

Factor 7. "Type of project: service, product or commodity based." A deceptively simple classification with cascading analytical consequences. Commodity projects live and die on price cycles and cost position; service projects on trade area demographics; product businesses on channel access and differentiation. The classification dictates which market evidence matters.

Factor 8. "Target market, new versus established." Selling into an established market is a share question; creating a new market is an adoption question, and adoption questions carry categorically more risk. The study must state which game the borrower is playing.

Factor 9. "End user analysis, captive versus competitive." A captive end user, a contracted anchor tenant, a sole municipal customer, a parent-company off-taker, transforms the risk profile in both directions: revenue certainty rises, and concentration risk rises with it. This factor pairs directly with the counterparty creditworthiness inquiry the lender must separately perform under 5001.202(b)(5)(vii) (6).

Factor 10. "By-product revenue streams." Common in agricultural processing, renewable energy, and forest products. By-product revenue should be sized and evidenced with the same rigor as primary revenue, or excluded from the base case. Studies that quietly lean on speculative by-product income to clear debt service coverage invite exactly the projection-substantiation scrutiny the 2024 amendments sharpened.

Factor 11. "Industry risk." The macro overlay: where the industry sits in its cycle, its regulatory exposure, its structural trajectory. This is where a competent consultant distinguishes a struggling operator in a healthy industry from a healthy operator in a structurally declining one.

Technical Feasibility: The Nine Execution Factors

The component definition: "Analyzing the reliability of the technology to be used and/or the analysis of the delivery of goods or services, including transportation, business location, and the need for technology, materials, and labor" (1).

Factor 12. "Commercial availability." Is the technology proven and purchasable, or is the project a science experiment wearing a loan application? Part 5001 separately defines "commercially available," a definition with its own curious history, erroneously removed by a December 2024 correction and reinstated in December 2025 (7), and REAP projects in particular turn on it.

Factor 13. "Product and process success record and duplication of results." Has this exact process produced these exact results elsewhere? Reference facilities, operating data from comparable installations, third-party performance verification. First-of-kind projects can still pass, but the study must say so and price the risk honestly.

Factor 14. "Experience of the service providers." The contractors, technology vendors, and operators the project depends on. An unproven EPC contractor on a complex build is a technical feasibility finding, not a footnote.

Factor 15. "Roads, rail, airport infrastructure." Physical market access. For logistics-dependent projects this factor is decisive; for others it is a paragraph. The appendix requires it be considered either way.

Factor 16. "Need for local transportation." Distinct from Factor 15: not the highway network, but the last-mile and workforce mobility question. Can employees reach the site? Can inputs and outputs move daily?

Factor 17. "Labor market." Availability, wage levels, and skills match in the actual commuting radius. Rural labor scarcity is among the most frequently underestimated risks in USDA-guaranteed projects, and a study that imports metropolitan wage assumptions into a rural labor market has a defect a reviewer will find.

Factor 18. "Availability of materials." Construction materials and ongoing operating inputs both. Post-2020 supply chain volatility converted this once-perfunctory factor into a live underwriting question.

Factor 19. "Use, age, and reliability of technology." For acquisitions and expansions especially: how old is the plant, what is its maintenance history, what is its realistic remaining useful life relative to the loan term? A 25-year loan against 15-year equipment is a mismatch this factor exists to surface.

Factor 20. "Construction risk." Completion risk in all its forms: contract structure, guaranteed maximum price or its absence, contractor financial strength, contingency adequacy, weather and season exposure. This factor connects directly to the lender's duty under 5001.202(b)(5)(v) to evaluate construction complexity and contractor strength, and to the quarterly construction cash flow analysis required when a lender requests the loan note guarantee before completion (6).

Interactive Chart.js emblem: feasibility study trigger decision tree across the four OneRD programs, B&I $600K and $1M bright lines, CF two-tier with three safe harbors, WWD no mandate, REAP tiered technical reports, with the 5001.303(c)(4) residual authority as the catch-all node

Financial Feasibility: The Twelve Repayment Factors

The component definition: "Analysis of the operation to achieve sufficient income, credit, and cashflow to financially sustain the project over the long term and meet all debt obligations" (1). The financial component carries twelve factors, nearly a third of the entire framework, which reveals where USDA believes studies fail.

Factor 21. "Commercial or project underwriting." The study must engage with the transaction as a lender would: structure, term, rate assumptions, coverage. Not to replace the lender's credit evaluation, which remains the lender's non-delegable duty, but to test whether the project as structured is financeable at all.

Factor 22. "Management's assumptions." Every projection is a stack of assumptions, and this factor requires the consultant to surface and stress them rather than launder them. The 2024 amendments to 5001.202 added teeth on the lender's side of the same question, requiring that increases to revenues, margins, or profitability be "reasonable and substantiated in the analysis" (6). A study that adopts management's hockey stick without independent testing fails both documents at once.

Factor 23. "Accounting policies." Revenue recognition, capitalization practices, related-party accounting. Unusual policies can flatter historical statements; the consultant must note where they do.

Factor 24. "Source of repayment." The central question of the entire framework. Which cash flows, from which operations, under which assumptions, service the debt? Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, identified and sized.

Factor 25. "Dependency on other entities." Affiliates, parents, guarantors, single customers, single suppliers. Wherever the project's cash flow depends on someone else's solvency, the study must say so. This pairs with the 2024 requirement that lenders perform global credit evaluations and global debt service coverage analysis for affiliated entities (6).

Factor 26. "Equity contribution." How much real capital the owners have at risk, in what form, and whether it is actually cash or a stack of appraisal surplus and deferred fees. Tangible balance sheet equity requirements live elsewhere in the regulation; the study's task is to verify that the capital story holds.

Factor 27. "Market demand forecast." The quantitative bridge between the market component and the financial model. The demand figures driving the revenue line must trace to the market analysis, with methodology shown. When two sections of a study disagree with each other, this factor is where the disagreement becomes visible.

Factor 28. "Peer industry comparison." Projections benchmarked against industry norms: RMA data, industry operating statistics, comparable facility performance. A projected 38 percent margin in an industry that runs at 22 requires an explanation, not a citation to optimism. The lender's parallel duty to compare against industry standards using recognized sources sits at 5001.202(b)(6)(iii) (6).

Factor 29. "Cost-accounting system." Can the borrower actually track costs at the level the projections assume? A projection built on product-line margins the borrower's books cannot measure is unfalsifiable, and unfalsifiable is not a compliment in underwriting.

Factor 30. "Availability of short-term credit." Working capital and seasonal lines. Projects fail in month eleven for want of a working capital facility more often than they fail for want of term debt. The study must address how the operating cycle is financed.

Factor 31. "Adequacy of raw materials and supplies." The financial echo of Factor 18: not merely whether inputs exist, but whether they exist at prices and terms the model assumes, with what contract coverage and what exposure to spot markets.

Factor 32. "Sensitivity analysis." The factor that separates lender-grade studies from marketing documents. Revenue down, costs up, ramp delayed, rates higher: the study must show where the model breaks and how far the cushion runs. In MMCG's experience across engagements exceeding $1.6 billion in aggregate construction cost, this is the first section a sophisticated credit committee reads and the last section a weak consultant writes.

Management Feasibility: The Five Capability Factors

The component definition: "Analysis of the legal structure of the business or operation; ownership, board and management analysis" (1).

Factor 33. "History of the business or organization." Track record, corporate history, prior ventures, and, where they exist, prior failures. New entities have no history, which is precisely why the regulation forces mandatory studies for large loans to new businesses.

Factor 34. "Professional and educational background." Formal credentials of the principals and key managers, relevant to the project at hand.

Factor 35. "Experience." Distinct from background: has this team operated this kind of business at this scale? A decorated hotelier proposing a poultry plant has background but not experience.

Factor 36. "Skills." The functional competencies the project requires, operations, finance, sales, regulatory compliance, mapped against the team that exists, with gaps named.

Factor 37. "Qualifications necessary to implement the project." The synthesis factor: taking history, background, experience, and skills together, is this ownership and management structure qualified to execute this plan? It is the management component's own recommendation in miniature, and the study must answer it directly.

When Is a Feasibility Study Required? The Triggers, Program by Program

The 37 factors define what a study contains. Sections 5001.303 through 5001.307 define when one must exist at all, and the thresholds are more precise than most secondary commentary suggests (8).

Business and Industry. Under 5001.306(a)(3)(i), a feasibility study "prepared by an independent qualified consultant acceptable to the Agency is required" for guaranteed loans greater than $1,000,000 to a new business. For loans of $1,000,000 or less, to new and existing businesses alike, 5001.306(a)(3)(ii) makes the study discretionary: the Agency may require one where the lender's analysis cannot establish technical or economic viability, or where the project will significantly affect an existing borrower's operations and historic cash flow (8).

Community Facilities. CF operates a two-tier system under 5001.304. Every CF loan requires a financial feasibility report, but the lighter "financial feasibility analysis," which the lender's own credit evaluation can satisfy if it contains the Appendix B elements, is available only within three safe harbors: loans of $25 million or less to an existing community facility; loans secured by a general obligation bond or tax-supported income sufficient to service the debt for the life of the loan; or borrowers whose audited statements show three years of capacity to service all existing and proposed debt. Outside the safe harbors, the loan requires a financial feasibility study with examination opinion, prepared under AICPA attestation standards by a preparer carrying professional liability insurance. Separately, CF loans greater than $1,000,000 to a new entity or an entity conducting a new activity require a full feasibility study by an independent qualified consultant, and projections for assisted living, skilled nursing, and similar residential facilities must assume no more than 90 percent occupancy (8).

Water and Waste Disposal. No categorical feasibility study mandate. WWD relies on engineering documentation and the lender's credit analysis, and the regulation states plainly that the Agency does not provide technical oversight of the project. Where a single business is the system's majority user, that business's economic viability must be assessed (8).

REAP. For Renewable Energy System projects only, a feasibility study conforming to the 5001.3 definition and Appendix A is required "when deemed necessary by the lender or Agency." The routine REAP requirement is instead a tiered technical report, with content set by project cost: an abbreviated report at $80,000 or less, and Appendices C, D, or E above that depending on project type and size (8).

The catch-all. Above all four programs sits 5001.303(c)(4): if the Agency cannot determine a basis for successful repayment from the lender's analysis, the business plan, or other project information, or if the project will significantly impact existing operations, it may require an independent feasibility study regardless of program or loan size (8). Practitioners who memorize only the bright lines forget the residual authority, and the residual authority is exercised.

None of these thresholds moved in the 2024 rulemaking. The September 30, 2024 amendments, effective November 29, 2024, rewrote meaningful parts of the credit evaluation section, but the $600,000 B&I processing line, the $1,000,000 study triggers, the $25 million CF safe harbor, and the REAP tiers all stand exactly as promulgated in 2020 (9). For fiscal 2026, the program context did shift in one respect worth noting: B&I applications requesting less than $5,000,000 now receive an 85 percent guarantee, the first size-tiered guarantee in OneRD history, which concentrates lender appetite precisely in the $1 million to $5 million band where the new-business feasibility study mandate binds (10).

How the 37 Factors Feed the Lender's Five Cs

Here is the interlock that makes the enumeration operationally useful rather than merely complete. The lender's credit evaluation under 5001.202 must include, in the regulation's own words, "a written review and comment on the 'Five Cs' of credit," and must separately include a written evaluation of the feasibility study itself (6). The study is the evidentiary layer; the credit evaluation is the judgment layer.

Character (5001.202(b)(1)) draws on the management component: Factors 33 through 37 supply the documented history, experience, and qualifications the lender's character analysis cites.

Capacity (5001.202(b)(2)) draws on the financial and market components: source of repayment (24), market demand forecast (27), sensitivity analysis (32), and the market factors (6 through 11) constitute the substance behind any capacity finding.

Capital (5001.202(b)(3)) draws on equity contribution (26) and dependency on other entities (25).

Collateral (5001.202(b)(4)) is the exception: primarily appraisal territory under 5001.203, with the study contributing context, technology age and reliability (Factor 19) bears on collateral durability, rather than valuation.

Conditions (5001.202(b)(5)) is where the mapping becomes almost mechanical. The nine sub-factors the lender must consider under Conditions, from feedstock market depth through construction complexity to counterparty creditworthiness, correspond nearly one to one with the economic, market, and technical factors of Appendix A. The regulation states the connection explicitly, directing lenders to submit supporting documentation, "e.g., feasibility study," for the Conditions analysis, in accordance with 5001.304 through 5001.307 (6).

The practical consequence runs in one direction: a thin study produces a thin credit evaluation, and a thin credit evaluation is how a lender ends up on the wrong side of a negligence finding.

Interactive Chart.js emblem: the Appendix A to Five Cs interlock map, five components on the left, Five Cs on the right, animated connection lines showing which factors evidence which credit factor, teal data-viz accent

What Happens When the Study Is Deficient

Part 5001 defines "negligent loan origination" as the failure of a lender to perform those services or actions that a reasonably prudent lender would perform in originating its own unguaranteed portfolio, including failures to act, untimely action, and action contrary to prudent practice (11). Under 5001.521(d), negligent origination or servicing "will result in a reduction of loss claims payable under the guarantee," and the reduction "could be a total reduction" (11). The guarantee, in other words, is conditional on the quality of the underwriting file, and the feasibility study is the load-bearing document in that file for every mandatory-study loan.

This is not theoretical. In May 2026, USDA revoked the approved lender status of ten OneRD lenders following desk audits that found significant non-compliance with the program's regulatory requirements; the affected portfolios held approximately $620 million in delinquent loans, roughly 47 percent of Rural Development's total delinquencies (12). Institutional removal and loan-level loss claim reduction are separate remedies, but they share a root: origination that a prudent lender would not recognize as its own. A rigorous, independent, 37-factor-complete feasibility study is not a compliance formality. It is the documentary defense a lender reaches for when the loss claim is contested.

Historical oversight points in the same direction. When GAO examined B&I loan losses in the late 1990s, its recommendations were precisely that USDA clarify when feasibility studies are required and train its reviewers to evaluate them carefully, and to distinguish a properly completed feasibility study from a business plan (13). A quarter century later, that distinction still trips up applicants weekly.

Interactive Chart.js emblem: the enforcement chain, deficient study → thin 5001.202 credit evaluation → negligent origination finding → 5001.521(d) loss claim reduction, with the May 2026 ten-lender revocation as a data callout, red #D04040 reserved for the loss-reduction node only

Feasibility Study, Business Plan, Market Study: The Distinction That Matters

A business plan is the borrower's document: advocacy, authored by an interested party, describing what management intends. A feasibility study is an independent document: an opinion, authored by a disinterested qualified consultant, evaluating whether the intention can survive contact with reality across all five components. A market study covers one of the five components in depth and is sometimes commissioned separately, but it cannot satisfy a feasibility study requirement alone, because it determines nothing about technical, financial, economic, or management feasibility.

The independence requirement is structural, not stylistic. The 5001.3 definition requires an "independent qualified consultant," and the regulation's conflict-of-interest provisions bar preparers with a financial stake in the loan, the borrower, or the project. The lender cannot prepare the feasibility study for a loan it intends to guarantee, and neither can the borrower's own accountant acting as advocate. For CF examination-opinion studies, the bar rises further: AICPA attestation standards and professional liability insurance are mandatory (8).

For lenders and borrowers assembling an application, the operational takeaway is a sequencing one. The feasibility study should be commissioned early enough that its findings can inform structure, not merely decorate it. A study delivered two weeks before submission, confirming a structure already locked, protects no one. A study delivered while equity, contracts, and construction terms remain negotiable is an underwriting instrument. MMCG structures engagements on that principle, and the firm's reports are built to be read against every factor enumerated above, because that is precisely how the Agency and a well-advised credit committee will read them.

The Reference, Kept Current

Part 5001 is a living rule. Since promulgation it has been amended in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, and 2025, with the December 2025 technical corrections revising the affiliate definition and reinstating "commercially available" (7)(9). The factor framework of Appendix A, however, has not changed by a single word since July 14, 2020. That stability is the reason this enumeration can serve as a permanent reference: the 37 factors are the fixed core of USDA feasibility practice, around which thresholds, fees, and guarantee percentages rotate annually.

Institutions with USDA-guaranteed projects in the pipeline, and counsel advising them, are invited to test any pending feasibility study against the enumeration above. Where the gaps appear, they are usually in the same places: missing component-level determinations, sensitivity analysis absent or ornamental, and management feasibility treated as a resume attachment rather than an analysis.

July 11, 2026, by Michal Mohelsky, J.D. Principal of MMCG Invest, LLC, feasibility study company serving feasibility studies for USDA projects. 

Reach out to discuss how our methodology supports your lending or investement decision.

Michal Mohelsky, J.D. | Principal | mmcginvest.com 

Contact: michal@mmcginvest.com

Phone: (628) 225-1125

Disclaimer: This report is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Data presented herein is derived from proprietary MMCG databases and third-party sources believed to be reliable; however, MMCG Invest makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. Figures from third-party industry databases have been independently verified and, where appropriate, adjusted to reflect MMCG's proprietary analytical methodology. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Request a Feasibility Study → Book a Meeting: https://calendar.app.google/EJzWEz3GCqLY2jU86

Sources

(1) Appendix A to Subpart D of 7 CFR Part 5001, "Feasibility Study Components," 85 FR 42518 (July 14, 2020), codified graphics ER14JY20.008 and ER14JY20.009, transcribed from the published images.(2) 7 CFR Part 4280, Subpart B, Appendix D, "Feasibility Study Components" (text-identical companion appendix).(3) RD Instruction 5001, USDA Rural Development (07-10-25, PN 648), Appendix A at pp. 152-155.(4) OneRD Guaranteed Loan Regulation, Final Rule, 85 FR 42494 (July 14, 2020), effective October 1, 2020.(5) 7 CFR 5001.3, definitions of "feasibility study" and "financial feasibility."(6) 7 CFR 5001.202, Lender's credit evaluation, as amended at 89 FR 79717 (Sept. 30, 2024).(7) 90 FR 57351 (Dec. 11, 2025), technical corrections (reinstating "commercially available"; revising "affiliate").(8) 7 CFR 5001.303 through 5001.307 (application requirements and feasibility triggers by program).(9) 89 FR 79698 (Sept. 30, 2024), final rule, effective Nov. 29, 2024; corrected at 89 FR 97477 (Dec. 9, 2024).(10) 91 FR 11272 (Mar. 9, 2026), FY2026 OneRD annual fee and guarantee notice.(11) 7 CFR 5001.3 (negligent loan origination; negligent loan servicing); 7 CFR 5001.521(d) (reduction of loss claims payable).(12) USDA Press Release No. 0065.26 (May 12, 2026) and RBCS Stakeholder Announcement (May 13, 2026); USDA OneRD Revoked Lenders FAQ.(13) GAO, Rural Development: Rural Business-Cooperative Service Business Loan Losses, RCED-99-249 (Aug. 25, 1999).