WASHINGTON, D.C. — Last week began the public comment process on the proposed USDA rule for limiting farm program payments to non-farmers. Initial responses indicate plenty of feedback will come before the comment period ends on May 29.

The USDA rule, mandated by the 2014 farm bill, updates a standard in place since 1987 for what it means for program payment recipients to be "actively engaged" in farm management. The existing standard has been often criticized for not specifying what exactly being "actively engaged" means.

Under the new proposal, non-family joint ventures and general partnerships must document their managers contribute 500 hours of "substantial management work per year, or 25 percent of the critical management time necessary for the success of the farming operation." Family ventures are exempt from the rule.

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack advocated the proposal. "The farm bill gave USDA the authority to limit farm program payments to individuals who are not actively engaged in the management of the farming operation on non-family farms," he said. "This helps close a loophole that has been taken advantage of by some larger joint ventures and general partnerships."

But the rule does not really solve the problem, said U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The farm bill conference committee exempted family farms from being affected by the new rulemaking, which on its face appears to be a legitimate action. That is until you see how some family farms operate," he said.

Grassley authored a farm bill amendment that would have expanded the definition to include family farms; that amendment had bipartisan support but did not clear the conference committee.

"As the GAO (General Accountability Office) report from September 2013 pointed out, there are cases where family members living in south Florida have drawn farm subsidies for an operation under the ‘active personal management only’ designation for a farm operation located in the Midwest," said Grassley.

The USDA rule is the result of Congress leaving the definition in the hands of USDA during the farm bill discussion, said Chandler Goule, senior vice president of programs at the National Farmers Union, which plans to comment on the rule.

"During the process, both chambers kicked the decision to USDA," said Goule. "NFU plans to evaluate the rule and comment to ensure that these programs support the family farmers and ranchers, and does not allow large corporate farms that simply hire farm managers to receive the bulk of these program benefits."

Some farm groups immediately issued statements criticizing the rule. Traci Bruckner, senior associate at the Center for Rural Affairs in Nebraska, issued a statement that said the proposed rule failed to fulfill a 2007 Obama campaign promise to close loopholes that let farms subdivide their operations into multiple paper corporations, in order to receive more payments.

According to Bruckner, Vilsack has said since the passage of the last farm bill that it ties his hands and he can not apply any new rule to farms structured solely of family members.

"We have disagreed with that premise from day one, and this rule does nothing more than say the largest and wealthiest farms structured solely of family members are not subject to this new rule or any payment limitation," said Bruckner.

Beginning in 2016, according to the USDA, the rule would limit many farms to only one manager who can receive payments, including Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Programs, loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains realized via the Marketing Assistance Loan program. Farm operations that could fulfill USDA documentation as "large and complex" could be allowed payments for up to three managers.