4. In UNITED STATES v. KIMBELL FOODS, INC., 440 U.S. 715, 99 S. Ct. 1448, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979), the question arose whether federal or state rules should determine whether the federal government or a private creditor had priority and so could collect first on loans issued by the Small Business Administration and the Farmers Home Administration. In addressing this issue, the Court embarked upon a two-step analysis. First, the Court broadly interpreted Clearfield Trust as permitting federal courts to develop federal law for “questions involving the rights of the United States arising under nationwide federal programs.” Having decided that federal law controlled, the Court turned to the second and more challenging task of determining the content of the federal law.

Controversies directly affecting the operations of federal programs, although governed by federal law, do not inevitably require resort to uniform federal rules. * * * Whether to adopt state law or to fashion a nationwide federal rule is a matter of judicial policy

“dependent upon a variety of considerations always relevant to the nature of the specific governmental interests and to the effects upon them of applying state law.” * * *