[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49519-49523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23508]



 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 49519]]


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

7 CFR Part 3017

RIN 0503-AA12


Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension

AGENCY: Department of Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: USDA proposes to amend its regulations that implement 
Executive Order (E.O.) 12549, ``Debarment and Suspension.`` E.O. 12549 
required executive departments and agencies to issue regulations, 
consistent with guidelines issued by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), to establish governmentwide effect for an agency's 
nonprocurement debarment and suspension actions. These changes are 
being proposed to enhance USDA participation in the governmentwide 
nonprocurement debarment and suspension system by making appropriate 
modifications to the coverage of the regulations and clarifying the 
relationship of the regulations to other USDA procedures for 
establishing participant ineligibility for specific programs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Assistant General Counsel, 
Research and Operations Division, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-1400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary W. Butler, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General 
Counsel, (202) 720-2577.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of the Federal Government's 
initiatives to curb fraud, waste, and abuse, E.O. 12549, ``Debarment 
and Suspension,'' was signed on February 18, 1986. E.O. 12549 required 
executive departments and agencies to issue regulations to establish 
governmentwide effect for an agency's nonprocurement debarment and 
suspension actions. Section 3 of E.O. 12549 required that such 
regulations be consistent with guidelines issued by OMB.
    On October 20, 1987, 20 executive departments and agencies 
published a proposed common rule (52 FR 39035-39042) which implemented 
the final OMB guidelines that had been published on May 29, 1987 (52 FR 
20360-20369). USDA did not join the proposed common rule, but rather 
published a proposed rule that addressed some problems peculiar to USDA 
while being consistent with the OMB guidelines.
    On May 26, 1988, 27 executive departments and agencies published a 
final common rule (53 FR 19159-19211) and OMB adopted the final common 
rule as its amended final guidelines. Upon reconsideration of the issue 
of joining the common rule, USDA published a final rule on January 30, 
1989 (54 FR 4729), which followed the text of the final common rule 
published on May 26, 1988. However, USDA limited the scope of coverage 
of the rule (7 CFR Part 3017) to domestic assistance transactions and 
added material generally to reflect internal organization and 
procedures. Following extended consultations with OMB, USDA has 
determined that the coverage of this rule should be amended by removing 
the provision that limits the coverage of the rule to domestic 
assistance transactions. This change would make the scope of the USDA 
rule consistent with the scope of the common rule as adopted by most 
other agencies. However, USDA is proposing additional specific 
exceptions from coverage of the common rule, as implemented by USDA, 
that are deemed in the public interest. These exceptions are necessary 
because, for certain USDA programs, the benefits resulting from full 
application of the rule would be outweighed by potential programmatic 
harms that are explained in detail in the section-by-section analysis.
    While proposing additional exceptions from coverage, USDA 
emphasizes that certain programs, including, but not limited to, those 
related to warehouse licensing; producer entitlements; predator 
control; grading; inspection; timber export; and public animal, and 
plant health or safety that would be affected by such exceptions are 
subject to existing statutes and regulations that provide exclusionary 
actions of various kinds that may be imposed by USDA for improper 
conduct. Accordingly, the fact that a USDA program may be excepted from 
the application of the nonprocurement debarment and suspension common 
rule would not preclude USDA from using such other authorities to 
exclude persons who violate certain statutes or USDA regulations from 
participation in such excepted programs. For example, this proposal 
would not in any manner restrict appropriate USDA officials' ability 
to: (1) Suspend or revoke licenses under the United States Warehouse 
Act; (2) determine ineligibility for payments under the provisions of 
section 1001B of the Food Security Act of 1985; (3) withdraw or suspend 
inspection services for violations of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, 
the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the regulations issued under 
the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act; 
(4) revoke licenses for violations of the Animal Welfare Act or the 
regulations issued under the Animal Welfare Act; (5) withdraw or 
suspend permits for the importation or transportation of organisms or 
vectors for violation of the Virus-Serum Toxin Act or the regulations 
issued under the Virus-Serum Toxin Act; (6) revoke or suspend licenses 
for the treatment of garbage under the Swine Health Protection Act or 
the regulations issued under the Swine Health Protection Act; (7) deny 
or withdraw grading and inspection services under the Agricultural 
Marketing Act of 1946; (8) refuse the payment of indemnity under the 
Act of May 29, 1884; (9) debar persons who violate the Forest Resources 
Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990; or (10) impose civil 
monetary penalties, when authorized, for violations of acts and 
regulations administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. Moreover, in 
any case in which an administrative exclusion is considered under one 
or more of such other provisions, USDA will initiate, where 
appropriate, debarment or suspension under the common rule for the 
protection of the entire Government.
    During the development of this proposed rule, questions were raised 
about the treatment under Part 3017 of the transactions with local non-
governmental entities (such as nonprofit 

[[Page 49520]]
child care centers and private schools) in the Child Nutrition Programs 
of the Food and Consumer Service. In particular, some have questioned 
the agency's position that these transactions constitute mandatory 
awards since there are nearly 200 of such entities currently denied 
participation in the Child Nutrition Programs based on their serious 
deficiencies in those programs. However, if viewed as mandatory awards, 
these transactions would be excluded from coverage both for purposes of 
certification and for eligibility for the awards (7 CFR 
3017.110(a)(2)(i) and 3017.200(c)(1)) under Part 3017. It has been 
suggested that USDA require all non-governmental entities to complete 
the certification, even though the award itself might not be denied. 
While this rule does not propose any changes in these areas, the 
Department welcome comments on these questions. Further, as indicated 
above, whenever USDA takes an action to exclude a local non-
governmental entity from participation in a Child Nutrition Program, 
USDA will consider initiating, where appropriate, debarment or 
suspension under the common rule for the protection of the entire 
Government.
    For USDA programs subject to existing statutes and/or regulations 
permitting certain exclusionary actions, this proposed rule shall not 
affect actions taken under these statutes or regulations prior to the 
effective date of this rulemaking. Exclusionary actions taken prior to 
the effective date of this rulemaking shall be governed by the statutes 
and regulations then in effect.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Subpart A

Section 3017.110, Coverage
--USDA proposes to amend Sec. 3017.110, ``Coverage,'' by revising 
paragraph (a)(3), Department of Agriculture covered transactions, which 
currently limits the coverage of the USDA nonprocurement debarment and 
suspension rule to domestic assistance covered transactions. This 
limitation would be removed, which would make the scope of the USDA 
rule consistent with the scope of the common rule as adopted by most 
other agencies. However, USDA is proposing additional specific 
exceptions from coverage of the common rule that are deemed in the 
public interest.
--With respect to paragraph (a)(1), Covered transaction, USDA proposes 
to state in paragraph (a)(3)(i) that, for USDA's export and foreign 
assistance programs, only primary covered transactions will be 
considered covered transactions for the purposes of these regulations. 
Any lower tier transactions with respect to such programs will not be 
considered lower tier covered transactions. Export programs in this 
context do not include transactions for the export or substitution of 
Federal timber pursuant to the Forest Resources Conservation and 
Shortage Relief Act of 1990, 16 U.S.C. 620 et seq. (the ``Export 
Act''). In fact, the Export Act provides statutory authority for the 
head of the Forest Service to debar persons who violate the Export Act 
and/or regulations issued thereunder.

    One effect of the proposed amendment will be that, although 
participants in primary covered transactions under these programs will 
have to provide the required certifications, there will be no 
certification requirements applicable to participants in lower tier 
transactions. This partial limitation from coverage for these programs 
is necessary because it is expected to be difficult, and in some cases 
impossible, for participants in primary covered transactions under 
these programs to obtain the necessary certifications from lower tier 
participants.
    Lower tier participants in USDA's export and foreign assistance 
programs may include domestic suppliers, foreign or domestic agents, 
foreign or domestic parties involved in the transportation of the 
commodity, foreign or domestic subcontracted representatives, and 
foreign buyers of the commodity. The foreign entities that would be 
required to provide certifications may be unwilling to make 
certifications, and any certifications obtained may not be enforceable 
because these foreign entities will generally not be subject to U.S. 
laws. The different legal structures for organizations which may exist 
in foreign countries further complicate matters. For example, it may be 
difficult for a non-governmental foreign entity to identify its 
``principals'' for purposes of providing the necessary certification. 
To impose an additional administrative burden upon foreign buyers would 
only encourage them to purchase from our competitors, thereby defeating 
the purpose of many of the USDA export programs.
    The fungible nature of most of the commodities involved in the 
export and foreign assistance programs creates additional problems. 
Without the proposed amendment, participants in primary covered 
transactions under these programs (primarily exporters) would be 
required to obtain certifications from each supplier providing at least 
$100,00 worth of the commodities, services, or goods in connection with 
a covered transaction. (We note that 7 CFR Part 3017 applies to lower 
tier procurement contracts that equal or exceed the Federal procurement 
small purchase threshold. See 7 CFR Sec. 3017.110(a)(1)(ii)(B). 
Pursuant to the providings of sections 4001 and 4003 of the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, this threshold and thus the level 
of expected lower tier procurement contracts has increased to 
$100,000.) This requirement would continue down the supply chain, with 
all such suppliers obtaining certifications from their suppliers, until 
a transaction amounting to less than $100,000 was reached. (However, it 
would be necessary to obtain a certification from a person 
participating in a transaction amounting to less than $100,000 under a 
covered transaction if that person will have a critical influence on or 
substantive control over that covered transaction. The $100,000 figure 
is used in this section-by-section analysis to simplify the 
discussion.) Downstream suppliers would, in some cases, be unable to 
provide the required certifications with respect to lower tier 
transactions. Suppliers generally obtain commodities from a variety of 
sources and store them commingled until they are sold. In some cases, 
it would be impossible for a supplier to determine the source of a 
particular quantity of a commodity in order to obtain the necessary 
certification from such source.

--With respect to paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B), USDA proposes in paragraph 
(a)(3)(ii) to limit coverage of lower tier procurement contracts in the 
domestic food assistance programs to the initial procurement contracts 
and the first tier of subcontracts under those procurement contracts.

    The current rule includes lower tier procurement contracts within 
the scope of coverage of this part. USDA recognizes the importance of 
maintaining lower tier coverage of the initial procurement contract and 
the first tier subcontract thereunder in order to protect the integrity 
of its domestic food assistance programs. However, extending lower tier 
coverage beyond these levels is unworkable because suppliers in these 
programs may provide food to a variety of outlets, obtain food from 
many different sources, and commingle the food before selling it to the 
outlets.
    For example, in a domestic food assistance program such as the 
National 

[[Page 49521]]
School Lunch Program, many school districts contract with food service 
management companies to provide school lunches. To ensure compliance 
with the requirements of the common rule for all lower tier covered 
transactions, not only would the food service management company have 
to provide a certification and agree not to knowingly contract with 
debarred or suspended companies, but certifications would also have to 
be obtained from the bakery which supplies the break to the food 
service management company, the food wholesaler which supplies the 
flour to the bakery, the flour mill which sells the flour to the 
wholesaler, the merchants who supply the wheat to the flour mill, and 
even the farmers (of which there will be many) who sell the wheat to 
the merchants. Given that at each level these products are typically 
commingled, it would be impossible to determine the precise outlet for 
each item for each of these lower tier transactions. Thus, each entity 
would need to obtain certifications from all of its suppliers to ensure 
compliance with the common rule. This certification requirement would 
continue down the chain of contracts until the $100,000 limit is 
reached. Such a requirement would be an onerous and unreasonable burden 
on commerce.

--With respect to paragraph (a)(2), USDA proposes in paragraph 
(a)(3)(iii) to provide an exception from the coverage of this part for 
transactions under programs that provide statutory entitlements and 
make available loans to individuals and entities in their capacity as 
agricultural producers. This exception would not apply to transactions 
under programs that provide loans or other assistance to recipients for 
business or industrial purposes. The proposed exception is necessary in 
order to avoid the imposition of unnecessary and unduly burdensome 
certification requirements upon participants in these programs and to 
relieve them of the burden of trying to determine when a certification 
would even be required.

    In addition, with respect to entitlement and farm lending programs, 
these producers would have to obtain certifications from all persons or 
entities with whom they do business involving at least $100,000. This 
requirement would increase regulatory burdens on producers and put the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA) in the position of partially 
regulating all of the producers' business transactions from purchasing 
inputs to selling commodities.
    For a typical farming operation, lower tier transactions could 
easily include payments to landlords or mortgage companies, seed 
dealers, fertilizer dealers, herbicide/insecticide suppliers, equipment 
dealers (implement purchases or equipment leasing arrangements), 
petroleum suppliers (gasoline and diesel fuel), irrigation input 
suppliers (including well digging and electricity), custom services 
(custom farming, heavy equipment work, custom fertilizer or herbicide 
application, and custom harvesting), and commodity sales/marketing 
services. Most individual producers will not have the economic clout to 
require suppliers to provide these certifications. Even if they were 
able to obtain such certifications, given the number of suppliers that 
could be involved, it would be a substantial administrative burden on 
producers to collect these certifications.
    Furthermore, producers would be required to agree not to knowingly 
do business with a debarred party. Yet, a producer may have little 
choice in a situation where a major input supplier, such as a seed 
company or cooperative, becomes debarred, the debarment is widely 
publicized, and it is the only supplier through which the producer is 
able to obtain required inputs.

--Also under paragraph (a)(2), USDA proposes in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) 
to provide an exception from the coverage of this part for transactions 
under conservation programs.

    This proposed exception is necessary to avoid the same type of 
lower tier certification problems which were discussed with respect to 
farm entitlement and farm lending programs. In addition, because many 
of USDA's conservation programs, such as the Agricultural Conservation 
Program, have relatively low dollar limits for payment, it is quite 
possible that the certification requirements would remove any incentive 
producers would have to participate in these programs. This result 
would be contrary to the objective of promoting the stewardship of land 
through conservative incentives designed to encourage pollution 
abatement and land conservation practices, thus providing a benefit to 
the general public rather than to the individual participants only.

--Also under paragraph (a)(2), USDA proposes in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) 
to provide an exception from the coverage of this part for transactions 
under warehouse licensing programs.

    In the absence of this proposed exception, the burden imposed upon 
participants in the warehouse licensing programs would be substantial. 
It would be impossible for warehousemen to obtain lower tier 
certifications with respect to most of their commodity transactions 
because commodities like fertilizer, wheat, and feed grains are 
generally stored and merchandized from a commingled, fungible mass. In 
addition, the warehouseman is required to store commodities on a non-
discriminatory basis and performs a public service by assuring that a 
farmer has a facility, which is bonded and meets federal licensing 
requirements, available to store and market commodities.

--Also under paragraph (a)(2), USDA proposes in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) 
to provide exceptions from the coverage of this part for the receipt of 
licenses, permits, certificates, and indemnification under regulatory 
programs in the interest of public health and safety, and animal and 
plant health and safety. In addition, this paragraph would provide 
exceptions for the provision by State or local governments of official 
grading and inspection services, animal damage control services, and 
public health and safety and animal and plant health and safety 
inspection services, and the receipt of official grading and inspection 
services, animal damage control services, and public health and safety 
and animal and plant health and safety inspection services.

    USDA conducts a number of programs and provides certain services 
that are designed to protect public health and safety, protect animal 
and plant health and safety, control predators, and provide markets for 
agricultural products that are fair and free of deceptive trade 
practices. In many instances, USDA's inability to conduct these 
programs with and provide these services to persons who have been 
debarred would undermine USDA's ability to protect public health and 
safety, protect animal and plant health and safety, control predators, 
and provide markets for agricultural products that are fair and free of 
deceptive trade practices. This inability to engage in nonprocurement 
transactions with debarred persons may injure not only the debarred 
person, but may also injure persons who are not debarred.
    The following are examples of injuries to public health and safety, 
animal and plant health and safety, predator control, and fair and free 
markets that may result because of USDA's inability to engage in 
nonprocurement transactions with debarred persons.

[[Page 49522]]

    USDA conducts an animal damage control program under which persons 
who have suffered losses from predators may receive assistance from 
USDA with the control of the predators on that person's property. 
USDA's inability to provide predator control assistance to debarred 
persons would not only injure the debarred individual, but would also 
injure all persons who are within the range of the predators on the 
debarred person's premises.
    USDA conducts numerous programs designed to prevent the spread of 
plant and animal diseases and pests. In many circumstances, USDA has no 
authority to require individuals to destroy animals or plants that are 
infected with or exposed to disease. USDA does have authority under 
certain circumstances to pay indemnity to producers who voluntarily 
destroy plants or animals that are infected with or exposed to disease. 
USDA's inability to pay indemnity to debarred producers who voluntarily 
destroy animals or plants infected with or exposed to disease may 
result in the continued existence of foci of infection and the spread 
of animal and plant diseases to animals and plants owned by persons who 
have not been debarred.
    USDA issues licenses and permits for animal biologics, such as 
vaccines or diagnostics. In order to ship animal biologics, persons 
must first obtain either a license or a permit from USDA. USDA's 
inability to grant licenses or permits to debarred persons could result 
in the unavailability of products necessary for the protection of 
animal and public health.
    USDA grades products in order to correct market inefficiencies 
arising from the lack of information about quality or performance of 
agricultural products. USDA's grading programs benefit producers of 
quality products by increasing consumer acceptance of agricultural 
products and increasing the likelihood that the producer will receive 
more for graded quality products than for similar ungraded products. 
Grading benefits consumers by providing consumers with information 
regarding the quality and performance of the graded products. USDA's 
inability to provide grading services to debarred producers could 
result in the inability to sell ungraded products, a reduction of 
graded products in the market place, and a reduction in the information 
consumers have available regarding the quality and performance of 
agricultural products.

--Also under paragraph (a)(2), USDA proposes in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) 
to provide an exception from the coverage of this part for permits, 
licenses, exchanges, and other acquisitions of real property, rights of 
way, and easements under natural resource management programs. This 
paragraph would except such transactions from coverage because the 
value derived from the application of the rule which precludes doing 
business with debarred and suspended persons is outweighed by the fact 
that, in many such transactions, fair market value is exchanged and, in 
many others, royalty systems operate to return significant reserves or 
cash to the United States from fees collected for the use of these 
lands, uses which have been determined to be in the best interest of 
sound land and resource management.

    Further, the benefits of applying this rule are significantly 
outweighed by the inability to efficiently manage and administer the 
rule, as hundreds of thousands of permits are issued under natural 
resource programs annually for which nominal benefits are received by 
permittees.
Section 3017.115, Policy
--USDA proposes to amend Sec. 3017.115, ``Policy,'' by adding a new 
paragraph (d) to provide that, in any case in which an administrative 
exclusion is considered under an authority other than this rule, USDA 
will initiate, where appropriate, a debarment or suspension action 
under this rule for the protection of the entire Federal Government.

Subpart B

Section 3017.200, Debarment or Suspension
--USDA proposes to amend Sec. 3017.200(c) to reflect the exceptions to 
coverage to be inserted in Sec. 3017.110(a)(3).

Impact Analysis

Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule has been determined to be ``significant,'' and 
it has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires that, for each rule with a ``significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities,'' an analysis must be prepared 
describing the rule's impact on small entities and identifying any 
significant alternatives to the rule that would minimize the economic 
impact on the small entities.
    USDA certifies that these proposed regulations would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    USDA certifies that this proposed rule would not impose any 
reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3017

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug abuse, Grant 
administration, Grant programs (Agriculture), Loan programs, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, USDA proposes to amend 7 
CFR Part 3017 as follows:

PART 3017--GOVERNMENTWIDE DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION (NONPROCUREMENT) 
AND GOVERNMENTWIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE (GRANTS)

    1. The authority citation for Part 3017 would be revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 41 U.S.C. 701 et seq.; E.O. 12549, 51 
FR 6370, 3 CFR, 1986 Comp., p. 189.

    2. Section 3017.110 would be amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 3017.110  Coverage.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Department of Agriculture covered transactions. (i) With 
respect to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, for USDA's export and 
foreign assistance programs, covered transactions will include only 
primary covered transactions. Any lower tier transactions with respect 
to USDA's export and foreign assistance programs will not be considered 
lower tier covered transactions for the purposes of this part. The 
export or substitution of Federal timber governed by the Forest 
Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990, 16 U.S.C. 620 
et seq. (the ``Export Act''), is specifically excluded from the 
coverage of this rule. The Export Act provides separate statutory 
authority to debar persons engaged in both primary covered transactions 
and lower tier transactions.
    (ii) With respect to paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, for 
USDA's domestic food assistance programs, only the initial such 
procurement contract and the first tier subcontract under that 
procurement contract shall be 

[[Page 49523]]
considered lower tier covered transactions.
    (iii) With respect to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the 
following USDA transactions also are not covered: transactions under 
programs which provide statutory entitlements and make available loans 
to individuals and entities in their capacity as producers of 
agricultural commodities; transactions under conservation programs; 
transactions under warehouse licensing programs; the receipt of 
licenses, permits, certificates, and indemnification under regulatory 
programs conducted in the interest of public health and safety and 
animal and plant health and safety; the receipt of official grading and 
inspection services, animal damage control services, public health and 
safety inspection services, and animal and plant health and safety 
inspection services; if the person is a State or local government, the 
provision of official grading and inspection services, animal damage 
control services, public health and safety inspection services, and 
animal and plant health and safety inspection services; and permits, 
licenses, exchanges and other acquisitions of real property, rights of 
way, and easements under natural resource management programs.
* * * * *
    3. Section 3017.115 would be amended by adding a new paragraph (d) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 3017.115  Policy.

* * * * *
    (d) In any case in which an administrative exclusion is considered 
under an authority other than this part, USDA will initiate, where 
appropriate, a debarment or suspension action under this part for the 
protection of the entire Federal Government.
    4. Section 3017.200 would be amended by adding a new paragraph (d) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 3017.200  Debarment or suspension.

* * * * *
    (d) Department of Agriculture excepted transactions. With respect 
to paragraph (c) of this section, the following USDA transactions also 
are excepted: transactions under programs which provide statutory 
entitlements and make available loans to individuals and entities in 
their capacity as producers of agricultural commodities; transactions 
under conservation programs; transactions under warehouse licensing 
programs; the receipt of licenses, permits, certificates, and 
indemnification under regulatory programs conducted in the interest of 
public health and safety and animal and plant health and safety; the 
receipt of official grading and inspection services, animal damage 
control services, public health and safety inspection services, and 
animal and plant health and safety inspection services; if the person 
is a State or local government, the provision of official grading and 
inspection services, animal damage control services, public health and 
safety inspection services, and animal and plant health and safety 
inspection services; and permits, licenses, exchanges, and other 
acquisitions of real property, rights of way, and easements under 
natural resource management programs.

    Dated: September 15, 1995.
Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 95-23508 Filed 9-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-01-M