52078 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Responsiveness Summary, which was

included as part of the ROD.

On September 30, 1992, EPA issued a

ROD for the Site, on which the State

gave its concurrence. The ROD

embodies EPA’s decision on the

remedial action for the entire Site. The

ROD presents the selected remedial

action for the Site, chosen in accordance

with CERCLA, as amended by

Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the

extent practicable, the NCP, 40 CFR part

300. The ROD is supported by an

administrative record that contains the

documents and information upon which

EPA based the selection of the response

action.

Current Status

Based on the Responsible Parties’

successful completion of: (1) excavation

and disposal of the lead-contaminated

soils and the asbestos-contaminated

materials and soils; (2) the disposal of

the separator and its contents; and (3)

the expedited landfarming of the

hydrocarbon-contaminated soils and

sludges, EPA has determined that no

further CERCLA actions are necessary to

address the surface of the Site for the

protection of human health and the

environment. On August 22, 1996, EPA

issued a Superfund Preliminary Site

Closeout Report documenting that

construction of the remedy for the

Prewitt Refinery Site was completed in

accordance with OSWER Directive

9320.2–09. Confirmation sampling

indicates that the remedial action goals

and objectives set forth in the ROD have

been met for the surface portion of the

Site.

While EPA does not believe that any

future response actions for the surface

portion of the Site will be needed, if

future conditions warrant such action,

the surface areas which EPA proposes to

delete from the NPL remain eligible for

future Fund-financed response actions.

Furthermore, this partial deletion does

not alter the status of the subsurface

portion of the Site which is not

proposed for deletion and remains on

the NPL.

EPA, with concurrence from the State

of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation,

has determined that all appropriate

CERCLA response actions have been

completed for the surface portion of the

Site, and that protection of human

health and the environment has been

achieved in the surface areas of the Site.

Therefore, EPA makes this proposal to

delete only the surface portion of the

Prewitt Abandoned Refinery Superfund

Site from the NPL.

Dated: July 7, 1997.

Lynda F. Carroll,

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6.

Appendix A—Docket Information

Deletion Docket—Notice of Intent for

Partial Deletion of the Prewitt Abandoned

Refinery Superfund Site, Prewitt, New

Mexico, surface portion, from the Superfund

National Priorities List

• Prewitt Abandoned Refinery Superfund

Site Administrative Record Index: September

30, 1992.

• Unilateral Administrative Order Docket

Number 6–17–93 for the performance of the

Remedial Design and Remedial Action at the

Prewitt Abandoned Refinery Superfund Site:

May 14, 1994.

• Remedial Design and Specifications for

the surface remediation component: January

1995.

• Remedial Design for the landfarm:

October 1995.

• Remedial Action Work Plan: January

1996.

• Construction Completion Report: July

1996.

• Remedial Action Completion Report for

the surface remediation component: March

1996

• Superfund Preliminary Closeout Report:

August 22, 1996.

• Remedial Action Completion Report for

the landfarm: February 1997

• Concurrence letter dated November 12,

1996, from the State of New Mexico through

the New Mexico Environment Department

agreeing with EPA’s proposal to delete the

surface portion of the Site from the National

Priorities List.

• Concurrence letter dated March 4, 1997,

from the Navajo Nation through the Navajo

Nation Superfund Office agreeing with EPA’s

proposal to delete the surface portion of the

Site from the National Priorities List.

• Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of

the surface portion of the Prewitt Abandoned

Refinery Superfund Site, surface portion

only, from the National Priorities List.

Appendix B—Site Coordinates

1. 35°26′ 55.30′′ North Latitude—

108°01′ 56.99′′ West Longitude

2. 35°26′ 45.62′′ North Latitude—

108°02′ 02.50′′ West Longitude

3. 35°25′ 33.05′′ North Latitude—

107°57′ 58.08′′ West Longitude

4. 35°25′ 07.99′′ North Latitude—

107°58′ 15.40′′ West Longitude

5. 35°26′ 49.34′′ North Latitude—

108°02′ 49.01′′ West Longitude

6. 35°26′ 29.31′′ North Latitude—

108°03′ 05.30′′ West Longitude

7. 35°25′ 24.04′′ North Latitude—

108°02′ 56.81′′ West Longitude

8. 35°24′ 47.46′′ North Latitude—

108°02′ 09.29′′ West Longitude

9. 35°23′ 49.20′′ North Latitude—

107°59′ 33.66′′ West Longitude

10. 35°25′ 10.10′′ North Latitude—

107°58′ 49.16′′ West Longitude

[FR Doc. 97–26185 Filed 10–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 90

[PR Docket No. 93–61, FCC 97–305]

Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In the Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (‘‘FNPRM’’), the

Commission proposes rules and

procedures governing competitive

bidding for multilateration Location and

Monitoring Service (‘‘LMS’’)

frequencies.

DATES: Pursuant to applicable

procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may

file comments on or before November 5,

1997, and reply comments on or before

November 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: To file formally in this

proceeding, interested parties must file

an original and four copies of all

comments, reply comments, and

supporting comments. If parties want

each Commissioner to receive a

personal copy of comments, an original

plus nine copies must be filed.

Comments and reply comments must be

sent to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Furth or Linda Chang at (202)

418–0620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

summarizes the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making in FCC

97–305, PR Docket No. 93–61, adopted

August 28, 1997, and released

September 16, 1997. The complete text

of this FNPRM is available for public

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Dockets

Branch, Room 239, 1919 M Street N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The complete

text may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (telephone

number: (202) 857–3800). Comments

and reply comments will be available

for public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center of the Federal Communications

Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules 52079

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed

Rule Making

I. Competitive Bidding for

Multilateration LMS Licensees

1. In the LMS Report and Order, PR

Docket No. 93–61, 60 FR 15248 (March

23, 1995), the Commission decided to

use competitive bidding to select from

mutually exclusive applications for

multilateration LMS licenses. The

Commission reached this decision based

on its conclusion that the statutory

criteria for auctioning licenses, which

are set forth in section 309(j) of the

Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j),

are satisfied. More specifically, the

Commission found (1) that its decision

to offer multilateration LMS licenses on

an exclusive basis makes it likely that

mutually exclusive applications for

such licenses will be filed; (2) that

multilateration LMS licenses will be

used principally to offer for-profit,

subscriber-based services; and, (3) that

the use of competitive bidding for these

licenses will promote the public interest

objectives set forth in section 309(j)(3).

2. Under the spectrum plan the

Commission adopted in the LMS Report

and Order, and reaffirms in the

Memorandum Opinion & Order, PR

Docket No. 93–61, FCC 97–305 three

blocks of spectrum are allocated to

multilateration LMS systems: (1)

904.000–909.750 MHz and 927.750–

928.000 MHz; (2) 919.750–921.750 MHz

and 927.500–927.750 MHz; and, (3)

921.750–927.250 MHz and 927.250–

927.500 MHz. One license will be

awarded for each of these spectrum

blocks in each of 176 EAs and EA-like

areas. Thus, there are a total of 528

multilateration LMS licenses to be

auctioned.

3. The Commission anticipates

conducting the auction for

multilateration LMS frequencies in

conformity with the general competitive

bidding rules proposed to be included

in part 1, subpart Q of the Commission’s

Rules, and substantially consistent with

the auctions that have been employed in

other wireless services. Amendment of

part 1 of the Commission’s Rules—

Competitive Bidding, Order,

Memorandum Opinion and Order and

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT

Docket No. 97–82, 62 FR 13540 (March

21, 1997). The Commission proposes to

adopt for the LMS auction the

simultaneous multiple round

competitive bidding design used in the

PCS auctions. Multiple round bidding

should provide more information to

bidders than single round bidding

during the auction about the values of

the licenses. The Commission seeks

comment on this proposal. The

Commission also tentatively concludes

that the LMS auction will follow the

general competitive bidding procedures

of part 1, subpart Q. The Commission

seeks comment on this tentative

conclusion.

4. Small Businesses. The

Commission’s auction rules for other

services generally include special

provisions—such as bidding credits and

installment payments—designed to

fulfill its statutory mandate to ensure

that small businesses have the

opportunity to participate in the

provision of spectrum-based services. In

the Second Memorandum Opinion and

Order in the competitive bidding

docket, the Commission indicated that it

would establish definitions for ‘‘small

business’’ on a service-by-service basis.

Second Memorandum Opinion and

Order, PP Docket No. 93–253, 59 FR

44272 (August 26, 1994). The

Commission therefore seeks comment

regarding the establishment of a small

business definition for multilateration

LMS. Commenters should discuss the

level of capital commitment that is

likely to be required to purchase a

multilateration LMS license at auction

and create a viable business. The

Commission also seeks comment on

what small business provisions should

be offered to multilateration LMS small

business entities. Its goal, should the

Commission adopt a special provision(s)

for one or more categories of small

businesses, will be to remove entry

barriers so as to ensure the participation

of small businesses in the auction and

in the provision of service. If the

Commission adopts special provisions

for small businesses, the Commission

proposes that its unjust enrichment

rules apply as set forth in part 1, subpart

Q. 47 CFR 1.2111.

5. In other services the Commission

also adopted attribution rules for

purposes of determining small business

status. The Commission tentatively

concluded that for LMS the Commission

should attribute the gross revenues of all

controlling principals in the small

business applicant as well as its

affiliates. The Commission seeks

comment on this tentative conclusion.

The Commission also seeks comment on

whether small business provisions are

sufficient to promote participation by

businesses owned by minorities,

women, or rural telephone companies.

To the extent that commenters propose

additional provisions to ensure

participation by minority-owned or

women-owned businesses, the

Commission asks them to address how

such provisions should be crafted to

meet the relevant standards of judicial

review.

6. Partitioning and Disaggregation.

The Commission proposes to allow

multilateration LMS licensees to

partition their geographic license area

and disaggregate portions of their

spectrum. The Commission anticipates

that this will, among other things, help

to remove entry barriers for small

businesses. The Commission seeks

comment on this proposal.

7. If the Commission determines that

special provisions for small business are

appropriate for LMS auctions, the

Commission tentatively concludes that a

qualified small business that applies to

partition or disaggregate its license to a

non-small business entity should be

required to repay any benefits it

received from special small business

provisions. The Commission seeks

comment on the type of unjust

enrichment requirements that should be

placed as a condition for approval of an

application to partition or disaggregate a

license owned by a qualified small

business licensee to a non-small

business entity. This could include, for

example, repayment of any bidding

credit that the Commission may adopt

for small businesses, and would be

applied on a proportional basis.

Similarly, if a small business licensee

partitions or disaggregates to another

qualified small business that would not

qualify for the same level of bidding

credit, the transferring licensee should

be required to repay a portion of the

benefit it received. The Commission

seeks comment on these tentative

conclusions. Alternatively, the

Commission seek comment on whether

the Commission should restrict the

partitioning or disaggregation of such

licenses when the partitionee or

disaggregatee is not within the

definition of an entity eligible for such

special provisions, or whether, at some

point (e.g., a term of years), such

restriction on partitioning and

disaggregation be removed and the

unjust enrichment provisions would

apply. The Commission also seeks

comment on how such unjust

enrichment amounts should be

calculated, especially in light of the

difficulty of devising a methodology or

formula that will differentiate the

relative market value of the

opportunities to provide service to

various partitioned areas or to use the

amount of spectrum disaggregated.

II. Procedural Matters and Ordering

Clauses

8. Ex Parte Rules—Non-Restricted

Proceeding. This is a non-restricted

notice and comment rulemaking

proceeding. Ex parte presentations are

permitted, except during the Sunshine
52080 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial

Classification Code 4812.

Agenda period, provided they are

disclosed as provided in Commission

Rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202,

1.1203, 1.1206.

9. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 3 U.S.C. § 603, the

Commission has prepared an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the

expected impact on small entities of the

policies and rules proposed and

adopted in the Further Notice section of

the Memorandum Opinion and Order

and Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking. Written public comments

are requested on the IRFA and must be

filed by the deadlines for comments on

the Memorandum Opinion and Order

and Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.

10. Reason for Action: This FNPRM

was initiated to secure comment on

proposals for revising rules for the

auction of multilateration Location and

Monitoring Service frequencies. Such

changes to the rules for multilateration

LMS would promote efficient licensing

and enhance the service’s competitive

potential in the Commercial Mobile

Radio Service marketplace. The adopted

and proposed rules are based on the

competitive bidding authority of section

309(j) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j),

which authorized the Commission to

use auctions to select among mutually

exclusive initial applications in certain

services, including multilateration LMS.

11. Objectives of this Action: The

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1993 (Budget Act), Public Law 103–66,

Title VI, § 6002, and the subsequent

Commission actions to implement it are

intended to establish a system of

competitive bidding for choosing among

certain applications for initial licenses,

and to carry out statutory mandates that

certain designated entities, including

small businesses, are afforded an

opportunity to participate in the

competitive bidding process and in the

provision of multilateration LMS

services.

12. Legal Basis: The proposed action

is authorized under the Budget Act and

in sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r) and

309(j).

13. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and

Other Compliance Requirements: The

Commission does not anticipate any

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements resulting from this

FNPRM.

14. Federal Rules Which Overlap,

Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules:

None.

15. Description, Potential Impact, and

Number of Small Entities Involved: The

FNPRM would establish certain

multilateration LMS spectrum blocks for

bidding by smaller entities as well as

larger entities, and would grant special

provisions to certain eligible entities

bidding within those blocks. The

Commission is required to estimate in

its Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

the number of small entities to which a

rule will apply, provide a description of

such entities, and assess the impact of

the rule on such entities. To assist the

Commission in this analysis,

commenters are requested to provide

information regarding how many total

entities, existing and potential, would

be affected by the proposed rules in the

FNPRM. In particular, the Commission

seeks estimates of how many such

entities will be considered small

businesses.

16. Geographic Partitioning and

Spectrum Disaggregation. The

partitioning and disaggregation rule

changes proposed in this proceeding

will affect all small businesses which

avail themselves of these rule changes,

including small businesses currently

holding multilateration LMS licenses

who choose to partition and/or

disaggregate and small businesses who

may acquire licenses through

partitioning and/or disaggregation.

17. The Commission is required to

estimate in its Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis the number of small

entities to which a rule will apply,

provide a description of such entities,

and assess the impact of the rule on

such entities. To assist the Commission

in this analysis, commenters are

requested to provide information

regarding how many total entities,

existing and potential, would be

affected by the proposed rules in the

FNPRM. In particular, the Commission

seeks estimates of how many such

entities will be considered small

businesses. As explained in the Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the

Memorandum Opinion and Order, the

Commission is utilizing the SBA

definition applicable to radiotelephone

companies, i.e., an entity employing less

than 1,500 persons.1 The Commission

seeks comment on whether this

definition is appropriate for

multilateration LMS licensees in this

context. Additionally, the Commission

requests each commenter to identify

whether it is a small business under this

definition. If a commenter is a

subsidiary of another entity, this

information should be provided for both

the subsidiary and the parent

corporation or entity.

18. The number of small entities that

will be affected is unknown. New

entrants could obtain multilateration

LMS licenses through the competitive

bidding procedure, and take the

opportunity to partition and/or

disaggregate a license or obtain an

additional license through partitioning

or disaggregation. Additionally, entities

that are neither incumbent licensees nor

geographic area licensees could enter

the market by obtaining a

multilateration LMS license through

partitioning or disaggregation. The

Commission cannot estimate how many

licensees or potential licensees could

take the opportunity to partition and/or

disaggregate a license or obtain a license

through partitioning and/or

disaggregation, because it has not yet

determined the size or number of

multilateration LMS licenses that will

be granted in the future. Given the fact

that nearly all wireless communications

companies have fewer than 1,000

employees, and that no reliable estimate

of the number of future multilateration

LMS licensees can be made, the

Commission assumes for purposes of

the IRFA that all of the licenses will be

awarded to small businesses. It is

possible that a significant number of the

potential licensees who could take the

opportunity to partition and/or

disaggregate a license or who could

obtain a license through partitioning

and/or disaggregation will be small

businesses.

19. Any Significant Alternatives

Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities

Consistent with the Stated Objectives:

With respect to partitioning and

disaggregation, the Commission

tentatively concludes that unjust

enrichment provisions should apply

when a licensee has benefitted from the

small business provisions in the auction

rules and applies to partition or

disaggregate a portion of the geographic

license area to another entity that would

not qualify for such benefits. The

alternative to applying the unjust

enrichment provisions would be to

allow an entity who had benefitted from

the special bidding provisions for small

businesses to become unjustly enriched

by partitioning or disaggregating a

portion of their license area to parties

that do not qualify for such benefits.

20. The FNPRM proposes certain

provisions for smaller entities designed

to ensure that such entities have the

opportunity to participate in the

competitive bidding process and in the

provision of multilateration LMS

services. Any significant alternatives
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules 52081

presented in the comments will be

considered.

21. IRFA Comments. The Commission

requests written public comment on the

foregoing Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. Comments must have a

separate and distinct heading

designating them as responses to the

IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines

provided in the Memorandum and

Order/Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.

22. Paperwork Reduction. The

FNPRM has been analyzed with respect

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

and was found to impose no new or

modified information collection

requirement on the public.

Implementation of any new or modified

requirement will be subject to approval

by the Office of Management and

Budget, as prescribed by the Act.

23. Authority. This action is taken

pursuant to sections 4(i), 5(b), 5(c)(1),

303(r), and 309(j) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 155(b),

156(c)(1), 303(r), and 309(j).

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–26414 Filed 10–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

48 CFR Parts 426 and 452

[AGAR Case 96–01]

RIN 0599–AA00

Office of Procurement and Property

Management; Agriculture Acquisition

Regulation; Preference for Selected

Biobased Products

AGENCY: Office of Procurement and

Property Management, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document invites written

comments on a proposed amendment to

the Department of Agriculture’s

Acquisition Regulation (AGAR). We are

proposing to amend the AGAR to

establish policy and procedures for setasides and preferences for products

developed with assistance provided by

the Alternative Agricultural Research

and Commercialization Corporation

(AARC).

DATES: Submit comments on or before

December 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Office of Procurement and Property

Management, Procurement Policy

Division, STOP 9303, 1400

Independence Avenue SW, Washington,

DC 20250–9303. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for electronic

access addresses for comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. R.

Holcombe, Jr., (202) 720–8484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Procedural Requirements

A. Executive Order Nos. 12866 and 12988.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act.

III. Public Comments

IV. Electronic Access Addresses

I. Background

The AGAR implements the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (48 CFR

Ch. 1) where further implementation is

needed, and supplements the FAR when

coverage is needed for subject matter

not covered by the FAR. This proposed

rule would amend the AGAR to

establish acquisition preferences for

selected biobased products; i.e.,

nonfood, nonfeed products made from

agricultural and forestry materials and

animal by-products (AGAR Case 96–01).

The Alternative Agricultural Research

and Commercialization Corporation

(AARC), a wholly-owned government

corporation of the Department of

Agriculture (USDA), provides financial

assistance to private companies and

other parties to commercialize biobased

products. Section 1665 of the Food,

Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade

Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5909), added by

section 729 of the Federal Agricultural

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996,

authorizes Federal executive agencies to

establish set asides and preferences for

biobased products that have been

commercialized with assistance

provided by AARC. Pursuant to the

authority provided by Section 1665,

USDA proposes to add subpart 426.70 to

the AGAR to establish policies and

procedures for AARC preferences and

set-asides.

The following changes to the AGAR

are proposed:

(a) AGAR part 426 is proposed to be

added, with a subpart 426.70,

Preference for Selected Biobased

Products. This proposed subpart

establishes policy and procedures for

preferences and set-asides for products

developed with AARC assistance.

(b) Provisions 452.226–70, Preferred

Products, 452.226–71, Set-aside for

Mandatory Products, and 452.226–72,

Price Preference for Award, are

proposed to be added to AGAR part 452.

II. Procedural Requirements

A. Executive Order Nos. 12866 and

12988

A work plan was prepared for this

proposed regulation and submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

pursuant to Executive Order No. 12866.

The proposed rule has been determined

to be not significant for the purposes of

Executive Order No. 12866. Therefore,

the proposed rule has not been reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget. This rule has been reviewed in

accordance with Executive Order No.

12988, Civil Justice Reform. The

proposed rule meets the applicable

standards in section 3 of Executive

Order No. 12988.

B. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule was reviewed under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–

611, which requires preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis for any

rule which is likely to have significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. USDA certifies

that this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities,

and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility

analysis has been prepared. However,

comments from small entities

concerning parts affected by the

proposed rule will be considered. Such

comments must be submitted separately

and cite 5 U.S.C. 609 (AGAR Case 96–

01) in correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

No information collection or

recordkeeping requirements are

imposed on the public by this proposed

rule. Accordingly no OMB clearance is

required by section 350(h) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501, et. seq., or OMB’s implementing

regulation at 5 CFR Part 1320.

III. Public Comments

Interested persons are invited to

participate in this rule making by

submitting views and comments with

respect to the proposed AGAR revision

set out in this notice. All written

comments will be carefully assessed and

fully considered prior to publication of

the final rule.

IV. Electronic Access Addresses

You may submit comments by

sending electronic mail (E-mail) to

RHOLCOMBE@USDA.GOV, or via fax at

(202) 720–8972.