35304 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1Commission regulations cited herein may be

found at 17 CFR Ch. I (1999).

2Adjusted net capital is generally defined as

current assets less liabilities. See Regulation

1.17(c)(5).

Regulation 1.17(a)(1)(i) requires FCMs to

maintain minimum adjusted net capital of the

greatest of: (1) $250,000; (2) four percent of the

customer funds required to be segregated and set

aside pursuant to the Act and the regulations, less

the market value of commodity options purchased

by customers on or subject to the rules of a contract

market or a foreign board of trade for which the full

premiums have been paid provided that the

deduction for each customer is limited to the

amount of customer funds in such customer’s

account(s); (3) the amount of adjusted net capital

required by a registered futures association of

which the FCM is a member; or (4) for securities

brokers and dealers, the amount of net capital

required by SEC Rule 15c3–1(a) (17 CFR 240.15c3–

1(a)).

Regulation 1.17(a)(1)(ii) requires IBIs to maintain

minimum adjusted net capital of the greatest of: (A)

$30,000; (B) the amount of adjusted net capital

required by a registered futures association of

which the IBI is a member; or (C) for securities

brokers and dealers, the amount of net capital

required by SEC Rule 15c3–1(a).

establish J–713 for the following

reasons: (1) The need for high altitude

arrival and departure routing to and

from the north of Salt Lake City; (2) to

assist in the balancing of traffic flow

between Brigham City One arrivals into

Salt Lake City International Airport; and

(3) the addition of this route would

improve the overall management of air

traffic operations and thereby enhance

safety.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current.

Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1)

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this proposed rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

Jet routes are published in paragraph

2004 of FAA Order 7400.9G dated

September 1, 1999, and effective

September 16, 1999, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The jet route listed in this

document would be published

subsequently in the order.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p.389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9G, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 1, 1999, and effective

September 16, 1999, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes

* * * * *

J–713 [New]

From Billings, MT, via Boysen Reservoir,

WY; Big Piney, WY; to Salt Lake City, UT.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18,

2000.

Reginald C. Matthews,

Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.

[FR Doc. 00–13749 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 1

RIN 3038–AB54

Minimum Financial Requirements for

Futures Commission Merchants and

Introducing Brokers; Amendments to

the Provisions Governing

Subordination Agreements Included in

the Net Capital of a Futures

Commission Merchant or Independent

Introducing Broker

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or

‘‘CFTC’’) is proposing to amend certain

provisions of Regulation 1.17(h) which

governs the net capital treatment of

subordination agreements. Currently,

futures commission merchants

(‘‘FCMs’’) and independent introducing

brokers (‘‘IBIs’’) that are members of a

self-regulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’—

i.e., a contract market or the National

Futures Association) and that are

securities brokers or dealers registered

with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (’’SEC’’) are required to

obtain the approval of both a futures

SRO and a securities designated

examining authority (‘‘DEA’’) for any

proposed subordination agreement,

proposed prepayment of a subordinated

loan, or proposed reduction in the

outstanding principal balance of a

secured demand note. The proposed

amendments would ease the regulatory

burden imposed upon SROs, FCMs, and

IBIs by allowing SROs, subject to the

conditions set forth below, to rely on a

DEA’s review and approval of a

proposed subordination agreement, a

proposed prepayment of a subordinated

loan, or a proposed reduction in the

outstanding principal balance of a

secured demand note submitted to the

DEA by an FCM or IBI.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Jean A. Webb, Secretary,

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC

20581. In addition, comments may be

sent by facsimile to (202) 418–5521, or

by electronic mail to secretary@cftc.gov.

Reference should be made to ‘‘Minimum

Financial Requirements for Futures

Commission Merchants and Introducing

Brokers—Subordination Agreements.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Smith, Special Counsel,

Division of Trading and Markets,

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC

20581; telephone (202) 418–5495;

electronic mail tsmith@cftc.gov; or

Henry J. Matecki, Financial Audit and

Review Branch, Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, 300 S. Riverside

Plaza, Room 1600–N, Chicago, IL 60606;

telephone (312) 886–3217; electronic

mail hmatecki@cftc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Subordination Agreements Included

in the Net Capital of a Futures

Commission Merchant or Independent

Introducing Broker

A. Background

Commission Regulation 1.17 1

requires FCMs and IBIs to maintain

minimum levels of adjusted net

capital. 2 In computing adjusted net

capital, FCMs and IBIs are permitted to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 35305

3Regulation 1.17(c)(4)(i).

4See Regulation 1.17(h)(1).

5A contract market may impose, or an FCM or IBI

may require, conditions or restrictions in addition

to those established by the Commission provided

that such conditions or restrictions do not cause the

subordination agreement to fail to meet the

minimum requirements of Regulation 1.17(h).

6The JAC is comprised of representatives of the

audit and compliance departments of the selfregulatory organizations (’’SROs’’) and National

Futures Association. The JAC coordinates the

industry’s audit and ongoing surveillance activities

to promote a uniform framework of self-regulation.

7Rule 15c3–1(c)(12) of the SEC, 17 CFR

240.15c3–1(c)(12), defines DEA as the national

securities exchange or the national securities

association of which the broker or dealer is a

member, or if the broker or dealer is member of

more than one such exchange or association, the

exchange or association designated by the SEC as

the examining authority of the broker or dealer.

8The SEC’s minimum requirements for a

satisfactory subordination agreement are set forth in

Rule 15c3–1d(2) (17 CFR 240.15c3–1d(2)) and are

comparable to the minimum requirements

established by the Commission in Regulation

1.17(h)(2).

exclude from liabilities funds received

which are subordinated to the claims of

all general creditors of the FCM or IBI

pursuant to a ‘‘satisfactory

subordination agreement,’’ as defined in

Regulation 1.17(h).3

Subordination agreements may take

the form of either subordinated loan

agreements or secured demand notes.

Subordinated loan agreements are

agreements evidencing a subordinated

borrowing of cash by the FCM or IBI.

Secured demand notes are agreements

evidencing or governing the

contribution of a secured demand note

to an FCM or IBI and the pledge of

securities and/or cash as collateral to

secure payment of such note. The

outstanding principal balances of a

subordinated loan and a secured

demand note are recorded as liabilities

of an FCM or IBI.4

Regulation 1.17(h) sets forth several

minimum requirements for the

subordination agreements and other

conditions that must be met in order for

the agreements to qualify as

‘‘satisfactory’’ subordination

agreements.5 One condition, set forth in

Regulation 1.17(h)(3)(vi), provides that

an FCM or IBI may not treat any

subordination agreement as a

‘‘satisfactory’’ subordination agreement

for net capital purposes until the FCM’s

or the IBI’s designated-self regulatory

organization (‘‘DSRO’’), or the

Commission if the FCM or the IBI is not

a member of a DSRO, has reviewed the

agreement and determined that it

satisfies the minimum requirements set

forth in Regulation 1.17(h).

Commission regulations also impose

restrictions on an FCM’s or IBI’s ability

to make a payment on a subordinated

loan prior to the scheduled maturity

date of such loan or to effect a full or

partial reduction in the outstanding

principal balance of a secured demand

note. In this regard, Regulation

1.17(h)(2)(vii)(C) requires an FCM or IBI

to obtain the written approval of its

DSRO, or the Commission if the FCM or

IBI is not a member of a SRO, prior to

making a prepayment on a subordinated

loan or prior to effecting a full or partial

reduction in the outstanding principal

balance of a secured demand note.

The Joint Audit Committee (‘‘JAC’’)

has requested that the Commission

amend Regulations 1.17(h)(3)(vi) and

1.17(h)(2)(vii)(C).6 The JAC states that

the Commission’s regulations governing

subordination agreements, including the

provisions cited above, are consistent

with requirements imposed by the SEC

on registered securities brokers or

dealers. Therefore, registered FCMs and

IBIs that are also registered as securities

brokers or dealers with the SEC

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘duallyregistered’’ FCMs or IBIs) are required to

obtain the approvals of a futures market

SRO and a securities market DEA prior

to excluding subordination agreements

from liabilities in computing net capital

or prior to making a prepayment on a

subordinated loan or effecting a

reduction in the outstanding principal

balance of a secured demand note.7

The JAC requests that the Commission

amend Regulations 1.17(h)(3)(vi) and

1.17(h)(2)(vii)(C) to allow DSROs to

adopt procedures that would permit a

DSRO to rely on a DEA’s review and

approval of a proposed subordination

agreement, a proposed prepayment of a

subordinated loan, or a proposed

reduction in the outstanding principal

balance of a secured demand note

submitted by a dually-registered FCM or

IBI. In support of its position, the JAC

states that since the Commission’s and

SEC’s regulations are consistent with

respect to subordination agreements,

permitting the DSRO to rely on the

review performed by a DEA will reduce

the regulatory burden imposed upon

dually-registered FCMs and IBIs without

increasing the risk of noncompliance

with Commission regulations. The JAC

also states that the amendments would

allow a DSRO to more efficiently use its

financial surveillance resources.

B. Proposed Rule Amendments

The Commission is proposing to

amend Regulations 1.17(h)(2)(vii)(C)

and 1.17(h)(3)(vi) to allow a DSRO to

rely on a review performed by a DEA

with respect to a proposed

subordination agreement, a proposed

prepayment of a subordinated loan, or a

proposed reduction of the outstanding

principal balance of a secured demand

note submitted by a dually-registered

FCM or IBI. As noted above, the

Commission’s regulations regarding

subordination agreements are consistent

in all material respects with the rules of

the SEC for brokers or dealers. In this

regard, SEC Rule 15c3–1d(c)(6)(i) (17

CFR 240.15c3–1d(c)(6)(i)) is consistent

with CFTC Regulation 1.17(h)(3)(vi) in

that it requires a registered securities

broker or dealer to file copies of any

proposed subordination agreement with

its DEA prior to the effective date of the

agreement. The rule further provides

that no subordination agreement shall

be deemed a ‘‘satisfactory’’

subordination agreement for capital

purposes until the DEA has determined

that the agreement satisfies the

minimum requirements for a

satisfactory subordination agreement as

set forth in the SEC’s rules.8

Furthermore, SEC Rule 15c3–1d(b)(7)

(17 CFR 240.15c3–1d(b)(7)) is consistent

with CFTC Regulation 1.17(h)(2)(vii)(C)

in that it requires a broker or dealer to

obtain the written approval of its DEA

prior to making a prepayment of a

subordinated loan before the scheduled

maturity date of the payment and prior

to effecting a reduction in the

outstanding principal balance of a

secured demand note. Therefore, as

noted above, subordination agreements

of dually-registered FCMs and IBIs are

currently subject to review and approval

by two separate regulatory authorities

applying consistent standards.

The proposed amendments would

provide that a DSRO may rely on a

DEA’s review of a proposed

subordination agreement or a request to

make a prepayment on a subordinated

loan or to reduce the outstanding

principal balance of a secured demand

note, provided that the dually-registered

FCM or IBI files signed copies of the

proposals with its applicable DEA, in

the manner and form provided by the

DEA, prior to the proposed effective

dates. The proposal would also direct

the FCM or IBI to file copies of the

proposals with its DSRO prior to the

respective effective dates and to file

copies of the DEA’s approval of the

transactions with the DSRO

immediately upon receipt of such

approval.

The requirement that the FCM or IBI

file copies of the proposals with its

DSRO provides the DSRO with an

opportunity to review the transactions

to ensure compliance with Commission

regulations prior to the effective dates.

The proposed amendments would

35306 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

9 47 FR 18618, 18619–18620 (April 30, 1982).

10 48 FR 35248, 35275–78 (August 3, 1983).

further provide that the DEA’s review

and approval of the proposals would be

deemed, absent objection by the DSRO,

a finding by the DSRO that the

proposals meet the minimum

requirements and conditions set forth in

Commission Regulation 1.17(h). The

final responsibility for ensuring that the

proposals satisfy the minimum

Commission requirements, however,

would remain with the DSROs.

II. Related Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–611, requires that

agencies, in proposing rules, consider

the impact of those rules on small

businesses. The proposed rule

amendments discussed herein would

affect FCMs and IBIs. The Commission

has previously determined that, based

upon the fiduciary nature of FCM/

customer relationships, as well as the

requirement that FCMs meet minimum

financial requirements, FCMs should be

excluded from the definition of small

entity.9

With respect to IBIs, the Commission

stated that it is appropriate to evaluate

within the context of a particular rule

whether some or all introducing brokers

should be considered to be small

entities and, if so, to analyze the

economic impact on such entities at that

time.10 The proposed amendments to

Regulations 1.17(h)(2)(vii)(C) and

1.17(h)(3)(vi) do not impose additional

requirements on an IBI. Thus, on behalf

of the Commission, the Chairman

certifies that the proposed rule

amendments will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (Supp. I

1995), imposes certain requirements on

federal agencies (including the

Commission) to review rules and rule

amendments to evaluate the information

collection burden that they impose on

the public. The Commission believes

that the proposed amendments to

Regulation 1.17(h) do not impose an

information collection burden on the

public.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 1

Brokers, Commodity futures.

In consideration of the foregoing and

pursuant to the authority contained in

the Commodity Exchange Act and, in

particular, sections 4f, 4g and 8a(5)

thereof, 7 U.S.C. 6d, 6g and 12a(5), the

Commission hereby proposes to amend

chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1—GENERAL REGULATIONS

UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE

ACT

1. The authority citation for Part 1

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 2a, 4, 4a, 6, 6a,

6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, 6m,

6n, 6o, 6p, 7, 7a, 7b, 8, 9, 12, 12a, 12c, 13a,

13a–1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23, and 24.

2. Section 1.17 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraphs

(h)(2)(vii)(C) and (h)(3)(vi) to read as

follows:

§ 1.17 Minimum financial requirements for

futures commission merchants and

introducing brokers.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(2) * * *

(vii) * * *

(C)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions

of paragraphs (h)(2)(vii)(A) and

(h)(2)(vii)(B) of this section, in the case

of an applicant, no prepayment or

special prepayment shall occur without

the prior written approval of the

National Futures Association; in the

case of a registrant, no prepayment or

special prepayment shall occur without

the prior written approval of the

designated self-regulatory organization,

if any, or of the Commission if the

registrant is not a member of a selfregulatory organization.

(2) A registrant may make a

prepayment or special prepayment

without the prior written approval of

the designated self-regulatory

organization: Provided, That the

registrant: is a securities broker or dealer

registered with the Securities and

Exchange Commission; files a request to

make a prepayment or special

prepayment with its applicable

securities designated examining

authority, as defined in Rule 15c3–

1(c)(12) of the Securities and Exchange

Commission (17 CFR 240.15c3–

1(c)(12)), in the form and manner

prescribed by the designated examining

authority; files a copy of the prepayment

request or special prepayment request

with the designated self-regulatory

organization at the time it files such

request with the designated examining

authority in the form and manner

prescribed by the designated selfregulatory organization; and files a copy

of the designated examining authority’s

approval of the prepayment or special

prepayment with the designated selfregulatory organization immediately

upon receipt of such approval. The

approval of the prepayment or special

prepayment by the designated

examining authority will be deemed

approval by the designated selfregulatory organization, unless the

designated self-regulatory organization

notifies the registrant that the

designated examining authority’s

approval shall not constitute designated

self-regulatory organization approval.

(3) The designated self-regulatory

organization shall immediately provide

the Commission with a copy of any

notice of approval issued where the

requested prepayment or special

prepayment will result in the reduction

of the registrant’s net capital by 20

percent or more or the registrant’s

excess adjusted net capital by 30

percent or more.

(3) * * *

(vi) Filing. An applicant shall file a

signed copy of any proposed

subordination agreement (including

nonconforming subordination

agreements) with the National Futures

Association at least ten days prior to the

proposed effective date of the agreement

or at such other time as the National

Futures Association for good cause shall

accept such filing. A registrant that is

not a member of any designated selfregulatory organization shall file two

signed copies of any proposed

subordination agreement (including

nonconforming subordination

agreements) with the regional office of

the Commission nearest the principal

place of business of the registrant

(except that a registrant under the

jurisdiction of the Commission’s

Western Regional Office shall file such

copies with the Commission’s

Southwestern Regional Office) at least

ten days prior to the proposed effective

date of the agreement or at such other

time as the Commission for good cause

shall accept such filing. A registrant that

is a member of a designated selfregulatory organization shall file signed

copies of any proposed subordination

agreement (including nonconforming

subordination agreements) with the

designated self-regulatory organization

in such quantities and at such time as

the designated self-regulatory

organization may require prior to the

effective date. The applicant or

registrant shall also file with said parties

a statement setting forth the name and

address of the lender, the business

relationship of the lender to the

applicant or registrant and whether the

applicant or registrant carried funds or

securities for the lender at or about the

time the proposed agreement was so

filed. A proposed agreement filed by an

applicant with the National Futures

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 35307

Association shall be reviewed by the

National Futures Association, and no

such agreement shall be a satisfactory

subordination agreement for the

purposes of this section unless and until

the National Futures Association has

found the agreement acceptable and

such agreement has become effective in

the form found acceptable. A proposed

agreement filed by a registrant shall be

reviewed by the designated selfregulatory organization with whom such

an agreement is required to be filed

prior to its becoming effective or, if the

registrant is not a member of any

designated self-regulatory organization,

by the regional office of the Commission

where the agreement is required to be

filed prior to its becoming effective. No

proposed agreement shall be a

satisfactory subordination agreement for

the purposes of this section unless and

until the designated self-regulatory

organization or, if a registrant is not a

member of any designated selfregulatory organization, the

Commission, has found the agreement

acceptable and such agreement has

become effective in the form found

acceptable: Provided, however, That a

proposed agreement shall be a

satisfactory subordination agreement for

purpose of this section if the registrant:

is a securities broker or dealer registered

with the Securities and Exchange

Commission; files signed copies of the

proposed subordination agreement with

the applicable securities designated

examining authority, as defined in Rule

15c3–1(c)(12) of the Securities and

Exchange Commission (17 CFR

240.15c3–1(c)(12)), in the form and

manner prescribed by the designated

examining authority; files signed copies

of the proposed subordination

agreement with the designated selfregulatory organization at the time it

files such copies with the designated

examining authority in the form and

manner prescribed by the designated

self-regulatory organization; and files a

copy of the designated examining

authority’s approval of the proposed

subordination agreement with the

designated self-regulatory organization

immediately upon receipt of such

approval. The designated examining

authority’s determination that the

proposed subordination agreement

satisfies the requirements for a

satisfactory subordination agreement

will be deemed a like finding by the

designated self-regulatory organization,

unless the designated self-regulatory

organization notifies the registrant that

the designated examining authority’s

determination shall not constitute a like

finding by the designated self-regulatory

organization.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington D.C. on May 25,

2000 by the Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–13606 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 180

[OPP–300976; FRL–6491–9]

RIN 2070–AB78

Methyl Parathion; Notice of Proposed

Tolerance Revocations and Channels

of Trade Provision Guidance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revoke the tolerances for the insecticide

methyl parathion on the following

commodities: apples, artichokes, beets

(greens alone), beets (with or without

tops), birdsfoot trefoil forage, birdsfoot

trefoil hay, broccoli, Brussels sprouts,

carrots, cauliflower, celery, cherries,

collards, grapes, kale, lentils, kohlrabi,

lettuce, mustard greens, nectarines,

peaches, pears, plums (fresh prunes),

rutabagas (with or without tops),

rutabaga tops, spinach, tomatoes,

turnips (with or without tops), turnip

greens, vegetables leafy Brassica (cole),

and vetch. Additionally, EPA proposes

to amend the following tolerances:

beans (amend to beans, dried), peas

(amend to peas, dried) so that methyl

parathion is not used on succulent

beans and peas. Note that methyl

parathion may still be used on lentils;

however, residues on lentils are covered

by the tolerance for peas, dried. Foods

legally treated with methyl parathion

may continue to be marketed under the

provisions of the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The

regulatory actions proposed in this

document are part of the Agency’s

reregistration program under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA), and the tolerance

reassessment requirements of the

FFDCA. By law, EPA is required to

reassess 66% of the tolerances in

existence on August 2, 1996, by August

2002, or about 6,400 tolerances. These

tolerances were established under

section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.

346a. EPA is proposing to revoke these

tolerances because the Agency has

canceled the pesticide registrations

under FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.,

associated with them. EPA encourages

you to comment on the tolerance

revocations and on the proposed time

frame for tolerance revocation.

The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) in a related notice published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register is announcing the availability

of a proposed guidance document

presenting FDA’s policy on its planned

enforcement approach for foods

containing methyl parathion residues.

This guidance will assist firms in

understanding the types of showing

under 408(1)(5) of the FFDCA

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘channels

of trade provision’’) that FDA may find

satisfactory in accordance with its

planned enforcement approach for such

section. EPA and FDA are cooperating

on this effort. FDA will be asking for

comment on this proposed guidance

and EPA also encourages you to

comment on this guidance.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket control number [OPP–300976],

must be received on or before August 1,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted by mail, electronically, or in

person. Please follow the detailed

instructions for each method as

provided in Unit I. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

this proposed rule. Be sure to identify

docket number OPP–300976.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Parsons, Special Review and

Reregistration Division (7508C), Office

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location: CM #2, 6th floor, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA,

telephone: (703) 305–5776; e-mail:

parsons.laura@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if

you sell, distribute, manufacture, or use

pesticides for agricultural applications,

process food, distribute or sell food, or

implement governmental pesticide

regulations. Potentially affected

categories and entities may include, but

are not limited to the following: