This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

70769

Vol. 65, No. 229

Tuesday, November 28, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1230

[No. LS–00–12]

Pork Promotion, Research, and

Consumer Information Program:

Procedures for the Conduct of

Referendum

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Clarification of final rule.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this action is

to clarify the intent of the requirement

in the Pork Promotion, Research, and

Consumer Information Program:

Procedures for the Conduct of

Referendum, that the telephone number

of a person voting in the pork checkoff

referendum be included on the

registration and certification form. The

person’s telephone number was for the

administrative convenience of Farm

Service Agency (FSA) office personnel

in processing these forms. A person’s

otherwise valid ballot will not be

invalidated if the person’s phone

number is not included on the

registration and certification form.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ralph L. Tapp, Chief; Marketing

Programs Branch, Room 2627–S;

Livestock and Seed Program, AMS,

USDA; Stop 0251; 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–

0251; telephone number 202/720–1115,

fax 202/720–1125, or by e-mail

Ralph.Tapp@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

Pork Promotion, Research, and

Consumer Information Act of 1985 (7

U.S.C. 4801–4819), a pork referendum

was conducted during the period

August 18, 2000, through September 21,

2000. The referendum was conducted

pursuant to referendum rules published

July 13, 2000, [65 FR 43498] Pork

Promotion, Research, and Consumer

Information Program: Procedures for the

Conduct of Referendum: final rule. The

referendum was conducted among

eligible pork producers who owned and

sold one or more hogs or pigs and

importers who imported pigs, hogs,

pork or pork products to determine

whether they favored the continuation

of the Pork Promotion, Research, and

Consumer Information Order. Producer

in-person voting in the referendum was

held September 19, 20, 21, 2000, at

county FSA offices. Producer absentee

ballots were available at those offices

from August 18, 2000, through

September 18, 2000. Importers could

obtain ballots from the FSA

headquarters office in Washington, DC,

from August 18, 2000, through

September 21, 2000. The representative

period to establish voter eligibility was

the period from August 18, 1999,

through August 17, 2000.

Persons who wished to vote in the

pork checkoff referendum had to

complete and sign a registration and

certification form that required the

minimum information necessary to

establish the identity of the person

voting and to permit other interested

persons an opportunity to challenge a

person’s vote. The registration and

certification forms—Form LS–72–2, InPerson Registration and Certification

(Envelope); Form LS–73, Pork Producer

Absentee Voting; and Form LS–76, Pork

Importer Mail Voting—required that a

person include their name and address,

or the name and address of the entity

they represented if applicable, and the

person’s telephone number.

During the conduct of the referendum

a question was raised concerning

whether a ballot would be invalid if no

telephone number was included on the

registration and certification form. The

telephone number was for the FSA

county offices’ administrative

convenience to contact the voter in the

event that such contact became

necessary. The Agricultural Marketing

Service never intended to invalidate an

otherwise complete ballot simply

because there was no phone number.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4801–4819.

Dated: November 22, 2000.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30333 Filed 11–24–00; 9:42 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 3

[Docket No. 95–029–3]

Animal Welfare; Perimeter Fence

Requirements; Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: In a final rule published in

the Federal Register on October 18,

1999, we amended the Animal Welfare

regulations to require that a perimeter

fence be placed around outdoor housing

facilities for marine mammals and

certain other regulated animals. This

document contains a correction to the

list of large felines published in the final

rule. Bobcats are not considered large

felines and, therefore, we are removing

them from the list of large felines that

appears in the regulations.

DATES: Effective on November 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Barbara Kohn, Staff Veterinarian,

Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road

Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737–1234;

(301) 734–7833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In a final rule published in the

Federal Register on October 18, 1999

(64 FR 56142–56148, Docket No. 95–

029–2), we amended the Animal

Welfare regulations to require that a

perimeter fence be placed around

outdoor housing facilities for marine

mammals and certain other regulated

animals.

In the rule portion, § 3.127(d) contains

an error in the list of large felines. We

identified large felines as ‘‘lions, tigers,

leopards, cougars, bobcats, etc.’’

However, bobcats are not considered

large felines based on generally

accepted and published morphometric

70770 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(measurement of height, weight, length,

girth, etc.) data. Therefore, we are

removing bobcats from the list of large

felines in § 3.127(d). Based on this

change, all outdoor housing facilities

(i.e., facilities not entirely indoors) for

bobcats would require a 6-foot perimeter

fence or an alternative method

identified in § 3.127(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3),

and (d)(4) rather than an 8-foot fence.

This document also revises the

authority citation for 9 CFR part 3 to

reflect a revision to 7 CFR part 371 that

took effect after our final rule was

published.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 3

Animal welfare, Marine mammals,

Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Research, Transportation.

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR

part 3 as follows:

PART 3—STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 3 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR 2.22,

2.80, and 371.7.

§ 3.127 [Amended]

2. In § 3.127, the second sentence of

the introductory text in paragraph (d) is

amended by removing the word

‘‘bobcats,’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of

November 2000.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30286 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. SW008; Special Conditions No.

29–008–SC]

Special Conditions: Sikorsky Aircraft

Corporation Model S–92 Helicopters,

High-Intensity Radiated Fields

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special condition; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: This special condition is

issued for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

(Sikorsky) Model S–92 helicopters.

These helicopters will have novel or

unusual design features associated with

the installation of electronic systems

that perform critical functions. The

applicable airworthiness regulations do

not contain adequate or appropriate

safety standards to protect systems that

perform critical control functions, or

provide critical displays, from the

effects of high-intensity radiated fields

(HIRF). This special condition contains

the additional safety standards that the

Administrator considers necessary to

ensure that critical functions of systems

will be maintained when exposed to

HIRF.

DATES: The effective date of this special

condition is November 13, 2000.

Comments must be received on or

before January 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this special

condition may be mailed in duplicate

to: Federal Aviation Administration,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. SW008,

Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0007, or

delivered in duplicate to the Office of

the Regional Counsel at 2601 Meacham

Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

Comments must be marked: Rules

Docket No. SW008. Comments may be

inspected in the Rules Docket

weekdays, except Federal holidays,

between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jorge Castillo, FAA, Rotorcraft

Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards, Fort

Worth, Texas 76193–0110; telephone

(817) 222–5127, fax (817) 222–5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

has determined that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable because these

procedures would significantly delay

issuance of the approval design and

thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In

addition, notice and opportunity for

prior public comment are unnecessary

since the substance of this special

condition has been subject to the public

comment process in several prior

instances with no substantive comments

received. The FAA therefore finds that

good cause exists for making this special

condition effective upon issuance.

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

submit such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications should identify the

regulatory docket or special condition

number and be submitted in duplicate

to the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered. The special condition may

be changed in light of the comments

received. All comments received will be

available in the Rules Docket for

examination by interested persons. A

report summarizing each substantive

public contact with FAA personnel

concerning this rulemaking will be filed

in the docket. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments submitted in response to this

special condition must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard on which

the following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Rules Docket No.

SW008.’’ The postcard will be date

stamped and returned to the

commenter.

Background

On November 5, 1990, Sikorsky

applied for a new type certification of

Model S–92 helicopters. Since applying

for the new type certification, Sikorsky

has requested two extensions of the type

certification period. The first extension

to August 29, 1999 was approved by the

FAA on October 7, 1994, and the second

extension to May 31, 2000 was

approved on July 21, 1995. Sikorsky

Model S–92 helicopters are 19-

passenger Transport Category

helicopters, powered by two General

Electric Model CT7–8 engines. They

will incorporate one auxiliary power

unit for engine starting and back-up

electrical power. The helicopters will

have a conventional aluminum structure

with some composite parts and highly

integrated digital avionics.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17,

Sikorsky must show that Sikorsky

Model S–92 helicopters meet the

applicable provisions of the regulations

as listed below:

• 14 CFR Part 29, Amendment 29–1

through Amendment 29–45, inclusive;

• 14 CFR Part 36, Appendix H,

Amendments 36–1 through the

amendment effective at the time of

certification; and

• Any special conditions,

exemptions, and equivalent safety

findings deemed necessary.

In addition, the certification basis

includes certain special conditions and

equivalent safety findings that are not

relevant to this special condition.

If the Administrator finds that the

applicable airworthiness regulations do

not contain adequate or appropriate

safety standards for these helicopters

because of a novel or unusual design

feature, special conditions are

prescribed under the provisions of

§ 21.16.

In addition to the applicable

airworthiness regulations and special

conditions, Sikorsky Model S–92

helicopters must comply with the noise

certification requirements of 14 CFR

part 36; and the FAA must issue a

finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant