24384 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

2000–08–15 Boeing: Amendment 39–11701.

Docket 99–NM–346–AD.

Applicability: Model 777 series airplanes

having line numbers 1 through 119 inclusive,

except line numbers 94, 102, 104, and 118;

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent fatigue cracking of the upper

wing skin, which could result in reduced

structural integrity of the wing, accomplish

the following:

Eddy Current Inspection of Fastener Holes

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 16,000 total

flight cycles or 40,000 total flight hours,

whichever occurs earlier, perform a one-time

eddy current inspection to detect cracking of

the fastener holes common to the upper wing

skins and trailing edge panels of both wings,

in accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 777–57A0022, dated August 26,

1999.

Rework and Re-Inspection of Fastener Hole

(b) If any cracking is detected during the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, prior to further flight, oversize the

fastener hole and perform additional eddy

current inspections to detect cracking of the

fastener holes until all cracking is no longer

detectable by means of eddy current

inspection. Perform the actions in accordance

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–

57A0022, dated August 26, 1999. Prior to

further flight, oversize the fastener hole an

additional 1/32-inch minimum and measure

the starting hole diameter and edge margin of

the fastener hole, in accordance with the alert

service bulletin.

(1) If the fastener hole diameter or the edge

margin of any fastener hole is not within the

limits specified in the alert service bulletin,

prior to further flight, repair in accordance

with a method approved by the Manager,

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, or a

Boeing Company Designated Engineering

Representative who has been authorized by

the FAA to make such findings. For a repair

method to be approved by the Manager,

Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph,

the Manager’s approval letter must

specifically reference this AD.

(2) If the fastener hole diameter and edge

margin of all the fastener holes are within the

limits specified in the alert service bulletin,

prior to further flight, accomplish the

requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD.

Coldwork of Fastener Holes

(c) If no cracking is detected during the

eddy current inspection required by

paragraph (a), or the fastener hole diameter

and edge margin of all the fastener holes are

within the limits required by paragraph (b) of

this AD, prior to further flight, coldwork the

fastener holes and install new or serviceable

fasteners, in accordance with Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 777–57A0022, dated August

26, 1999.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Seattle ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(f) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(1)

of this AD, the actions shall be done in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 777–57A0022, dated August 26,

1999. This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–

2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

May 31, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–10160 Filed 4–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–253–AD; Amendment

39–11703; AD 2000–08–17]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–100, –200, –300, –400, and

–500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 737–

100, –200, –300, –400, and –500 series

airplanes, that requires repetitive

inspections to detect damage of certain

taxi light assemblies, and replacement

with a new or serviceable part, if

necessary. This AD also requires

eventual replacement of certain taxi

light assemblies with improved parts,

which constitutes terminating action for

the repetitive inspections. This

amendment is prompted by a report that

a damaged taxi light detached from an

airplane and was ingested into the

airplane engines. The actions specified

by this AD are intended to prevent

damage to the taxi light assembly,

which could result in detachment of the

taxi light assembly from the airplane,

ingestion of taxi light debris into an

engine, and consequent loss of thrust

from one or both engines.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Information pertaining to

this amendment may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Herron, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2672; fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 24385

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Boeing

Model 737–100, –200, –300, –400, and

–500 series airplanes was published in

the Federal Register on May 10, 1999

(64 FR 24963). That action proposed to

require repetitive detailed visual

inspections to detect damage (including

cracking, corrosion, deformation, or

evidence of impact) of certain taxi light

assemblies, and replacement with a new

or serviceable part, if necessary. That

action also proposed to require eventual

replacement of certain taxi light

assemblies with improved parts, which

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspections.

Comments Received

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

One commenter supports the

proposed rule. Another commenter

considers the daily repetitive inspection

interval to be unnecessarily restrictive,

but has no objections to the proposed

rule.

Requests To Extend Repetitive

Inspection Interval

Two commenters request that the

FAA extend the repetitive daily

inspection interval for the visual

inspection to detect damage of the taxi

light assembly mounted on the nose

landing gear of the airplane.

One commenter states that the daily

inspection is redundant and the interval

should be extended to every five days.

The commenter states that, during the

pre-flight walk-around, the flight crew

checks the nose taxi light bracket prior

to each flight. If damage is found, the

flight crew notifies maintenance to

correct the discrepancy.

Therefore, the commenter states that

its suggested change would provide an

equivalent level of safety to the daily

inspections.

Another commenter states that a daily

repetitive inspection is excessive and

suggests a weekly inspection interval.

The commenter justifies its request by

stating that it has recently placed

additional focus on proper towing

procedures, which will ‘‘dramatically’’

reduce the potential for impact damage.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ request. Inspections at a

frequency of every five or seven days,

instead of daily, reduce the opportunity

for discovering damage and are not

adequate to ensure that any damage is

detected in a timely manner.

With regard to the first commenter’s

reference to the pre-flight walk-around

performed by the flight crew, the FAA

does not consider flight crews to be

trained in the same manner as

maintenance personnel to carry out the

detailed visual inspections required by

this AD. These expectations and

definitions are contained within Parts 1

and 43 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR parts 1 and

43).

With regard to the second

commenter’s justification of additional

focus on proper towing procedures, the

FAA finds that there is no meaningful

way to gauge the effectiveness of

training procedures in mitigating the

unsafe condition addressed in this AD.

The FAA expects that the individuals

who have been performing towing

operations were properly trained;

however, there have still been numerous

incidents of damage to the taxi light

assemblies.

In developing an appropriate

repetitive interval for this action, the

FAA considered the average utilization

of the affected fleet (average of 7 flight

cycles per day), the numerous reports of

damaged taxi light assemblies, and the

degree of urgency associated with

addressing the subject unsafe condition.

In consideration of all of these factors,

the FAA has determined that daily

inspections are appropriate to ensure

that an acceptable level of safety can be

maintained. No change to the final rule

is necessary.

Request To Include Approved Repair

One commenter requests that an

approved repair be included as a

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections. The commenter promotes

repair as a cost effective means of

compliance, but does not provide any

reason why a repair would provide a

level of safety equivalent to that

achieved by accomplishment of the

proposed AD.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. The new taxi light

assemblies listed in paragraph (c) of this

AD as acceptable replacement parts

differ from the taxi light assemblies that

are the subject of this AD in both the

dimensions of the part and the material

from which the part is made. These

design changes address the inherent

failure mode associated with the unsafe

condition (i.e., damaged taxi light

assemblies due to towing operation

practices and design deficiencies).

However, repair of the taxi light

assemblies subject to this AD would not

affect the failure mode. No change to the

final rule is necessary.

Request To Clarify Degree of Damage

That Warrants Replacement

One commenter requests that the FAA

clarify the degree of damage that

warrants replacement of the light

assembly, because minor superficial

damage would not reduce the

airworthiness of the assembly. The

commenter provides no data or analysis

beyond the statement made.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. The FAA has

defined the type of damage and level of

inspection necessary in paragraph (a) of

the AD. The FAA has determined that

any damage found at this inspection

level would decrease the safety of the

aircraft to the point where replacement

is necessary. No change to the final rule

is necessary.

Clarification of the Term ‘‘Inspector’’

One commenter requests clarification

of the term ‘‘inspector’’ referenced in

Note 2 of the NPRM. The commenter

wants to know if this term refers to a job

title or the person conducting the

inspection.

The FAA concurs that clarification

should be provided in this case. The

term ‘‘inspector,’’ as used in the note,

refers to the person performing the

inspection. It is not intended as a job

title and does not refer to a person with

any special technical qualifications. The

FAA notes that Part 43 of the FAR (14

CFR part 43) specifies who may perform

maintenance. Note 2 of this final rule

has been revised accordingly to clarify

the term ‘‘inspector’’ as ‘‘the person

performing the inspection.’’

Request to Include Additional

Instructions for Identification of Parts

One commenter recommends that the

proposed AD include additional

instructions or reference a Boeing or

original equipment manufacturer

document to assist in identification and

reidentification of parts. The commenter

states that many of the light assemblies

will be difficult to identify due to part

numbers ‘‘wearing off.’’ The commenter

states that an alternative method of

identifying parts would preclude

unnecessary removals and inspections.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request. The FAA

understands the difficulty the

commenter may have in identifying

which airplanes are configured with

what parts. However, to develop

procedures for identifying a part by a

means other than part number would

take time and would delay the issuance

of this final rule. In consideration of the

safety implications of the unsafe

condition identified in this rule, the

24386 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

FAA finds that it would be

inappropriate to delay the issuance of

this rule in this way. The economic

benefit that would be gained (by

minimizing unnecessary inspections

and replacements) does not outweigh

the safety benefits that will be gained by

implementing the requirements of this

rule in a timely manner. In addition,

considering the estimated time

necessary for replacement of the taxi

light assembly (2 hours), it may cost

more in time and effort for operators to

properly identify a part as needing

replacement than to replace the part.

Therefore, the FAA finds that it would

be more efficient and cost effective to

accomplish the requirements of the AD

as proposed. No change to the final rule

is necessary.

Comment on Use of Lights Identified in

Parts Catalog

One commenter states that it has only

authorized the use of light assemblies

that are identified within the airplane

manufacturer’s illustrated parts catalog.

However, the commenter makes no

request for a specific change to the

proposed rule and provides no

justification for a change. Therefore, no

change to the final rule is necessary in

this regard.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the change

described previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 2,857

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

1,159 airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish the

required inspection, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

inspection required by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $69,540, or

$60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 2 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required replacement, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$549 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the

replacement required by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $775,371, or

$669 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (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)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

2000–08–17 Boeing: Amendment 39–11703.

Docket 98–NM–253–AD.

Applicability: Model 737–100, –200, –300,

–400, and –500 series airplanes; that are not

equipped with a Grimes Aerospace taxi light

assembly having part number (P/N) 50–0199–

9, 50–0199–11, 50–0128–1A, 50–0128–1MA,

50–0128–3A, or 50–0128–3MA; certificated

in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent damage to the taxi light

assembly, which could result in detachment

of the taxi light from the airplane, ingestion

of taxi light debris into an engine, and

consequent loss of thrust from one or both

engines; accomplish the following:

Initial and Repetitive Inspections

(a) Within 60 days after the effective date

of this AD, perform a detailed visual

inspection to detect damage (including

cracking, corrosion, deformation, or evidence

of impact) of the taxi light assembly mounted

on the nose landing gear of the airplane.

Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 1 day, until the requirements

of paragraph (c) have been accomplished.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as an

intensive visual inspection of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of lighting

at an intensity deemed appropriate by the

inspector (i.e., the person performing the

inspection). Inspection aids such as mirrors,

magnifying glasses, etc., may be used.

Surface cleaning and elaborate access

procedures may be necessary.

Replacement

(b) If any damage of the taxi light assembly

is detected during any inspection performed

in accordance with paragraph (a) of this AD,

prior to further flight, replace the existing

taxi light assembly with a new or serviceable

taxi light assembly in accordance with the

applicable maintenance manual. If the

existing taxi light assembly is replaced with

a Grimes Aerospace taxi light assembly

having P/N 50–0199–9, 50–0199–11, 50–

0128–1A, 50–0128–1MA, 50–0128–3A, or

50–0128–3MA: no further action is required

by this AD.

Terminating Action

(c) Within 2 years after the effective date

of this AD: Replace the existing taxi light

assembly with a Grimes Aerospace taxi light

assembly having P/N 50–0199–9, 50–0199–

11, 50–0128–1A, 50–0128–1MA, 50–0128–

3A, or 50–0128–3MA; in accordance with the

applicable maintenance manual. Such

replacement constitutes terminating action

for the repetitive inspection requirement of

paragraph (a) of this AD.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 24387

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the nager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

May 31, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 19,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–10289 Filed 4–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 206

RIN 1010–AC09

Training Sessions on the New Federal

Oil Valuation Regulations

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of training sessions.

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) is offering five 1-day

payor training sessions on its revised

Federal oil valuation regulations that are

effective June 1, 2000.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for training dates.

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for training locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronda Gray, Royalty Valuation Division,

Royalty Management Program, Minerals

Management Service, P.O. Box 25165,

MS 3152, Denver, Colorado 80225–

0165, telephone number (303) 275–7259

or fax number (303) 275–7227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The dates

and locations of the training sessions are

as follows:

1. Denver, CO: May 18, 2000, 8:30 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Mountain time. Denver

Federal Center, Building 810, (S29,

southwest side entrance), Denver,

Colorado, 80225; telephone number

(303) 202–4852

2. Tulsa, OK: May 23, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to

4 p.m., Central time. Radisson Inn—

Tulsa Airport, 2201 North 77 East

Ave., Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115;

telephone number (918) 835–9911

3. Houston, TX: May 24, 2000, 8:30 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Central time. Minerals

Management Service Office, 4141

North Sam Houston Parkway East,

Houston, Texas; telephone number

(281) 987–6802

4. Bakersfield, CA: May 24, 2000, 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Pacific time. Bureau of

Land Management, Bakersfield

District Office, 3801 Pegasus Drive,

Bakersfield, California; telephone

number (661) 391–6000

5. Albuquerque, NM: May 31, 2000, 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Mountain time. Bureau

of Land Management, Albuquerque

District Office, 435 Montano Road,

Albuquerque, New Mexico; telephone

number (505) 761–8700.

These classes are offered at no cost to

representatives of the oil and gas

industry and members of the public

who have an interest in the valuation of

oil produced from Federal lands. To

assure a reservation at any of the

training sessions, please contact Ms.

Ronda Gray (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above)

because seating is limited for these

training sessions. Reservations will be

made on a first-come, first-served basis.

You must make your own travel and

hotel reservations for the training. MMS

will not reserve blocks of rooms. Travel

and related expenses will not be

reimbursed by MMS.

MMS published its revised Federal oil

valuation regulations in the Federal

Register on March 15, 2000 (65 FR

14022), effective June 1, 2000. The

primary changes in the revised

regulations affect lessees who value oil

not sold at arm’s length. The following

topics will be explained in the training

sessions:

• New definitions

• How to value Federal oil sold at

arm’s-length

• How to value Federal oil not sold at

arm’s length by region (California/

Alaska, Rocky Mountain Region, and

elsewhere)

• How to make location and quality

adjustments to index prices

• How to calculate a transportation

allowance

• How to request a binding valuation

determination

• Other new items in the rule

We encourage payors of Federal oil

royalties to attend one of the training

sessions, especially if you do not sell

your Federal oil production at arm’s

length.

Dated: April 21, 2000.

Harry Corley,

Acting Associate Director for Royalty

Management.

[FR Doc. 00–10430 Filed 4–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL–6585–3]

RIN 2060–AG12

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;

Listing of Substitutes for OzoneDepleting Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action lists two

substitutes for ozone-depleting

substances (ODSs) in the fire

suppression and explosion protection

sector as acceptable (subject to use

restrictions) under the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Significant New Alternatives

Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP

implements section 612 of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1990, which

requires EPA to evaluate substitutes for

the ODSs to reduce overall risk to

human health and the environment.

Through these evaluations, SNAP

generates lists of acceptable and

unacceptable substitutes for each of the

major industrial use sectors. The

intended effect of the SNAP program is

to expedite movement away from ozonedepleting compounds while avoiding a

shift into substitutes posing other

environmental problems.

On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated

a final rulemaking setting forth its plan

for administering the SNAP program (59

FR 13044), and has since issued

decisions on the acceptability and

unacceptability of a number of

substitutes. In this Final Rulemaking

(FRM), EPA is issuing its decisions on

the acceptability of halon substitutes in

the fire suppression and explosion

protection sector that were included in

a notice of proposed rulemaking

published on February 18, 1999 (64 FR

8038) and a correction to the February

18 proposal that was published on