ML20216D784
| ML20216D784 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/28/1999 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| To: | Price D HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216D791 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR24936, RULE-PR-9 NUDOCS 9907300108 | |
| Download: ML20216D784 (6) | |
Text
-
i...
f ',"%
p
\\
UNITED STATES Dom a g
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg g WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 0001 July 28, 1999
.og g3 OF R'
ADA The Honorable David Price United States House of Representatives DOCKET NUMBER washington, D.C. 20515 PROPOSED RULE 4
Dear Congressman Price:
I am pleased to respond to your letter expressing your concern, and that of Mayor Michael Nelson of Carrboro, regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) recent action with regard to the Govemment in the Sunshine Act.
Mayor Nelson's letter was written before the NRC issued the May 10,1999 Federal Reaister notice to which you alluded in your letter. Whereas, according to Mayor Nelson, the NRC
" seeks exemption from the Sunshine Act," the Fdral Reaister makes clear that this is not the case. Rather, the NRC's action starts from the premise that the Sunshine Act fully applies to the NRC. The question, rather, is of the definition of a " meeting" under the Act.
The Supreme Court explained in a unanimous 1984 decision that in enacting the Sunshine Act, Congress did not provide that every discussion of agency business should be treated as a
" meeting," because it understood that this would impede the kind of informal, preliminary discussions that are an important pet of a government agency's work. Unfortunately, the NRC I
- initially interpreted the Act as though tvery discussion should be considered a " meeting," in part on the basis of erroneous legal advice from the Justice Department in 1977. After the Supreme Court's clarification of the law in 1984, the NRC changed its regulations to reflect the Court's guidance, but in the face of sharp criticism of its action, the NRC never implemented the rule change, and continued its earlier practice of treating all discussions of agency business as
" meetings." The NRC's recent action is intended to ensure that the NRC's practice and regulations conform to the Supreme Court's guidance.
Implementation of the rule change will permit the NRC Commissioners to hold certain khds of discussions, unrelated to any specific issue; to hold informal and preliminary discussions of agency-related business; and to receive status or informational briefings related to staff activities. The kinds of issues that Mayor Nelson identifies in his letter as being of concern to the citizens of Carrboro - for example, a pending specific application for license authorization to expand nuclear waste storage at the Shearon Harris plant - are of sufficient specificity that a quorum of Commissioners could not discuss and formulate positions on the application except in " meetings," just as is the case today.
/
Mayor Nelson's letter speaks of the need to maintain "an open deliberation and decision
/
process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." The Commission's recent action is fully consistent with Congress's intent that the Sunshine Act's procedural requirements shall apply 9907300108 990728
)
In-I 2
3 whenever discussions are, in the words of the Supreme Court, "sufficiently focused on discrete proposals or issues as to cause or be likely to cause the individual participating members to form reasonably firm positions regarding matters pending or likely to arise before the agency."
in short, this decision is not intended to produce, nor should it produce, any reduction in the openness of the deliberative and decisional process at the NRC. While there would indeed be grounds for concem if, as your letter puts it, "important policy decisions were being made out of public view," the types of discussions that the Commission can hold as "non-Sunshine Act discussions" cannot, as a matter of law, include those in which policy decisions are made, I trust that this letter is responsive to your and Mayor Nelson's concems. Both his letter and
- yours were docketed as comments on the Corre.M;Non's Federal Register notice. On July 16, 1999, the Commission approved a Federal Register notice responding to comments received en the May 10,1999 notice.- A copy is enclosed for your information.
Sincerely, H^U[
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
As stated 1
I l
o
?
39393 L
. Rules and Regulations
= = * -
~j Vol. 64, No.140 9 c4 Thursday, July 22. 1999 l.
. This secuan of the FEDERAL REGISTER on July 1 unless it took further action.
Policy arguments included these:
-l-i j
oonesins agidatory documents having general Finding that the comments do in fact (a) Even if the rule can be justified ammasteny and legd enact, most of wt*m wanant discussion, the Commission legally, it represents a retreet from
- 8"m red to and commedin on code of provides this additional document that o oness and will diminish public Feder S$
- 8 Ponds to the issues raised by the confidence in the Commission; "d*
gg uda commenters. During the period ofits (b) & NRC has failed to show that The Code of Federal Re9uielsons is sold tiy resdew of the comments, the coll ality has been impaired by the the Supostneendent of Documents. Prices of Commission has not held any non-S ine Act-new books am bened in the trat FEDERAL Sunshine Act discussions and has REGISTER issue of each week.
decided not to hold any such (c)h exarnples of topics that the discussions until, at the earliest,30 days Commission has cited as examples of from the date of publication of this Possible non-Sunshine Act discussions NUCLEAR MOULATORY documeng are too trivial to warrant A4as a rule COINR0000N Nine comments were received on the that has served well for 20 years; May 10 notice, all but one of which (d) & Commission failed to follow
.10 CPR Port 9 expressed disapproval of the NRC's the recommendations of the American R ei ste M ass action. (The lone exception was a Bar Association with respect to record comment from a nuclear industry group, keeping:
Govermnentin Wie Sunshine Act the Nuclear Energy Institute, which said (e) No harm could come to the Reguistions that it endorsed the NRC's action for the Commission's processes if general reas s stated in the May 10,1999, background briefings were held in open Acesecy: Nuclear Regulatory document.) Of the critical comments Commission.
senion-received, the most detailed came from a ACTION: Final rule: Notice ofintent to Member of the United States House of (f) The NRC's role as regulator of a
' implement currently effective rule:
Representatives Edward J. Mnkey, and technically complex industry calls for response to comments.
from two public interest organizations, 28ximum Penness;and the Natural Resources Defense Council (g) Nothing in the rule prevent' the suenaany:b Nuclear Regulatory and Public Citizen. N negative Commission from holdira off.the-record Commission, having considered th*
comments were mostly (but as will be discussions with representatives of the comments received on the May 10 seen, not exclusively) along the lines regulated industry, 1999, document declaring its inteat to that the Commission had tried to in the intert st of clarity, we will begm implementing a Anal rule anticipate in its detailed document of "8 dress the commants in a comment-published ab., made effective in 1985 May 10.
and-sesponse format. Some comments has decided to proceed with the comments were both on legal and were dealt with in sufficient detail in implementation of the rule,30 days policy grounds. The primarily legal the May 10,1999, document that it from the date of publication of this armunents included the following:
would serve no usef d purpose to repeat document.
Ta) The legislative history of the here the Commission's position with 0475s: b May 21,1985, interim rule Sunshine Act makes clear Congress's regard to them.
became effective May 21,1985 The intent that there should be openness t A. Comment:One of the critical Comunission will begin holding non.
the maximum extent practicable; Sunshine Act discussions no sooner (b) The Commission s action is thus commenters quoted at length from the than August 23,1999, antithetical to the letter and spirit of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in ACD ron PusmeEn WIP0nenATION C00ffACT:
Peter Crane, Office of the General Q'Co Philadelphia Newspapers v. NBC,727 F.2d 1195 (1984),in which the court y
u 66 Counsel. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U'S 463 (1984) involveduni ue declared that " Government should f'a==I=la= Washington, DC 20555' (301)415-1622.
circumsta.'ces and is not role ant to the conduct the public's business in Issue before the NRC'.
Public., The commenter opined that surrLaassesrAny ser0nesAfi0es: On May (d) & Commission disregarded such. Congress undoubtedly intended that the 10,1999 (64 FR 24936), the Nuclear court decisions as that of the U.S. Court Government in the Sunshine Act tory Comunission noticed in the of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in "would guarantee public r
l F
ofits intention to begin Philadelphlo Newspapers v. NRC,727 accountability" on the safety of nuclear imp 3"=a"* af its regulations, F.2d 1195 (1964);
PO*
Promulgated in 1985, applying the (el b criteria adopted by the Response: Undeniably,the Government in the Sunshine Act. The
. Commission are too vague to be Philadelphia Newspapers decision Commi= ion provided a period for workable, inasmuch as they require the represented an expansive view of the public comment, ending June 9,1999, Commission to predict the course that Sunshine Act on the part of that panel
. cad stated that no non-Sunshine Act discussions will take; and of the D.C. Circun. Only a few months discussions would be held before July 1 (f) The Commission's action, by later, however, the Supreme Court f
1999, to give the Comraission an providing for minirnal recordkeeping, provided sharply different guidance in opportunity to consider the comments, possibly to be discontinued after six the first (and to date only) Government The Commission stated that non-months, will preclude meaningful in the Sunshine Act case t.each the Sunshine Act discussions could begin judicial review.
Court: FCC v. ITT World l
F.
39394 Federal Register /V:1. 64, N2.140/ Thursday, July 22,1999/Rul:s and Regulations Communications,466 U.S. 463 (1984).
B. Comment:The NRC's action, even Response:The Commission disagrees i
ITt World Communleotions resembled if some legal arguments could be made with this comment. As long ago as 1984, Philadelphia Newspapers in that it also for it,is contrary to the Congress's the Administrative Conference of the involved an expansive interpretation of intent, documented in the legislative United States, in Recommendation 84-the Sunshine Act by the D.C. Circuit.
history, that Federal agencies were 3, was commenting that the Sunshine Resoundingly,in a unanunous decision,, intended to practice openness to the Act had had the unintended effect of the Supreme Court overturned the D.C.
maximum extent possible.
diminishing collegiality at multi-Circult's ruling, and it used the Response: Congress made a deliberate member agencies and shifting power opportunity to give guidance on the decision to limit the applicability of the from the collegium to the Chairman and proper interpretation of the Sunshine Sunshine Act to " meetings." As the staff? Analyses by the NRC, the Act. It said, among other things:
Supreme Court explained in detail, the American Bar Association, and the definition of " meeting" was an issue to Arlministrative Conference all provide Congress la drafting the Act's definition of
" meeting" recoanized that the administrative which Congress paid extremely close factual support for the proposition that process cannot be conducted entirely in the attention, with changes introduced late there are problems associated with the public eye. "(1)nformal background in the process. The bill in its final form Act. Again, this topic was covered in f
discussions (that) clarify issues and expose therefore differed signincantly from detail in the Commission's May 10, varying views" are a necessary part of an what some of its supporters (including 1999, document.
i I
eBency's work (Citation omitted.) The Act's its chief s onsor, the late Senator E. Comment: One commenter Lawton C lies) desired. As a result, observed that "[tlhere is no apparent pre e tsuch the b pair Committee reports describing earlier, requirement to keep any tape or normal agency operations without achieving significant public benefit. Section 552bla)(2) more expansive versions of the transcript of non-Sunshine Act legislation bills are of slight significance discussions."
l therefore limits the Act's spplication.
id. at 469-70 compared to the Supreme Court's Response:This comment is correct.
The Commission's rulemaking has parsmg of the statute that Congress for that is the way that Congress enacted actually passed. Some commenters are the statute. (The May 10,1999, i
been grounded from the start in this in effect os%g the NRC to join in document quoted the legal judgment I
rul;itselfinc uhs a definith. -
rewridng, mry so that the narrowing reflected in the ABA report that if a definitive Su reme Court guVmce. The f the scope of " meetings"-pmposed discussion "is not a 'maetmg/ no
" meeting" taken verbatim from u.a by then Representative Pete McCloskey, announcement or procedures are Court's opinion. The American Bar enacted over the opposition of Senator required because the Act has no Association confirmed that the NRC's Chil.es and others, and elucidated by the application.") As a matter of policy approach was consistent with Congressional intent and the Supreme Supreme Court-is made to disappear discretion, however, the NRC has fr m the record. The muity, c.,atrary to decided to maintain a record of the date Court's interpretation. To the extent that the views of some commenters, is that and subject of, and participants in, any th; commenter was ing the NRC to the Sunshine Act did not decree scheduled non-Sunshine Act follow the approach the Court of Penness to the maximum extent discussions that three or more Appeals and disregard the contrary Practicable. Instoad, it struck a balance Commissioners atten,d, for at least the guidance of the Supreme Court, the NRC between the public's right to know and initial stx mu.ith penod of cannot agree Even if the Commission the agencies' need to function efficiently implem enting 'he rule. This will assist beli:ved as a matter of policy that such in order to get the public's business the Commission in determining whether a course was desirable, the NRC is not thereafter, recordkeeping should be done.
at liberty to ignore Supreme Court C. Comment: A commenter asserted maintained, increased, or eliminated.
decisions interpreting the statutes gat that the NRC had failed to offer No final decision has been made at this govern its operationsJ examples of the types of"non-Sunshine time. The Commission will not Act discussions" mat it contemplated discontinue its practice of keeping such holding.
records without advance notice to the
'It is worth noung that on the precise legal point in dispute here-the definfuon of a *meetms-vader the Sunshine Act-one D C. Circuit decision Response:The commenter is in error, public.
held that an agency is legally prohibited from as may be seen from the section of the F. Comment:The NRC should make interpatins the new more astricuvely than NRC's May 10,1999, document on page clear whether or not it intends that N'C.CENtItE^couri arp yInsO 24942 that begins,"Some specific discussions now held as " meetings" can examples of the kinds of topics that henceforth be held as non-Sunshine Act 1
en asency which had dopted e definition of "n=eung that included types of discussions that might be the subject of non-Sunshine discussions. The Commissionecs whose Congress had not included within the statutory Act discussio 3 would include. * * *" proposal initiated the Cormn;ssion's ecope Tim court declared that ti.e asency was Nor was this the first time that the NRC action seem to have contemplated had offered such examples,it has done transforming current " meetings" into it e e moeung inits la aus it had failed to do so, and instead included types so repeatedly, beginning in 1985.
non-Sunshine Act discussions, but the of discussions not latended by Congress to fall Indeed, the American Bar Association Commission's May 10,1999, document within the statutory scope, the esency had written task force that studied the Sunshine Act denies this intent.
quoted, with approval and at Response:The May 10,1999, indeed, we are unable to discern any reason for considerable length, the examples of document made clear that the objective Ia s
ned d
the breedih of the agency's definition of possible non Sunshine Act discussions is not to turn discussions now held as
~ meeting"-spart hem shoddy drsftsmanship.
included in a memorandum to the
" meetings" into non-Sunshine Act Commission from the NRC General discussions, but rather to enable the Commission to hold, as non. Sunshine s n o sho de ens more onerous than those specifically inspose by statute, the Counsel.
regulation et issue here is in escess of the D. Comment: A commenter asserted Act discussions, the kind of informal, Commission's miemaking discretion und r 47 that "no detailed analysis or specific preliminary, and " big picture" (J.5C 154(t)(1976) Consequently, we set it aside example has been provided of problems discussions that currently are not held u shiIe with the current rule or of the need for at all. As is sometimes the case, the final
)
c us v i a e ne cont d n th Act. ses F.2d 1264.1272 changes."
Commission action differed in this
V.
t Federal Register /V:1. 64, N2,140/ Thursday, July 22,1999/Rul;s and Regulati:ns 39395 Instance frcm the proposal that set the Response:The standards for L Comment:The NRC did not follow action in motion.
determining what is a non-Sunshine Act the recordkeeping recommendations of G. Comment:The memorandum from discussion were taken verbatim from the the American Bar Association.
two Commissioners that initiated the decision of a unanimous Supreme Response:It is true that the Commission's action said that one Court. Moreover, it is not correct to say Commission did not follow the reason to act was that the primary that the standard reggires " divination" American Bar Association's opponent of the Commission's 1985 of what will happen in a discussion.
recommendations with respect to action was no longer in Cr ngress. This Rather, what the rule envisions is that recordkeoping. However, those mggests that the Commission's action if a discussion begins to evolve from the recommondations were prudential, not was motivated by political preliminary exchange of views that the based on legal requirements. The ABA considerations, rather than actual need. Commission contemplated into recognized that as a legal matter,if a Response:The cited memorandum something so particularized that it may discussion is not a " meeting," no did indeed include an allusion to a
" effectively predetermins" agency procedural requirements apply at all.
former Representative. Read fairly and action if it continues, the Commission The Commission's May 10,1999, in its totality,it makes clear that the two will cease the discussion.2 document re!1ected a judgment that Commissioners' proposal was motivated J. Comment:Because of the special Congress would not have given agencies latitude to hold this t of discussion by concerns of good government and sensitivity and public interest in issues free of elaborate and urdensome legal correctness, not politics. At the of nuclear safety, the NRC should same time, they offered their candid continue to apply the law more procedures ifit had not viewed such view that concern about the proposal stringently than is required.
procedures as undesirable. Nonetheless, might be less intense than it had been as described in the response to Response:That argument may have Comment E above, the Commission has in 1985. There was nothing rce, but it cuts both ways. By the decided to maintain a record of the date.
s me inappropriate about making this same n,h can arg a ha die participants in, and subject rr.atter of all observation. The Commission's decision to take action with regard to the 8Pecial sensitivity and public interest in non-Sunshina Act discussions for at issues inuclear safety make it essential least the first six months in which the Sunshine Act was a reflection ofits that the Commission remove barriers to rule is implemented, and it will not longstanding efforts to increase the efficiency and collegiality, so as to discontinue the practice thereafter collegiality of the Commission process, maximize the quality of Commission without advance notice to the public.
to ensure that its procedures and decision making, and that the M. Comment: No harm could result faw,tices are in conformity with current Congret.sional balance betweenfrom holding briefings in public session.
rac and to reach closure on outstanding openness and efficiency should and doing so would benefit pubhc N '** '
therefore be alhered to strictly. The understandinbi this point. arguments H. Comment:The May 10,1999, NRC believes that the latter interest
Response
document is not clear as to s,hether should predominate.
can go either way. At the time that the there is anything in the rule that would prevent th 11 Comminion froin K. Comment: Whether or not legally Commission first put its Sunshine Act meetmg o e-record with ustifiable, the NRC's action will rules into pl;.ce, it acknowledged that representatives of a licusee or the diminish public confidence in the briefings might be exempt from the Commission-Sunshine Act's scope, but said that the Nuclear Energy Institute in non-Commission did so much of its Sunshine Act discussions.
Re8Ponse:The Commission was m ortant work in briefings that as a (e,[open to the public. This Response:The commenter's point is aware of this possibility at the time it cy matter,it believed these should i
well taken; the notice did not address issued the May 10,1999, document, but ument is this question. The Commission's intent it believes that the legal and pohey.
not insubstantial. In part fo at reason.
is that non Sunshine Act discussions reasons for its action-comphance with the Commission affirms once again what would be limited to NRC or other the Supreme Court's guidance, and the it said in its May 10,1999, document federal agency personnel, with limited expected benefits in collegiality and and earlier in this present document, exceptions for per' sons (e.g.
efficiency, make this a desirable course namely, that its objective is not to turn representatives of the regulatory body of of action.,even if-despite the discussions now held as " meetings" a foreign nation, or a state regulator)
Commission s best efforts to explam. its into non-Sunshbe Act discussions.
who would not be regulated entities or reasoning-some persons Rather, the intent is to ensure that the who could not be considered interested misunderstand or disapprove of the Commission is not categorically parties to Commission adjudicatory or Commission s action. It is also possible required to apply the Sunshine Act's rulemaking proceedings. The that the potential enhancement of rocedural requirements to every Commission is committed to collegiality anri the potential
[riefing, including such things as implementing this intent; the non.
Improvement in Commission decision-routine status updates, where the Sunshine Act discussions will not making that may result from non-benefit to the public would be small include discussions with Sunshine Act dircussions will ared to the arbninistrative burden comfoss of efficiency in doing day-to-representatives oflicensees or of ultimately increase the public's and organizations who could be considered confidence in the Commission's actions.
day business.
interested parties to NRC adjudications, in sum, the NRC believes, based on its ruI8 makings, or development of 2 Every Commissioner who meets one.on.one review of the Comments received on the guidance.
mth an interested party to e matter before the May 10,1999, document, that the I. Comment:The NRC's standards for
$*uN' Ins" $ NtEfo*'Y.I' o' general approach taken by the tt s
determining when a discussion can be impermissibt areas. u provided, for exampie by Commission in that notice remains a held as a non-Sunshine Act discussion the NRC's er pane rules Thern seems no reason desirable course of action. Accordingly, is 1,mpermissibly vague, requiring dbComn ssjonen ojd,n7,Qv.
ej. ',,
the NRC intends to implement its 1985 g
divmation on the part of the cros, in, iin..,p,, ting non. son,hin Act Sunshine Act rules and to begm, holding participants.
discussions from "meeunst" non-Sunshine Act discussions, subject
)
f 5
39396 Federal Register /Vt1. 64, N:.140/ Thursday, July 22, %99/Ruhs and Regulations 1
~
Submit comments'in intended to adequately address the to tite condition) outlined in the May AnoREssEs:
10.1999, documa, and as further triplicate to the Federal Aviation identified unsafe condition.
clarifled in the present document. 30 Administration (FAA). Transport The ISV classified this service days from the date of this notice.
Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, bulletin as mandatory and issued Dated at Rockville, Md.. this 16th day of Attention: Rules Docket No. 98-NM-Swedish airworthiness directive (SAD)
July,1999, 350-AD 1601 Lind Avenue. SW.,
No.1-132, dated October 8,1998,in For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renton, Washingto'n 98055-4056.
order to assure the continued ss OMase a$aus b a
Annette Vietti. Cook, The service information referenced in Sweden.
Secretaryof the Commission.
this AD may be obtained from Saab Aircraft AB,SAAB Aircraft Product FAA's Conclusions IFR Doc. 99-18724 Filed 7-21-99. 8.45 am)
Support. 5-581.88. Link 6 ping. Sweden.
This airplane modelis manufactured suseo caos m, This information may be examined at in Sweden and is type certificated for the FAA. Transport Airplane operation in the United States under the Directorate,1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
provisions of section 21.29 of the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Renton. Washington: or at the Office of Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Federal Avletion Administration the Federal Register. 800 North Capitol 21.19) and the applicable bilateral Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to 14 CFR Port 39 FOR FURTNER INFORMADON CONTACT:
this bilateral airworthiness agreement, fDocketNo.WW-350-AD; Amendment Norman B. Martenson, Manager, the IEV has kept the FAA informed of 39-11232: M.; s15-121 International Branch. ANM-116. FAA.
the situation described above. The FAA Transport Airplane Directorate,1601 has examined the findings of the LFV.
Lind Avenue, SW.. Renton, Washington reviewed all available information and RW 2120-AA64 Airwcrthiness Directives; Saab Model 98955-4056; telephone (425) 227-2110; determined that AD action is necessary SAAB 2000 Serks Airplanes fax (425) 227-1149.
for products of this type design that are cated for operation in the United SUPPt.EMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration. DOT.
Discussion Explanation of Requirements of the ACTION: Final rule; request for The Luftfartsverket (LFV). which is Rule comments.
the airwoithiness authority for Sweden.
Since an unsafe condition has been
SUMMARY
- This amendment adopts a notified the FAA that an unsafe identified that is likely to exist or new airworthiness directive (AD).
condition may exist on certain Saab develop on other airplanes of the same rpplicable to certain Saab Model SAAB Model SAAB 2000 mries airplanes. The type design registered in the United l
2000 series airplanes.This action LFV advises that a failure of a bushmg States, this AD is being issued to
{
requires repetitive detailed inspections of the flap support fitting occurred
[revent looseness or gap of the press fit to detect looseness or gap of the press dunng a fau,gue test. The bushmg ushing installation of the actuator fit bushing installation of the actuator installation of the flap support fitting is fittings of the aileron trim tabs. This AD fittings of the leron trim tabs, and similar to the bushag mstallation of the requires accomp'_ishment of the actions eventual replacement of the oushmgs actuator fittmgs of the aileron trim tabs.
specified in the service bulletin with new, staked buslungs.
In the event of failme of the redundant described reviously, except as Accomplishment of such replacement trim tab actuator, such a failure of the discussed blow' t:rminates the repetitive inspections.
bushing could lead to trim tab flutter This action also provides for an optional and consequent structural failure of the Differences Between this AD and t:mporary preventive action, which, if trim tab and reduced controllability of Service Bulletin accomplished, would terminate the the airplane.
Operators should note that, although the service bulletin specifies that the repetitive inspections until the
. lanation of Relevant Service terminating action is accomplished.
manufacturer may be contacted for o""*ti This amendment is prompted by disposition of a certain repair condition.
issuance of mandatoly continuing Saab has issued Service Bulletin this AD requires the repair of that airworthiness information by a foreign 2000-57-011. dated October 1,1998, condition to be accomplished in i
civil airworthiness authority.The which describes procedures for accordance with s method approved by actions specified in this AD are repetitive visual inspections to detect the FAA, or the LFV (or its delegated intended to prevent looseness or gap of looseness or gap of the press fit bushing agent).
the bushings. In the event of failure of installation of the actuation fittings of the redundant trim tab actuator, such the alleron trim tabs. In addition, the Cost Impact looseness or gap of the bushings could service bulletin describes procedures for None of the airplanes affected by this j
i lead to trim tab flutter and consequent eventual replacement of exirting action are on the U.S. Register. All structural kilure of the trim tab and bushings with new, staked bushings in airplanes included in the applicability reduced controllabihty of the airplane, the fittings. Such replacement when of this rule currently are operated by DATES: Effective August 6,1999, accomplished, eliminates the need for non-U.S. operators under foreign The incorporation by reference of the repetitive inspections. The service registry; therefore, they are not directly certain publications listed in the bulletin also describes procedures for a,n affected by this AD action. However, the regulations is approved by the Director optional temporary preventive action FAA considers that this nde is of the Federal Register as of August 6, that involves the installation of washers necessary to ensure that the unsafe on the bushings of the actuator fittings condition is addressed in the event that 1999.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules of the aileron trim tabs.
any of these subject airplanes are Docket must be received on or before Accomplishment of the actions imported and placed on the U.S.
A,ugust 23,1999, specified in the service bulletin is Register in the future.