[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70963-70964]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22698]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-549-000]

Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on September 28, 2023, Carolina Gas Transmission,
LLC (Carolina Gas), 121 Moore Hopkins Lane, Columbia, SC 29210, filed
in the above referenced docket, a prior notice requests pursuant to
sections 157.205(b) and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Carolina Gas' blanket certificate issued
in Docket No. CP06-72-000, for authorization to construct and operate
its Aiken Compressor Expansion Project (ACE Project) located in Aiken
County, South Carolina. The proposed project will allow Carolina Gas to
provide 73,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm transportation
service to three project customers. Specifically, the Project consists
of a new compressor unit at the Southern Compressor Station of 6,248
nominal horsepower and ancillary equipment, and the replacement of
approximately 0.33 miles of existing 16-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline. The estimated, cost for the project is $35,254,000, all as
more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (www.ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this request should be directed to James
Scribner, Regulatory Analyst, BHE GT&S, LLC, 10700 Energy Way, Glen
Allen, VA 23060, or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at
[email protected].

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 5, 2023.
How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\1\ any person \2\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \2\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\3\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is December 5, 2023. A protest may also
serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also
seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is December 5, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before December 5, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-549-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling

users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You
will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; first select
``General'' and then select ``Protest'', ``Intervention'', or ``Comment
on a Filing''; or \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP23-549-000.
    To file via USPS: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    To file via any other method: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected].
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: James
Scribner, Regulatory Analyst, BHE GT&S, LLC, 10700 Energy Way, Glen
Allen, VA 23060 or via email at [email protected].
    Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the
applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information
for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService
link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: October 6, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22698 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Impacts of Climate Change, Carbon Capture, and Population Growth on Water Use at Selected EPA Region V Power Stations Carol Rosenfeld, Student Research Participation Program Princeton University Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois August 6, 2004 Prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Argonne National Laboratory Student Research Participation Program under the direction of Richard Doctor in the Energy Systems Division at Argonne National Laboratory.

Participant: __________________________________________ Signature Research Advisor: __________________________________________ Signature ii Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS................................................................................................................................ 3 1. Current cooling water usage............................................................................................ 3 a) EIA data calculation ...................................................................................................... 3 b) F767 cooling water data calculation .............................................................................. 4 c) Thermodynamics equation calculation .......................................................................... 4 2. Cooling water usage today if carbon dioxide is captured ............................................... 4 3. Cooling water usage in 2050 ............................................................................................ 5 a) If global warming occurs .............................................................................................. 5 b) If global warming occurs and CO2 must be captured..................................................... 5 c) If global warming occurs, CO2 must be captured, and the population increases .......... 6 RESULTS.................................................................................................................................. 6 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................ 7 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................... 10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................... 11 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 11 TABLES AND FIGURES....................................................................................................... 13 iii ABSTRACT Impacts of Climate Change, Carbon Capture, and Population Growth on Water Use at Selected EPA Region V Power Stations. CAROL ROSENFELD ( Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, 08544) RICHARD DOCTOR ( Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 60439).

In the future, coal fired power plants may decrease carbon dioxide emissions by capturing carbon dioxide ( CO2), a process which requires power. Additionally, if the climate warms due to global warming, there will be plant efficiency losses due to rejecting heat against a higher ambient temperature. Finally, as the population grows, electricity demands will increase.

All three of these cases would require plants to produce more power ( and therefore use more water) in order to continue delivering the same net amount of power per capita to the grid. This is a concern because cooling water withdrawal and consumption have become sources of environmental degradation. Datasets from the Energy Information Administration ( EIA) were used to analyze current cooling water usage at coal fired power plants in Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) region V states with coal resources ( that is, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).

Current cooling water usage was calculated in three different ways for the purpose of comparison: one calculation was done using EIA's " Monthly Utility Power Plant Database", one calculation was done calculation using EIA's " Annual Steam Electric Plant Operation and Design Data" ( form 767), and one calculation was done using thermodynamics equations modeling the operation of a power plant. The last method allows ambient temperature changes to be incorporated into cooling water calculations. Water usage at the target plants if carbon dioxide is captured was also determined. Capturing CO2 was found to increase water consumption by 75 to 120 percent. Additionally, projections of future ( 2050) water usage as the population increases, CO2 is captured and global warming occurs were done. Climate model iv results were used to find the change in temperature between current conditions and 2050. The thermodynamics equations were then used to find the decreased plant efficiencies as a result of climate change. This set of future scenarios was found to increase water consumption by 170 to 260 percent. These results suggest that in the future water could become a major limiter of power production, even in water rich areas such as EPA region V. Meeting future electricity demands will therefore require investigating new cooling technology as well as more efficient methods of power production. INTRODUCTION American power plants generated over 3 trillion ( 3719.5 x 109) kilowatt hours ( kWh) in 2001 [ 1]. Meeting this enormous energy demand has serious consequences for the environment.

Power generation requires large amounts of natural resources, one of which is water for cooling.

The majority of plants use either once through or recirculating cooling systems. Plants that use once through cooling discharge the cooling water back into a water body where the heat diffuses and therefore ( theoretically) does not impact the overall temperature of the body so that more low temperature cooling water can be drawn from the same body. Other plants use recirculating cooling systems, where water is cooled in a cooling tower and then reused.

Cooling water withdrawals are the water withdrawn from a water body, whereas cooling water consumption is the difference between the water withdrawn and the water returned to the cooling water system or the water body. Once through systems, therefore, require large cooling water withdrawals because water exiting the condenser is simply discharged into the environment. Once through systems are usually assumed to have zero consumption, because all of the water withdrawn is discharged. Recirculating systems require much smaller water withdrawals than once through systems because only the water they consume needs to be replaced ( or made up). Consumption due to evaporation is not assumed to be zero in recirculating systems because the water remains within the system. Recirculating systems therefore consume larger amounts of water than once through systems.

There are three sources of water consumption in recirculating systems. First, water droplets are carried away with the upward current of air as they enter the cooling tower ( drift).

Second, water that escapes to the atmosphere as water vapor due to the evaporative cooling in the cooling tower must also be made up. Third, when water evaporates, impurities concentrate in 2 the remaining water, and so some water must be " blown down," meaning that some water is bled from the system and replaced with freshwater to decrease the concentration of impurities. By far the majority of the water demand at power plants is due to evaporative cooling. The net result of these water demands is that about 1.8 percent of cooling water in recirculating systems is consumed, and this is the same amount that must be made up through withdrawals [ 2].

Currently, thermoelectric power plants use so much cooling water that they have surpassed agricultural irrigation systems as the largest total water withdrawers in the United States ( thermoelectric power plants are responsible for 48 percent of total water withdrawals,

whereas irrigation is responsible for just 34 percent) [ 3]. Cooling water withdrawal and consumption have become sources of environmental degradation. Large withdrawals can affect water levels and therefore have a deleterious effect on aquatic ecosystems [ 4]. For recirculating systems, any water blown down is concentrated and pumped into injection wells, which are finite in size and not guaranteed to remain sealed. Once through systems discharge used cooling water at a higher temperature than when it was withdrawn, so that over time water sources increase in temperature, making them inhospitable to certain species or unlivable for organisms that cannot sustain the temperature fluctuations ( this is known as thermal pollution). In the end, in terms of environmental impact, choosing between once through and recirculating cooling systems mainly comes down to trading off between thermal pollution and blow down disposal.

As the population grows, power demands will increase. Power plants may also be required to decrease carbon dioxide ( CO2) emissions through carbon dioxide capture, a process which requires power. Additionally, if the climate warms due to global warming, there are small efficiency losses due to rejecting heat against a higher ambient temperature. All three of these 3 scenarios would require plants to produce more power ( and therefore use even more water) in order to continue delivering the same net amount of power per capita to the grid.

This paper will evaluate cooling water use at power stations in EPA region V, which is comprised of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and 35 Indian tribes.

Coal ( bituminous or subbituminous) is the main energy source for these power stations. To investigate the majority of the water demand, this project focused on larger ( 500 MW or more)

coal fired power plants in region V states with coal resources ( Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).

METHODS Data obtained from the Energy Information Administration's ( EIA) website was used to compile a database of power plant information. Initially, EIA's " Existing Electric Generating Units in the United States, 2003" dataset was used to find the target power plants. Three calculations involving these plants were done.

1. Current cooling water usage Current cooling water usage was calculated in three different ways for the purpose of comparison: the EIA data calculation ( a), the F767 cooling water data calculation ( b), and the thermodynamics equation calculation ( c).

a) EIA data calculation In the EIA data calculation, EIA's " Monthly Utility Power Plant Database" was used to find the efficiency of each plant based on the plant's reported electricity and heat generation.

The efficiency was then used to find the total amount of water withdrawn and consumed annually. Withdrawal and consumption rates were calculated differently depending on whether plants use once through or recirculating cooling systems. Data on the type of cooling system ( once through or recirculating) in operation at each plant was obtained from EIA's " Annual 4 Steam Electric Plant Operation and Design Data, 2002." Several plants used two types of cooling systems, so two cases were created   one where it was assumed that all plants with both types of cooling systems just had once through cooling systems, and one where it was assumed that all plants with both types of cooling systems just had recirculating cooling systems.

b) F767 cooling water data calculation In the F767 cooling water data calculation, reported cooling water withdrawal and consumption information from EIA's " Annual Steam Electric Plant Operation and Design Data,

2002" dataset ( from Form 767, or F767) was used.

c) Thermodynamics equation calculation In the thermodynamics equation calculation, monthly plant efficiencies were found using a set of thermodynamics equations. Each plant's boiler was assumed to run on the Rankine cycle with superheat. The expansion turbine was assumed to be designed to operate at 150 ° F at the average annual temperature at each plant's location. The average annual temperature was found using Legates and Wilmott's dataset of observed temperatures [ 7]. The difference between the actual observed temperatures in this dataset and the average annual temperature was added to the design temperature for the steam leaving the turbine ( 150 ° F). This allowed the impact of climatic variations on plant efficiency to be represented in the calculation. From there, the total amount of water withdrawn and consumed annually was found.

The results of these three calculation methods were then plotted against one another to check each method's accuracy and precision.

2. Cooling water usage today if carbon dioxide is captured The thermodynamics equation method of calculating cooling water usage was used as a basis for finding the cooling water usage if carbon dioxide is captured. CO2 capture was 5 assumed to require plants to derate to 103/ 150 of their previous electricity output [ 8]. The remainder of the electricity demand was assumed to be met through the construction of new plants which would also be required to capture CO2. Each new plant's parameters ( electricity and heat generation, efficiency, etc.) were assumed to be the average of these parameters from the set of target plants. All new plants were assumed to use recirculating cooling systems. To find the cooling water necessary if carbon dioxide were captured, the total amount of water withdrawn and consumed annually for the new plants was added to the previously calculated total amount of water withdrawn and consumed annually by the older ( original) plants.

3. Cooling water usage in 2050 The effects of global warming, CO2 capture, and population increases were layered on top of one another to find cooling water use for various scenarios in 2050.

a) If global warming occurs Climate model temperature projections for 2050 were obtained from five climate models.

The difference between the 2050 temperatures and the current climate was added to the design temperature for the steam leaving the turbine. From there, the method used in the thermodynamics equation calculation to find plant efficiencies was used. Cooling water withdrawals and consumption based on these efficiencies were calculated. The amount of cooling water used by the new plants needed to make up generation in order to meet demand was found. This was added to the 2050 cooling water use found for the original plants to obtain the total amount of water withdrawn and consumed annually if the climate warms.

b) If global warming occurs and CO2 must be captured As in the calculation 2, it was assumed that current plants would reduce their electricity outputs to the busbar in order to produce the energy necessary to capture CO2. The amount of 6 cooling water used by the new plants needed to make up electricity generation was found. This was added to the 2050 cooling water use found for the original plants to obtain the total amount of water withdrawn and consumed annually if the climate warms and CO2 must be captured.

c) If global warming occurs, CO2 must be captured, and the population increases Again, the same plant efficiencies were used as in the calculation of cooling water usage in 2050 with just global warming. The increase in electricity consumption due to population growth was found using the current per capita consumption of electricity in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, and linearly projecting the state populations to 2050. The number of new plants required to make up this generation was added to the number of new plants necessary to make up lost generation due to global warming and CO2 capture. The total cooling water use if global warming occurs, CO2 is captured, and the population increases was found by adding the cooling water use of the old and new plants, as above in calculations 2, 3a, and 3b.

RESULTS Table 1 lists the 41 target plants. Figure 1 shows the locations of all 41 target plants.

Figure 2 shows the relationship between the cooling water withdrawal rates found in the thermodynamics equation calculation ( 1c) and the F767 cooling water data calculation ( 1b).

Figure 3 shows the same relationship for the cooling water consumption rate. Figure 4 shows the relationship between the cooling water withdrawal rates found in the EIA data calculation ( 1a)

for just coal fired units and the F767 data calculation ( 1b). Figure 5 shows the same relationships for the cooling water consumption rate. Figure 6 shows the relationship between the cooling water withdrawal rates found in the EIA data calculation ( 1a) for all units ( not just coal fired) and the F767 data calculation ( 1b). Figure 7 shows the same relationship for the cooling water consumption rate. Figure 8 shows the relationship between the cooling water 7 withdrawal rates found in the EIA data calculation ( 1a) and the thermodynamics equation calculation ( 1c). Figure 9 shows the same relationships for the cooling water consumption rate.

Figure 10 compares the total withdrawal amounts found using the EIA data calculation ( 1a), the F767 data calculation ( 1b), and the thermodynamics equation calculation ( 1c). Figure 11 does the same for total consumption amounts.

Figure 12 shows the current total cooling water withdrawals ( from the thermodynamics equation calculation) and the current cooling water usage if CO2 is captured. Figure 13 shows the current total cooling water consumption with and without CO2 capture.

Table 2 lists the climate models used to find the 2050 temperatures and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) scenarios run by each model. Figure 14 is a plot of the efficiencies found for the target plants today versus the efficiencies calculated for the target plants in 2050 if the climate warms. Figure 15 shows the increases in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio's populations between 1980 and 2025 and the linear relationships found for this growth.

Figure 16 shows the cooling water withdrawals if global warming occurs, if global warming occurs and CO2 is captured, and if global warming occurs, CO2 is captured and the population increases. Current water withdrawals with and without CO2 capture are plotted for comparison. Figure 17 shows the same quantities for cooling water consumption.

DISCUSSION Figures 2 though 9 show the relationships between different ways of calculating the current cooling water use. Figures 8 and 9 show that the thermodynamics equation and EIA data calculations results are almost the same. Figures 2 and 3 show that there is no discernible relationship between the thermodynamics equation and F767 data calculation results. The same is true in figures 4 and 5 for the results of the EIA data calculation and F767 data calculation. 8 There are several explanations for the discrepancy between the EIA and thermodynamics calculations and the actual cooling water usage reported in the F767 dataset. The target plants are probably not discharging cooling water at a constant 25 ° F temperature increase, which the thermodynamics and EIA data calculations assume. Plants that are discharging water at a higher temperature would need less cooling water than calculated, while plants that discharge at a lower temperature would need more cooling water than calculated. Additionally, water right regulations include " use it or lose it" clauses so that, in an attempt to retain water rights, plants may be withdrawing larger amounts of cooling water than necessary.

While recirculating systems may consume more water than once through systems,

recirculating systems are preferable to once through systems. Figures 10 and 11show that withdrawals are two orders of magnitude larger than consumption in either system ( for example,

in the thermodynamics equation calculation for cooling water usage today, withdrawals were between 2.78 x 1013 lb and 4.34 x 1013 lb, whereas consumption was between 4.92 x 1011 lb and 7.77 x 1011 lb). The amount of water impacted by higher withdrawals is therefore significantly larger than the amount of water impacted by higher consumption, so the impact of once through cooling systems is greater than that of recirculating systems. Also, disposing of the blow down generated by new recirculating systems will cause less environmental damage if done properly than the increases in thermal pollution resulting from new once through cooling systems.

Figures 12 and 13 compare current cooling water withdrawals and consumption with current withdrawals and consumption if power plants were required to capture CO2. As figure 12 shows, capturing CO2 does not affect cooling water withdrawals significantly. Withdrawals only increase by between 1.35 percent ( if once through systems are preferred) and 2.11 percent ( if recirculating systems are preferred). Capturing CO2 does, however, have a large impact on 9 water consumption   figure 13 shows that capture increases consumption by between 75.4 percent ( recirculating preferred) and 119 percent ( once through preferred). This disparity in the increases of withdrawals and consumption is because the additional recirculating systems needed to cover the energy needed to achieve capture withdraw very little water compared to current withdrawals. All of the increase in withdrawal due to CO2 capture is also consumed, though, and this results in a large increase in consumption when added to current consumption ( which is relatively low because once through systems are assumed to have zero consumption).

The decrease in efficiency of the power plants due to climate change is shown in figure14. Plotting current versus future plant efficiencies if the climate warms results in a line well below a one to one relationship ( due to rejecting heat against a higher ambient temperature).

Global warming, CO2 capture, and population increases have feedbacks among one another, so that calculating their effects separately would not estimate the full impact if more than one occurs. Examining the changes in cooling water use as they are layered, however,

provides information about the relative impact of each circumstance. Figure 16 shows the increases in cooling water withdrawals as the temperature increases, CO2 is captured, and the population grows. There are only small increases in withdrawals if these scenarios occur by 2050. Withdrawals if all three events occur only increase by between 3.44 percent ( preferring once through) and 5.12 percent ( preferring recirculating). Again, this is because any extra electricity demand is made up with recirculating systems, and the additional recirculating systems withdraw very little water compared to current withdrawals. Figure 17 shows the increases in cooling water consumption under the various scenarios in 2050. It is noteworthy that temperature increases alone result in higher consumption than current levels, but lower consumption than if plants currently captured CO2. The decrease in efficiency due to climate 10 change therefore has less of an impact on consumption than the derating of the plants caused by CO2 capture. All of the increase in withdrawal due to the three events is also consumed, and, as figure 17 shows, this results in a large increase in consumption when added to current consumption. Consumption if all three events occur therefore increases by between 168 percent ( preferring recirculating) and 265 percent ( preferring once through).

CONCLUSIONS Extensions of this work should involve in depth uncertainty calculations. Calculations of future cooling water usage should also be done using maximum and minimum ( not just mean)

temperatures found by climate models. After that, future work may take several different directions. These include determining the increase in water usage if hydrogen is produced, and calculating the difference between water availability and requirements in each scenario.

As the climate warms, regulations require the capture of carbon dioxide, and the population grows, these issues promise to only become more pronounced. Moving to a hydrogen economy would add even more cooling water demands on top of current demands. The results of this project demonstrate that no matter which future scenario is examined, cooling water demand threatens to limit electricity production. Even assuming that all new plants install less water intensive recirculating cooling systems, cooling water consumption threatens to more than double in the best case and almost quadruple in the worst case. Even the water rich EPA region V will not be immune. Serious consideration should be given to the theory that water can and soon will be a limiting factor in power production across the entire United States. At the very least this encourages the installation of recirculating cooling systems on all new power plants and the replacement of old once through systems with recirculating ones. Beyond that, current cooling systems might also be made more water efficient. Desalination and water purification 11 schemes that use saline or brackish water for cooling ( and therefore reduce the use of freshwater)

could also be refined to make them more commercially viable. Additionally, other cooling technologies could be considered, such as dry cooling or the ammonia bottoming cycle [ 10].

Whatever the answer to the dilemma presented by this energy water nexus, the solution promises to increase the costs of our currently under valued electricity. There are ways to satisfy our electricity demands without overdrawing our surface waters, thermally polluting them,

leaking concentrated chemicals into aquifers through blow down disposal, or destroying aquatic life, but they require that we accurately value electricity and the natural resources that go into generating it.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am immensely grateful to Argonne National Laboratory for giving me the opportunity to participate in this summer internship. Without the help and encouragement of Matt Schiff, I would not have been at Argonne at all. Thanks to Tom Moore for all of his help, wisdom, and offers to reformat my hard drive. Last, but certainly not least, an enormous thank you to my supervisor, Richard Doctor, for his patience, for his indomitable yet informed optimism, for teaching me everything I know about the energy water nexus, and for lending me half of his library as I explored power plants and beyond this summer.

REFERENCES [ 1] U. S. Census Bureau. No. 914. Electric power industry   Sales, prices, net generation, net summer capability, and consumption of fuels: 1990 to 2001. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003. [ Online]. Available: http:// www. census. gov/ prod/ 2004pubs/ 03statab/ pop. pdf [ 2] C. B. Panchal, " Ammonia bottoming cycle for dry cooling," Argonne National Laboratory, 2003. 12 [ 3] U. S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000   Total Water Use. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. [ Online]. Available: http:// water. usgs. gov/ pubs/ circ/ 2004/ circ1268/ htdocs/ text total. htmlGS water use survey [ 4] E. Baum, " Wounded waters: The hidden side of power plant pollution," Clean Air Task Force, Boston, MA, 2004.

[ 5] R. C. Lewis, " Northeast attorneys general sue over EPA's clean water rules," Newsday. July 26, 2004. [ Online]. Available: http:// www. newsday. com/ news/ local/ wire/ ny bc ny cleanwater0726jul26,0,4073771. story? coll= ny ap regional wire [ 6] R. D. Doctor, C. D. Livengood, J. L. Anderson, D. B. Garvey, and P. S. Farber, " Coal cleaning as a sulfur reduction strategy in the Midwest," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, vol. 35, pp. 331   336, April 1985.

[ 7] D. R. Legates, and C. J. Willmott, " Mean seasonal and spatial variability in global surface air temperature," Theoretical and Applied Climatology, vol. 41, pp. 11 21. 1990.

[ 8] R. D. Doctor, J. C. Molburg, M. H. Mendelsohn, and N. F. Brockmeier, " CO2 capture for PC boilers using flue gas recirculation: Evaluation of CO2 recovery, transport, and utilization," presented at the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004.

[ 9] R. D. Doctor, J. C. Molburg, M. H. Mendelsohn, and N. F. Brockmeier, " CO2 capture for PC boilers using flue gas recirculation: Evaluation of CO2 recovery, transport, and utilization," presented at the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004.

[ 10] C. B. Panchal, " Ammonia bottoming cycle for dry cooling," Argonne National Laboratory, 2003. 13 TABLES AND FIGURES Plant ID number Plant name State Nameplate Capacity ( MW) 384 Joliet 29 IL 1320 856 E D Edwards IL 780.3 861 Coffeen IL 1005.4 867 Crawford IL 597.4 876 Kincaid Generation LLC IL 1319 879 Powerton IL 1785.6 883 Waukegan IL 802.7 884 Will County IL 1268.8 887 Joppa Steam IL 1099.8 889 Baldwin Energy Complex IL 1892.1 898 Wood River IL 500.1 981 State Line Energy IN 613 983 Clifty Creek IN 1303.2 988 Tanners Creek IN 1100.1 990 Harding Street IN 698 994 AES Petersburg IN 1872.9 995 Bailly IN 615.6 997 Michigan City IN 540 1001 Cayuga IN 1062 1008 R Gallagher IN 600 1010 Wabash River IN 1164.7 2828 Cardinal OH 1880.4 2830 Walter C Beckjord OH 1221.3 2832 Miami Fort OH 1378 2836 Avon Lake OH 766 2837 Eastlake OH 1257 2840 Conesville OH 2174.8 2850 J M Stuart OH 2440.8 2866 W H Sammis OH 2455.6 2872 Muskingum River OH 1529.4 2876 Kyger Creek OH 1086 6017 Newton IL 1234.8 6019 W H Zimmer OH 1425.6 6031 Killen Station OH 666.4 6085 R M Schahfer IN 1943.3 6113 Gibson IN 3339.5 6137 A B Brown IN 530.4 6166 Rockport IN 2600 6213 Merom IN 1080 6705 Warrick IN 755 8102 General James M Gavin OH 2600 Table 1: Target set of power plants and their nameplate capacities. These are plants located in Illinois, Indiana, or Ohio, that burn bituminous or subbituminous coal, and whose coal burning units have a generating capacity of 500 MW of electricity or more. 14 Figure 1: Locations of the 41 target plants. 15 Figure 2: Relationship between withdrawal rates found using the thermodynamics equation calculation and the F767 cooling water data calculation.

Figure 3: Relationship between consumption rates found using the thermodynamics equation calculation and the F767 cooling water data calculation. Withdrawal rates  Thermodynamics equation calculation vs. F767 data calculation y = 0.7995x + 1E+ 08 y = 0.5682x + 1E+ 08 y = x 0.00E+ 00 5.00E+ 07 1.00E+ 08 1.50E+ 08 2.00E+ 08 2.50E+ 08 3.00E+ 08 3.50E+ 08 4.00E+ 08 4.50E+ 08 5.00E+ 08 0.00E+ 00 5.00E+ 07 1.00E+ 08 1.50E+ 08 2.00E+ 08 2.50E+ 08 3.00E+ 08 3.50E+ 08 4.00E+ 08 4.50E+ 08 Yearly averages of thermodynamics equation calculations ( lb/ hr) F767 data calculation ( lb/ hr)

Preferring recirculating Preferring once through 1: 1 line Linear ( Preferring recirculating)

Linear ( Preferring once through)

Linear ( 1: 1 line)

Consumption rates  Thermodynamics equation calculation vs. F767 data calculation y = 0.8199x + 804876 y = 0.709x + 2E+ 06 y = x 0.00E+ 00 2.00E+ 06 4.00E+ 06 6.00E+ 06 8.00E+ 06 1.00E+ 07 1.20E+ 07 1.40E+ 07 1.60E+ 07 0.00E+ 00 2.00E+ 06 4.00E+ 06 6.00E+ 06 8.00E+ 06 1.00E+ 07 1.20E+ 07 Yearly averages of thermodynamics equation calculations ( lb/ hr) F767 data calculation ( lb/ hr) Preferring recirculating Preferring once through 1: 1 line Linear ( Preferring recirculating)

Linear ( Preferring once through)

Linear ( 1: 1 line) 16 Figure 4: Relationship between withdrawal rates found using the EIA data calculation ( just for coal fired units) and the F767 cooling water data calculation.

Figure 5: Relationship between consumption rates found using the thermodynamics equation calculation ( just for coal fired units) and the F767 cooling water data calculation. Withdrawal rates  EIA data calculations ( just coal units) vs. F767 data calculation y = 0.8596x + 1E+ 08 y = 0.6205x + 1E+ 08 y = x 0.00E+ 00 5.00E+ 07 1.00E+ 08 1.50E+ 08 2.00E+ 08 2.50E+ 08 3.00E+ 08 3.50E+ 08 4.00E+ 08 4.50E+ 08 5.00E+ 08 0.00E+ 00 5.00E+ 07 1.00E+ 08 1.50E+ 08 2.00E+ 08 2.50E+ 08 3.00E+ 08 3.50E+ 08 4.00E+ 08 Yearly averages of EIA data calculations ( lb/ hr) F767 data calculation ( lb/ hr)

Preferring recirculating Preferring once through 1: 1 line Linear ( Preferring recirculating) Linear ( Preferring once through) Linear ( 1: 1 line)

Consumption rates  EIA data calculations ( just coal units) vs. F767 data calculation y = 0.8799x + 813776 y = 0.7551x + 2E+ 06 y = x 0.00E+ 00 2.00E+ 06 4.00E+ 06 6.00E+ 06 8.00E+ 06 1.00E+ 07 1.20E+ 07 1.40E+ 07 1.60E+ 07 0.00E+ 00 1.00E+ 06 2.00E+ 06 3.00E+ 06 4.00E+ 06 5.00E+ 06 6.00E+ 06 7.00E+ 06 8.00E+ 06 9.00E+ 06 1.00E+ 07 Yearly averages of EIA data calculations ( lb/ hr) F767 data calculation ( lb/ hr) Preferring recirculating Preferring once through 1: 1 line Linear ( Preferring recirculating) Linear ( Preferring once through) Linear ( 1: 1 line) 17 Figure 6: Relationship between withdrawal rates found using the EIA data calculation for all units and the F767 cooling water data calculation.

Figure 7: Relationship between consumption rates found using the EIA data calculation for all units and the F767 cooling water data calculation Withdrawal rates  EIA data calculations ( all units) vs. F767 data calculation y = 0.848x + 1E+ 08 y = 0.6178x + 1E+ 08 y = x 0.00E+ 00 5.00E+ 07 1.00E+ 08 1.50E+ 08 2.00E+ 08 2.50E+ 08 3.00E+ 08 3.50E+ 08 4.00E+ 08 4.50E+ 08 5.00E+ 08 0.00E+ 00 5.00E+ 07 1.00E+ 08 1.50E+ 08 2.00E+ 08 2.50E+ 08 3.00E+ 08 3.50E+ 08 4.00E+ 08 Yearly averages of EIA data calculations ( lb/ hr) F767 data calculation ( lb/ hr)

Preferring recirculating Preferring once through 1: 1 line Linear ( Preferring recirculating) Linear ( Preferring once through) Linear ( 1: 1 line)

Consumption rates  EIA data calculation ( all units) vs. F767 data calculation y = 0.8789x + 812866 y = 0.7547x + 2E+ 06 y = x 0.00E+ 00 2.00E+ 06 4.00E+ 06 6.00E+ 06 8.00E+ 06 1.00E+ 07 1.20E+ 07 1.40E+ 07 1.60E+ 07 0.00E+ 00 1.00E+ 06 2.00E+ 06 3.00E+ 06 4.00E+ 06 5.00E+ 06 6.00E+ 06 7.00E+ 06 8.00E+ 06 9.00E+ 06 1.00E+ 07 Yearly averages of EIA data calculations ( lb/ hr) F767 data calculation ( lb/ hr) Preferring recirculating Preferring once through 1: 1 line Linear ( Preferring recirculating) Linear ( Preferring once through) Linear ( 1: 1 line) 18 Figure 8: Relationship between withdrawal rates found using the EIA data calculation and the thermodynamics equation calculation Figure 9: Relationship between withdrawal rates found using the EIA data calculation and the thermodynamics equation calculation Withdrawal rates  EIA data calculations vs. thermodynamics equation calculations 0.00E+ 00 5.00E+ 07 1.00E+ 08 1.50E+ 08 2.00E+ 08 2.50E+ 08 3.00E+ 08 3.50E+ 08 4.00E+ 08 4.50E+ 08 0.00E+ 00 5.00E+ 07 1.00E+ 08 1.50E+ 08 2.00E+ 08 2.50E+ 08 3.00E+ 08 3.50E+ 08 4.00E+ 08 4.50E+ 08 EIA data calculations ( lb/ hr) Thermodynamics equation calculations ( lb/ hr)

Preferring recirculating Preferring once through 1: 1 line Linear ( 1: 1 line)

Consumption rates  EIA data calculations vs. thermodynamics equation calculations 0.00E+ 00 2.00E+ 06 4.00E+ 06 6.00E+ 06 8.00E+ 06 1.00E+ 07 1.20E+ 07 0.00E+ 00 2.00E+ 06 4.00E+ 06 6.00E+ 06 8.00E+ 06 1.00E+ 07 1.20E+ 07 EIA data calculations ( lb/ hr) Thermodynamics equation calculations ( lb/ hr)

Preferring recirculating Preferring once through 1: 1 line Linear ( 1: 1 line) 19 Figure 10: Comparison of the total withdrawal amounts found using the EIA data calculation, the F767 cooling water data calculation, and the thermodynamics equation calculation Figure 11: Comparison of the total consumption amounts found using the EIA data calculation, the F767 cooling water data calculation, and the thermodynamics equation calculation Comparison of current withdrawal calculations EIA withdrawals ( OT), 3.90E+ 13 Thermo withdrawals ( OT), 4.34E+ 13 EIA withdrawals ( recirc), 2.52E+ 13 Thermo withdrawals ( recirc), 2.78E+ 13 F767 withdrawals, 5.93E+ 13 0 1E+ 13 2E+ 13 3E+ 13 4E+ 13 5E+ 13 6E+ 13 7E+ 13 1 Total withdrawals ( lb)

EIA withdrawals ( OT)

Thermo withdrawals ( OT)

EIA withdrawals ( recirc)

Thermo withdrawals ( recirc)

F767 withdrawals " recirc" = preferring recirculating cooling systems " OT" = preferring once through cooling systems Comparison of current consumption calculations EIA consumption ( OT), 4.59E+ 11 Thermo consumption ( OT), 4.92E+ 11 EIA consumption ( recirc), 7.12E+ 11 Thermo consumption ( recirc), 7.77E+ 11 F767 consumption, 8.58E+ 11 0 1E+ 11 2E+ 11 3E+ 11 4E+ 11 5E+ 11 6E+ 11 7E+ 11 8E+ 11 9E+ 11 1E+ 12 1 Total consumption ( lb)

EIA consumption ( OT)

Thermo consumption ( OT)

EIA consumption ( recirc)

Thermo consumption ( recirc)

F767 consumption " recirc" = preferring recirculating cooling systems " OT" = preferring once through cooling systems 20 Figure 12: Comparison of the current withdrawals found with and without CO2 capture Figure 13: Comparison of the current consumption found with and without CO2 capture Comparison of withdrawal calculations with and without CO2 capture Withdrawals ( OT), 4.34E+ 13 Withdrawals with CO2 capture ( OT), 4.40E+ 13 Withdrawals ( recirc), 2.78E+ 13 Withdrawals with CO2 capture ( recirc), 2.84E+ 13 0 5E+ 12 1E+ 13 2E+ 13 2E+ 13 3E+ 13 3E+ 13 4E+ 13 4E+ 13 5E+ 13 5E+ 13 1 Total withdrawals ( lb) Withdrawals ( OT)

Withdrawals with CO2 capture ( OT)

Withdrawals ( recirc)

Withdrawals with CO2 capture ( recirc)

" recirc" = preferring recirculating cooling systems " OT" = preferring once through cooling systems Comparison of consumption calculations with and without CO2 capture Consumption ( OT), 4.92E+ 11 Consumption ( recirc), 7.77E+ 11 Consumption with CO2 capture ( OT), 1.08E+ 12 Consumption with CO2 capture ( recirc), 1.36E+ 12 0 2E+ 11 4E+ 11 6E+ 11 8E+ 11 1E+ 12 1.2E+ 12 1.4E+ 12 1.6E+ 12 1 Total consumption ( lb) Consumption ( OT)

Consumption ( recirc)

Consumption with CO2 capture ( OT)

Consumption with CO2 capture ( recirc)

" recirc" = preferring recirculating cooling systems " OT" = preferring once through cooling systems 21 Model source Model Scenarios run Center for Climate System Research and the National Institute for Environmental Studies CCSRNIES A1a A1T A1F B1a A2a B2a Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis CGCM1 A2a B2a Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation CSIRO Mk2 A1a B1a A2a B2a Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory GFDL R30 A2a B2a Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research HADCM3 A1F A2a A2b A2c B1 B2a B2b Table 2: Climate models used to find mean 2050 temperatures and the IPCC scenarios run by each of the models 22 Figure 14: Efficiencies found for target plants today versus the efficiencies found for the target plants in 2050 Figure 15: Population growth in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio from 1980 to 2025 ( projected) and the linear relationships for this growth Comparison of efficiencies currently and if climate warms y = x 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 29.9 30 30.1 29.6 29.65 29.7 29.75 29.8 29.85 29.9 29.95 30 30.05 30.1 Current efficiencies (%) Efficiencies if climate warms (%) JAN Efficiency FEB Efficiency MAR Efficiency APR Efficiency MAY Efficiency JUN Efficiency JUL Efficiency AUG Efficiency SEP Efficiency OCT Efficiency NOV Efficiency DEC Efficiency 1: 1 line Linear ( 1: 1 line)

Population growth in IL, IN, and OH, 1980  2025 y = 25.857x + 5502.4 R 2 = 0.9137 y = 22.193x + 10851 R2 = 0.8824 y = 45.685x + 11371 R 2 = 0.8868 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1980 Population ( thousands)

Illinois Indiana Ohio Linear ( Indiana)

Linear ( Ohio)

Linear ( Illinois) 23 Figure 16: Cooling water withdrawals if global warming occurs, if global warming occurs and CO2 must be captured, and if global warming occurs, CO2 must be captured, and the population grows. Current withdrawals with and without CO2 capture are plotted for comparison.

Figure 17: Cooling water consumption if global warming occurs, if global warming occurs and CO2 must be captured, and if global warming occurs, CO2 must be captured, and the population grows. Current consumption with and without CO2 capture are plotted for comparison. Comparison of future withdrawal calculations Current withdrawals ( OT), 4.34E+ 13 Current withdrawals with CO2 ( OT), 4.40E+ 13 Temp withdrawals ( OT), 4.38E+ 13 Temp, CO2 withdrawals ( OT), 4.45E+ 13 Temp, CO2, pop withdrawals ( OT), 4.49E+ 13 Current withdrawals ( recirc), 2.78E+ 13 Current withdrawals with CO2 ( recirc), 2.84E+ 13 Temp withdrawals ( recirc), 2.82E+ 13 Temp, CO2 withdrawals ( recirc), 2.88E+ 13 Temp, CO2, pop withdrawals ( recirc), 2.92E+ 13 0 5E+ 12 1E+ 13 2E+ 13 2E+ 13 3E+ 13 3E+ 13 4E+ 13 4E+ 13 5E+ 13 5E+ 13 1 Total withdrawals ( lb) Current withdrawals ( OT)

Current withdrawals with CO2 ( OT)

Temp withdrawals ( OT)

Temp, CO2 withdrawals ( OT)

Temp, CO2, pop withdrawals ( OT)

Current withdrawals ( recirc)

Current withdrawals with CO2 " recirc" = preferring recirculating cooling systems " OT" = preferring once through cooling systems Comparison of future consumption calculations Current consumption ( OT), 4.92E+ 11 Current consumption with CO2 ( OT), 1.08E+ 12 Temp consumption ( OT), 7.11E+ 11 Temp, CO2 consumption ( OT), 1.39E+ 12 Temp, CO2, pop consumption ( OT), 1.79E+ 12 Current consumption ( recirc), 7.77E+ 11 Current consumption with CO2 ( recirc), 1.36E+ 12 Temp consumption ( recirc), 9.97E+ 11 Temp, CO2 consumption ( recirc), 1.68E+ 12 Temp, CO2, pop consumption ( recirc), 2.08E+ 12 0 5E+ 11 1E+ 12 1.5E+ 12 2E+ 12 2.5E+ 12 1 Total consumption ( lb) Current consumption ( OT)

Current consumption with CO2 ( OT)

Temp consumption ( OT)

Temp, CO2 consumption ( OT)

Temp, CO2, pop consumption ( OT)

Current consumption ( recirc)

Current consumption with CO2 ( recirc)

Temp consumption ( recirc)

Temp, CO2 consumption ( recirc)

Temp, CO2, pop consumption ( recirc)

" recirc" = preferring recirculating cooling systems " OT" = preferring once through cooling systems


[Federal Register: August 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 156)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49370-49375]
[DOCID:fr13au10-6]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0281; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-184-AD;
Amendment 39-16390; AD 2010-16-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and
F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes
(Collectively Called A300-600 series airplanes); and A310 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Surface defects were visually detected on the rudder of an
[Airbus] A319 and an A321 in-service aeroplane. Investigation has
determined that the defects reported on both rudders corresponded to
areas that had been reworked in production. The investigation
confirmed that the defects were the result of de-bonding between the
skin and honeycomb core. Such reworks were also performed on some
rudders fitted on A310 and A300-600 aeroplanes.
    An extended de-bonding, if not detected and corrected, may
degrade the structural integrity of the rudder. The loss of the
rudder leads to degradation of the handling qualities and reduces
the controllability of the aeroplane.
* * * * *

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 17, 2010. The Director of
the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of September 17, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2010 (75 FR
16685). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Surface defects were visually detected on the rudder of an
[Airbus] A319 and an A321 in-service aeroplane. Investigation has
determined that the defects reported on both rudders corresponded to
areas that had been reworked in production. The investigation
confirmed that the defects were the result of de-bonding between the
skin and honeycomb core. Such reworks were also performed on some
rudders fitted on A310 and A300-600 aeroplanes.
    An extended de-bonding, if not detected and corrected, may
degrade the structural integrity of the rudder. The loss of the
rudder leads to degradation of the handling qualities and reduces
the controllability of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition [this EASA AD] requires
inspections of specific areas and, depending on findings, the
application of corrective actions for those rudders where production
reworks have been identified.
    This * * * [EASA] AD * * * [also] requires for the vacuum loss
hole restoration:

--A local ultrasonic inspection for reinforced area instead of the
local thermographic inspection, which is maintained for non-
reinforced areas, and
--additional work performance for rudders on which this
thermographic inspection has been performed in the reinforced area.

The inspections include vacuum loss inspections and elasticity laminate
checker inspections for defects including de-bonding between the skin
and honeycomb core of the rudder, and ultrasonic inspections for
rudders on which temporary restoration with resin or permanent vacuum
loss hole restoration has been performed. The corrective action is
contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions and doing the
repair. We are considering similar rulemaking action on Model A319 and
A321 airplanes. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received. FedEx comments that the
proposed compliance times fit within their planned scheduled
maintenance check.

Request for Clarification Regarding the Requirement To Contact Airbus
for New Instructions for Rudders Installed on Other Airplanes

    American Airlines requests clarification concerning the requirement
to contact Airbus for new instructions if rudders are installed on
other airplanes. American Airlines states that the NPRM identifies
rudders by rudder serial number only and does not require verification
of airplane serial number; however, Airbus All Operators Telexes (AOT)
A310-55A2048 and A300-55A6047, both Revision 02, both dated October 12,
2009, request contacting Airbus for additional instructions for an
affected rudder if the data in Table 1 of the referenced Technical
Disposition TD/K4/S1/27583/2009, Issue E, does not match the airplane.
American Airlines states that since the rudder is a removable
structural component, it may be moved to a new airplane. American
Airlines states that since inspections are required only on the rudder,
they agree with the NPRM to not include the airplane serial numbers in
Table 1 of the NPRM as there is no value in obtaining new instructions
simply because the rudder has been installed on a different airplane.
    We agree that clarification is needed to explain the requirement
described previously. In the NPRM, we referred to the Airbus AOTs for
accomplishment of the inspections. We have added notes to paragraphs
(g) and (h) of this AD to state that verification of the airplane
serial numbers is not required.

Request To Change Compliance Time

    American Airlines requests that the compliance time for the initial
inspections (specified in the NPRM as ``within 8 months of the
effective date of the AD'') be revised to represent 8 months in-service
time. American Airlines' fleet of Model A300-600 series airplanes has
been retired from active service and is in long-term storage. American
Airlines states that previous investigations of the Model A300-600/A310
series airplanes rudders suggest that disbonding damage grows under
vacuum air-ground cycling and that a previous study on a Model A310
airplane had shown no reduction in stiffness due to age. American
Airlines suggests that it is unlikely that additional disbonding or
degradation will occur on the affected rudders in storage, therefore
requests that the compliance time represent 8 months in-service time.
American Airlines states that this will allow for more efficient
planning and will relieve the burden of obtaining special flight
permits to move re-activated airplanes to facilities where the
inspections are to be performed.
    We agree to revise the proposed compliance time for the reason
stated by the commenter. We have added a compliance time of within 840
flight hours after the effective date of this AD to paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), (g)(4), (g)(6), (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(4), and (h)(6) of this AD.
We have determined that 840 flight hours represents approximately 8
months given average utilization.

Request To Include Costs of Special Equipment

    American Airlines requests that the cost of the elasticity laminate
checker and the vacuum loss inspection equipment be included in the
proposed cost estimate. American Airlines considers the equipment for
both inspections to be special tooling and the inspection methods to be
of limited application.
    We agree that the cost of this special equipment should be included
in the cost estimate specified in this AD. The Cost Estimate section of
the final rule has been changed accordingly.

Request To Remove Reporting Requirement for Negative Responses

    American Airlines requests that the reporting requirement for a
negative response be removed from the NPRM. American Airlines states
that Airbus All Operators Telexes A310-55A2048 and A300-55A6047, both
Revision 02, both dated October 12, 2009, request reporting both
positive and negative findings. American Airlines states that reporting
negative findings has no effect on airplane safety and merely adds
administrative burden to the operator, which could create compliance
issues due to delays in the processing of paperwork.
    We agree that negative responses need not be reported. We have
removed the requirement to report if no defects are found from this AD
(paragraphs (g)(11) and (h)(11) of the NPRM specified reporting if no
defects are found).

Change to Cost of Compliance

    We have revised the Costs of Compliance section of this AD. The
work-hour estimate has been changed from 4 work-hours to 12 work-hours
to match the work-hours specified in the service information, which
increases the costs accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously.

We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden
on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 194 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 12 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Tooling costs for each operator will cost about
$24,602. There are three affected US operators. Based on these figures,
we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $197,880,
or $1,020 per product, plus the tooling costs of $24,602 for each
operator.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-16-13 Airbus: Amendment 39-16390. Docket No. FAA-2010-0281;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-184-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective
September 17, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620,
B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F
airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324,
and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category; equipped with
carbon fiber reinforced plastic rudders having part numbers and
serial numbers listed in Table 1 of this AD.

                       Table 1--Rudder Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Affected
             Rudder part No.              rudder  Serial   Core density
                                                No.          24kg/m\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A554-71500-016-91.......................         HF-1017            Yes.
A554-71500-016-91.......................         HF-1020             No.
A554-71500-016-91.......................         HF-1059             No.
A554-71500-016-91.......................         HF-1061             No.
A554-71500-016-91.......................         HF-1064             No.
A554-71500-014-00.......................         HF-1087            Yes.
A554-71500-014-00.......................         HF-1119            Yes.
A554-71500-016-00.......................         HF-1189            Yes.
A554-71500-016-00.......................         HF-1203            Yes.
A554-71500-016-00.......................         HF-1266            Yes.
A554-71500-026-00.......................         TS-1405             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2001             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2004             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2007             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2009             No.

A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2011             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2012             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2013             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2014             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2016             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2017             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2018             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2020             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2021             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2022             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2024             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2025             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2026             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2028             No.
A554-71710-000-00.......................         TS-2029             No.
A554-71710-002-00.......................         TS-2031             No.
A554-71710-002-00.......................         TS-2032             No.
A554-71710-002-00.......................         TS-2035             No.
A554-71710-002-00.......................         TS-2040             No.
A554-71710-002-00.......................         TS-2041             No.
A554-71710-002-00.......................         TS-2044             No.
A554-71710-002-00.......................         TS-2046             No.
A554-71710-004-00.......................         TS-2050             No.
A554-71710-004-00.......................         TS-2056             No.
A554-71710-004-00.......................         TS-2058             No.
A554-71710-004-00.......................         TS-2060             No.
A554-71710-004-00.......................         TS-2062             No.
A554-71710-004-00.......................         TS-2065             No.
A554-71710-004-00.......................         TS-2066             No.
A554-71710-004-00.......................         TS-2074             No.
A554-71710-004-00.......................         TS-2075             No.
A554-71710-004-00.......................         TS-2076             No.
A554-71710-004-00.......................         TS-2079             No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55:
Stabilizers.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Surface defects were visually detected on the rudder of an
[Airbus] A319 and an A321 in-service aeroplane. Investigation has
determined that the defects reported on both rudders corresponded to
areas that had been reworked in production. The investigation
confirmed that the defects were the result of de-bonding between the
skin and honeycomb core. Such reworks were also performed on some
rudders fitted on A310 and A300-600 aeroplanes.
    An extended de-bonding, if not detected and corrected, may
degrade the structural integrity of the rudder. The loss of the
rudder leads to degradation of the handling qualities and reduces
the controllability of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition [this EASA AD] requires
inspections of specific areas and, depending on findings, the
application of corrective actions for those rudders where production
reworks have been identified. This * * * [EASA] AD * * * [also]
requires for the vacuum loss hole restoration:

--A local ultrasonic inspection for reinforced area instead of the
local thermographic inspection, which is maintained for non-
reinforced areas, and
--Additional work performance for rudders on which this
thermographic inspection has been performed in the reinforced area.

The inspections include vacuum loss inspections and elasticity
laminate checker inspections for defects including de-bonding
between the skin and honeycomb core of the rudder, and ultrasonic
inspections for rudders on which temporary restoration with resin or
permanent vacuum loss hole restoration has been performed. The
corrective action is contacting the manufacturer for repair
instructions and doing the repair. We are considering similar
rulemaking action on Model A319 and A321 airplanes.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions and Compliance

    (g) For rudders with a honeycomb core density of 24 kg/m\3\, as
identified in Table 1 of this AD, do the actions required in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(10) of this AD, in accordance with
Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A310-55A2048 or A300-55A6047, both
Revision 02, both dated October 12, 2009, as applicable.

    Note 1: Verification of the airplane serial numbers is not
required.

    (1) In the reinforced location: Within 8 months or 840 flight
hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
do a vacuum loss inspection to detect defects including de-bonding.
    (2) In the trailing edge location: Within 24 months or 840
flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later, do an elasticity laminate checker inspection to detect
defects including de-bonding.
    (3) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this
AD two times at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles, but not
fewer than 4,000 flight cycles from the last inspection.
    (4) In other locations (lower rib/upper edge/leading edge/other
locations): Within 8 months or 840 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do an elasticity laminate
checker inspection to detect defects including de-bonding.
    (5) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g)(4) of this
AD at intervals not to exceed 8 months from the last inspection.
    (6) Within 24 months or 840 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a vacuum loss inspection
on the other locations (lower rib/upper edge/leading edge/other
locations) to detect defects including de-bonding.
    (7) Accomplishment of the inspection required by paragraph
(g)(6) of this AD

terminates the initial and repetitive inspections required by
paragraphs (g)(4) and (g)(5) of this AD.
    (8) If any defect is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(4), or (g)(6) of this AD, before
further flight, contact Airbus for repair instructions and do the
repair.
    (9) If no defects are found during any inspection required by
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(6) of this AD, before further flight,
restore the vacuum loss holes with temporary restoration with self-
adhesive patches, temporary restoration with resin, or permanent
restoration with resin and surface protection, and repeat the
inspection required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD at intervals not
to exceed 4,500 flight cycles until permanent restoration is
completed.
    (10) If any defect is found during any inspection required by
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(4), and (g)(6) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(10)(i) or (g)(10)(ii) of
this AD: Report the inspection results to Airbus SAS, SEER1/SEER2/
SEER3, Customer Services, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; fax +33 (0) 5 61 93 28 73; or e-mail to

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    (i) Inspections done before the effective date of this AD:
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) Inspections done on or after the effective date of this AD:
Within 30 days after accomplishment of the inspection.
    (h) For rudders not having a honeycomb core density of 24 kg/
m\3\, as identified in Table 1 of this AD, do the actions required
in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(10) of this AD, in accordance with
Airbus AOT A310-55A2048 or AOT A300-55A6047, both Revision 02, both
dated October 12, 2009, as applicable.

    Note 2: Verification of the airplane serial numbers is not
required.

    (1) In the reinforced location: Within 8 months after the rudder
has accumulated 13,000 flight cycles since first installation, or
within 8 months after the effective date of this AD, or within 840
flight hours after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs
latest, do a vacuum loss inspection to detect defects including de-
bonding.
    (2) In the trailing edge location: Within 24 months after the
rudder has accumulated 13,000 flight cycles since first
installation, or within 24 months after the effective date of this
AD, or within 840 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs latest, do an elasticity laminate checker
inspection to detect defects including de-bonding.
    (3) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this
AD two times at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles, but not
fewer than 4,000 flight cycles from the last inspection.
    (4) In other locations (lower rib/upper edge/leading edge/other
locations): Within 8 months after the rudder has accumulated 13,000
flight cycles since first installation, or within 8 months after the
effective date of this AD, or within 840 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest; do an elasticity
laminate checker inspection to detect defects including de-bonding.
    (5) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (h)(4) of this
AD at intervals not to exceed 8 months from the last inspection.
    (6) Within 24 months after the rudder has accumulated 13,000
flight cycles since first installation, or within 24 months after
the effective date of this AD, or within 840 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest, do a vacuum loss
inspection on the other locations (lower rib/upper edge/leading
edge/other location) to detect defects including de-bonding.
    (7) Accomplishment of the inspection required by paragraph
(h)(6) of this AD terminates the initial and repetitive inspections
required by paragraphs (h)(4) and (h)(5) of this AD.
    (8) If any defect is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(4), or (h)(6) of this AD, before
further flight, contact Airbus for repair instructions and do the
repair.
    (9) If no defects are found during the inspections required by
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(6) of this AD, before further flight,
restore the vacuum loss holes with the temporary restoration with
self adhesive patches, temporary restoration with resin, or
permanent restoration with resin and surface protection, and repeat
the inspection required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD at intervals
not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles until permanent restoration is
completed.
    (10) If any defect is found during any inspection required by
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(4), and (h)(6) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(10)(i) or (h)(10)(ii) of
this AD: Report the inspection results to Airbus SAS, SEER1/SEER2/
SEER3, Customer Services, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; fax +33 (0) 5 61 93 28 73; or e-mail to

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    (i) Inspections done before the effective date of this AD:
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) Inspections done on or after the effective date of this AD:
Within 30 days after accomplishment of the inspection.
    (i) Actions done before the effective date of this AD, in
accordance with the service information listed in Table 2 of this
AD, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for the areas inspected, for any
rudder listed in Table 1 of this AD.
    (j) Additional areas requiring inspection for all airplanes are
defined in Airbus AOT A310-55A2048 or AOT A300-55A6047, both
Revision 02, both dated October 12, 2009, as applicable. For these
additional areas, do the actions required in paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this AD, as applicable, at the times specified in those
paragraphs. For all areas, do the repetitive inspections required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD as applicable at the times
specified in those paragraphs.

                   Table 2--Credit Service Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Airbus AOT--             Revision--             Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300-55A6047.................  Original.......  May 11, 2009.
A300-55A6047.................  01.............  July 8, 2009.
A310-55A2048.................  Original.......  May 11, 2009.
A310-55A2048.................  01.............  July 8, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (k) For rudders on which temporary restoration with resin or
permanent vacuum loss hole restoration has been done in accordance
with the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 2 of this
AD, as required in paragraph (g)(9) or (h)(9) of this AD, before the
effective date of this AD: Within 4,500 flight cycles from the
restoration date, do an ultrasonic inspection for defects, including
debonding of the reinforced area, in accordance with Airbus AOT
A310-55A2048 or AOT A300-55A6047, both Revision 02, both dated
October 12, 2009, as applicable. If any defect is found, before
further flight, contact Airbus for repair instructions and do the
repair.
    (l) After the effective date of this AD, no person may install
any rudder listed in Table 1 of this AD on any airplane, unless the
rudder has been inspected and all applicable corrective actions have
been done in accordance with paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (m) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (n) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2010-0002, dated January 5, 2010; Airbus AOT
A310-55A2048, Revision 02, dated October 12, 2009; and Airbus AOT
A300-55A6047, Revision 02, dated October 12, 2009; for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (o) You must use Airbus All Operators Telex A300-55A6047,
Revision 02, dated October 12, 2009; or Airbus All Operators Telex
A310-55A2048, Revision 02, dated October 12, 2009; as applicable; to
do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise. (The document number, revision level, and date appear
only on page 1 of the AOTs; no other page of these documents
contains this information)
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.airbus.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 28, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19327 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21613-21614]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08441]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0967]

Prescription Drug User Fee Act Patient-Focused Drug Development;
Announcement of Disease Areas for Meetings Conducted in Fiscal Years
2013-2015

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
selection of disease areas to be addressed during the first 3 years of
Patient-Focused Drug Development. This 5-year initiative is being
conducted to fulfill FDA's performance commitments made as part of the
fifth authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V). It
provides a more systematic approach for the Agency to obtain patients'
input on specific disease areas, including their perspectives on their
condition, its impact on daily life, and available therapies. FDA
selected these disease areas based on a set of selection criteria, the
perspectives of the reviewing divisions at FDA, and the public input
received on a preliminary set of disease areas published in the Federal
Register on September 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The general schedule of fiscal years (FY) 2013-2015 meetings
concerning Patient-Focused Drug Development, information on how
stakeholders can prepare for them, and information on how stakeholders
may leverage Patient-Focused Drug Development to generate input on
disease areas that are not addressed through the PDUFA V commitments
can be found at the Web site for Patient-Focused Drug Development:
http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm326192.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Graham Thompson, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 1199, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
5003, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Stephen
Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and
Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD
20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 9, 2012, the President signed into law the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144).
Title I of FDASIA reauthorizes the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
(PDUFA), which provides FDA with the necessary user fee resources to
maintain an efficient review process for human drug and biologic
products. The reauthorization of PDUFA includes performance goals and
procedures that represent FDA's commitments during FY 2013-2017. These
commitments are referred to in section 101 of FDASIA and are available
on the FDA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM270412.pdf.
    Section X of these commitments relates to enhancing benefit-risk
assessment in regulatory decision-making. A key part of regulatory
decision-making is establishing the context in which the particular
decision is made. For purposes of drug marketing approval, this
includes an understanding of the severity of the treated condition and
the adequacy of the available therapies. Patients who live with a
disease have a direct stake in the outcome of FDA's decisions and are
in a unique position to contribute to the understanding of their
disease.
    FDA has committed to obtain the patient perspective on 20 disease
areas during the course of PDUFA V. For each disease area, the Agency
will conduct a public meeting to discuss the disease and its impact on
patients' daily lives, the types of treatment benefit that matter most
to patients, and patients' perspectives on the adequacy of available
therapies. These meetings will include participation of FDA review
divisions, the relevant patient community, and other interested
stakeholders.

II. Disease Area Selection

    On September 24, 2012, FDA published a Federal Register notice (77
FR 58849) that announced an opportunity for public comment on potential
disease areas to be addressed throughout PDUFA V. In that notice, based
on several criteria listed therein, FDA identified 39 disease areas as
potential candidates for 20 public meetings and invited public comment
on the preliminary list and on disease areas that were not listed. The
Agency obtained public comment through a docket and a public meeting
convened on October 25, 2012.
    Almost 4,500 comments addressing over 90 disease areas were
submitted by patients, patient advocates and advocacy groups,
caregivers, healthcare providers, professional societies, scientific
and academic experts, pharmaceutical companies, and others. The
majority of comments were submitted by individual patients. The
comments generally focused on one or more of the following: Nominations
of support for individual disease areas or groups of disease areas,
general suggestions for Patient-Focused Drug Development, and topics
outside the scope of the program. Many comments discussed the impact of
the disease on daily life and the symptoms that were most concerning to
patients. Others addressed lack of treatment options or the nature of
specific treatments. Over half of the comments received concerned lung
cancer, narcolepsy, and interstitial lung disease. Other disease areas
also received a significant number of comments, including migraine,
pulmonary fibrosis, amyloidosis, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic
fatigue syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, lysosomal storage disorders, peripheral neuropathy,
dystonia, and fibromyalgia. Comments were received for numerous other
disease areas not listed in this notice. Individual comments may be
viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FDA-2012-N-0967,
or by visiting FDA Dockets Management at 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
HFA-305, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Input from the public was particularly helpful for FDA in better
understanding the aspects of diseases that are not formally measured in
clinical trials as

well as cases where available therapies do not directly impact the
aspects of disease that matter most to patients. The extent of public
comment for specific disease areas was one of many factors used to
select the disease areas for Patient-Focused Drug Development during FY
2013-2015. In selecting the disease areas of focus, FDA carefully
considered the public comments received, the perspectives of reviewing
divisions at FDA, and the following selection criteria, which were
published in the September 24, 2012, Federal Register notice:
     Disease areas that are chronic, symptomatic, or affect
functioning and activities of daily living;
     disease areas for which aspects of the disease are not
formally captured in clinical trials; and
     disease areas for which there are currently no therapies
or very few therapies, or the available therapies do not directly
affect how a patient feels or functions.
    FDA's selection also reflects the Agency's desire to include a
diverse set of disease areas that represent the wide range of diseases
the Agency encounters in its regulatory decision-making. These
criteria, also published in the September 24, 2012, Federal Register
notice, were overarching considerations that the Agency took into
account in selecting the set of disease areas:
     Disease areas that reflect a range of severity, from
diseases that are life-threatening to those that are mild and
symptomatic;
     disease areas that have a severe impact on identifiable
subpopulations, such as children or the elderly; and
     disease areas that represent a broad range in terms of
size of the affected population, including common conditions
experienced by large numbers of patients and rare diseases that affect
much smaller patient populations.
    Patient-Focused Drug Development was conceived as a mechanism to
learn more from patients where their perspectives could be helpful to
drug development and FDA's review of applications for new drugs in
certain disease areas. For FDA's review divisions, this kind of input
is most helpful when the impact of a disease on patients is not well
understood or endpoints for studying drugs for a disease are not
clearly defined or established. The potential to fill these information
gaps by hearing from patients was also a key consideration in
identifying the initial 12 disease areas.
    FDA has selected the following diseases to be addressed in FY 2013-
2015:
     Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency;
     breast cancer;
     chronic Chagas disease;
     female sexual dysfunction;
     fibromyalgia;
     hemophilia A, hemophilia B, von Willebrand disease, and
other heritable bleeding disorders;
     HIV;
     idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis;
     irritable bowel syndrome, gastroparesis, and
gastroesophageal reflux disease with persistent regurgitation symptoms
on proton-pump inhibitors;
     lung cancer;
     myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome;
     narcolepsy;
     neurological manifestations of inborn errors of
metabolism;
     Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease;
     pulmonary arterial hypertension; and
     sickle cell disease.
    A schedule of the meetings planned for each year can be found at
the FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development Web site described in the
following section of this notice.
    FDA will initiate a second public process to determine the list of
disease areas for FY 2016-2017. The Agency recognizes that there are
many more disease areas than can be addressed in the planned FDA
meetings under PDUFA V, and FDA will seek other opportunities to gather
public input on disease areas not addressed through this PDUFA V
commitment. FDA also encourages stakeholders to identify and organize
patient-focused collaborations to generate public input on other
disease areas with regard to the types of questions addressed through
this PDUFA commitment, using the process established through Patient-
Focused Drug Development as a model. More information on other
opportunities for gathering patient input can be found on the Patient-
Focused Drug Development Web site.

III. Patient-Focused Drug Development Web site

    FDA has a Web site on Patient-Focused Drug Development: http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm326192.htm.
This Web site contains the general schedule of upcoming meetings for FY
2013-2015, information on how stakeholders can prepare for upcoming
meetings, and information on how stakeholders may leverage Patient-
Focused Drug Development to generate input on disease areas not
addressed through the Patient-Focused Drug Development PDUFA V
commitment. The Web site will be updated as new information becomes
available.

    Dated: April 5, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-08441 Filed 4-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P