41768 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National Parks, Wilderness. 

Dated: June 25, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16658 Filed 7–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2011–0683; FRL–9339–4] 

Chemical Substances and Mixtures 

Used in Oil and Gas Exploration or 

Production; TSCA Section 21 Petition; 

Reasons for Agency Response 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Petition; reasons for Agency 

response. 

SUMMARY: On August 4, 2011, 

Earthjustice and 114 other organizations 

petitioned EPA under section 21 of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to 

use: TSCA section 8(a) to require 

manufacturers and processors of oil and 

gas exploration and production (E&P) 

chemical substances and mixtures to 

maintain certain records and submit 

reports on those records; TSCA section 

8(d) to require manufacturers, 

processors, and distributors to submit to 

EPA existing health and safety studies 

related to E&P chemical substances and 

mixtures; TSCA section 8(c) to request 

submission of copies of any information 

related to significant adverse reactions 

to human health or the environment 

alleged to have been caused by E&P 

chemical substances and mixtures; and 

TSCA section 4 to require 

manufacturers and processors of E&P 

chemical substances and mixtures to 

conduct toxicity testing of E&P chemical 

substances and mixtures. In a letter 

dated November 2, 2011, EPA informed 

petitioners that it denied the TSCA 

section 4 request and in a letter dated 

November 23, 2011, EPA informed 

petitioners that it granted in part the 

TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) requests. 

This document sets forth EPA’s reasons 

for denying in part the petitioners’ 

requests. In addition, EPA has 

concluded that TSCA section 21 does 

not apply to requests for a TSCA section 

8(c) data call-in. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Mark 

Seltzer, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–2901; fax number: 

(202) 564–4775; email address: 

seltzer.mark@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action, however, may be 

of interest to you if you manufacture 

(including import), process, or 

distribute chemical substances or 

mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing to 

create fractures in geologic formations, 

such as shale rock, allowing enhanced 

natural gas or oil recovery. Since other 

entities also may be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How can I access information about 

this petition? 

The docket for this TSCA section 21 

petition, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2011–0683, is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Please review the visitor 

instructions and additional information 

about the docket available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. TSCA Section 21 

A. What is a TSCA section 21 petition? 

Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 

2620), any person can petition EPA to 

initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the 

issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule 

under TSCA sections 4, 6, or 8 or an 

order under TSCA sections 5(e) or 

6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition 

must set forth the facts that are claimed 

to establish the necessity for the action 

requested. EPA is required to grant or 

deny the petition within 90 days of its 

filing. If EPA grants the petition, the 

Agency must promptly commence an 

appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies 

the petition, the Agency must publish 

its reasons for the denial in the Federal 

Register. A petitioner may commence a 

civil action in a U.S. district court to 

compel initiation of the requested 

rulemaking proceeding within 60 days 

of the denial, if the denial occurs prior 

to the expiration of the 90-day period, 

or within 60 days after the expiration of 

the 90-day period. 

B. What criteria apply to a decision on 

a TSCA section 21 petition? 

Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that 

the petition ‘‘set forth the facts which it 

is claimed establish that it is necessary’’ 

to issue the rule or order requested. 15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 

21 implicitly incorporates the statutory 

standards that apply to the requested 

actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 

establishes standards a court must use 

to decide whether to order EPA to 

initiate rulemaking in the event of a 

lawsuit filed by the petitioner. 15 U.S.C. 

2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA has 

relied on the standards in TSCA section 

21 and in the provisions under which 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41769 

actions have been requested to evaluate 

this petition. The standards that apply 

to actions under TSCA sections 4 and 8 

(Ref. 1) are available in the docket 

established for this TCSA section 21 

petition. 

III. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

A. What Action Was Requested? 

On August 4, 2011, Earthjustice and 

several other organizations petitioned 

EPA to: 

1. Adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA 

section 4 to require manufacturers and 

processors of E&P chemical substances 

and mixtures to develop test data 

sufficient to evaluate the toxicity and 

potential for health and environmental 

impacts of all E&P chemical substances 

and mixtures that they manufacture and 

process. The petitioners request the rule 

include a requirement for the 

manufacturer or processor to identify 

any E&P chemical substance and 

mixture for which testing is required 

(Ref. 2). 

2. Adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA 

section 8(a) requiring manufacturers and 

processors of E&P chemical substances 

and mixtures to maintain records and 

submit reports to EPA disclosing the 

identities, categories, and quantities of 

E&P chemical substances and mixtures, 

descriptions of byproducts of E&P 

chemical substances and mixtures, all 

existing data on potential or 

demonstrated environmental and health 

effects of E&P chemical substances and 

mixtures, and the number of individuals 

potentially exposed to E&P chemical 

substances and mixtures (Ref. 2). 

3. Request call-in of all allegations of 

significant adverse reactions received 

and maintained by manufacturers, 

processors, and distributors of E&P 

chemical substances and mixtures 

pursuant to TSCA section 8(c) and 40 

CFR part 717 (Ref. 2). 

4. Adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA 

section 8(d) to require submittal of all 

existing, not previously reported health 

and safety studies related to the health 

and/or environmental effects of all E&P 

chemical substances and mixtures (Ref. 

2). 

B. What Support Do the Petitioners 

Offer? 

The petitioners believe that there are 

potential risks to human health, 

terrestrial and aquatic life, and the 

environment from E&P chemical 

substances and mixtures, and that there 

is currently insufficient information 

about these potential risks. The 

petitioners believe rulemakings under 

TSCA section 4 and section 8 are 

necessary to fill information gaps so that 

Federal and State regulators can 

appropriately assess and regulate E&P 

chemical substances and mixtures and 

provide information to the public about 

E&P chemical substances and mixtures. 

To support their requests, the 

petitioners discussed the following 

information sources which focus mostly 

on hydraulic fracturing chemical 

substances and mixtures, and assert the 

limitations of these sources: 

• EPA’s current study to examine the 

relationship between hydraulic 

fracturing and drinking water resources 

(Ref. 3). 

• FracFocus.org (http://fracfocus.org), 

a Web site (operated jointly by the 

Ground Water Protection Council 

(GWPC) and the Interstate Oil and Gas 

Compact Commission (IOGCC)) that 

serves as a voluntary chemical 

substance registry for companies to 

report publically available information 

on chemicals used in hydraulic 

fracturing operations. 

• Current Federal and State 

regulations requiring the disclosure of 

E&P chemical substances and mixtures. 

• Two reports published by The 

Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) 

(Ref. 4) and the New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) (Ref. 5) that 

analyze the health effects of chemical 

substances and mixtures for which 

TEDX and NYSDEC could locate a 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry 

Number (CASRN). 

• Reports of potential harm to human 

and environmental health from 

exposure to E&P chemical substances 

and mixtures. 

IV. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

For the purpose of making its 

decision, EPA evaluated the information 

presented or referenced in the petition 

and the Agency’s authority and 

requirements under TSCA sections 4, 8, 

and 21. EPA has also evaluated the 

comments in response to the petition 

received from the American Petroleum 

Institute (Ref. 6), the American 

Chemistry Council (Ref. 7), and 

Halliburton Energy Services (Ref. 8). 

After careful consideration, EPA has 

granted in part and denied in part the 

petition. In a letter dated November 2, 

2011 (Ref. 9), EPA informed petitioners 

that it denied the TSCA section 4 

request. In a subsequent letter dated 

November 23, 2011 (Ref. 10), EPA 

informed petitioners that it granted in 

part the TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) 

requests. 

By virtue of partially granting the 

TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) requests, 

EPA plans to initiate rulemaking under 

TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d) to obtain 

data on chemical substances and 

mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. 

Although EPA has partially granted the 

TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) requests, the 

Agency is not committing to a specific 

rulemaking outcome. EPA’s response to 

the petition describes a principle that 

will guide EPA’s efforts: ‘‘given efforts 

underway [in states, industry and other 

federal agencies], our expectation is that 

the TSCA proposal would focus on 

providing aggregate pictures of the 

chemical substances and mixtures used 

in hydraulic fracturing. This would not 

duplicate, but instead complement, the 

well-by-well disclosure programs of 

states’’ (Ref. 10). 

EPA plans first to develop an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) and initiate a 

stakeholder process to provide input on 

the design and scope of the TSCA 

reporting requirements that would be 

included in a proposed rule. EPA 

anticipates that States, industry, public 

interest groups, and members of the 

public will be participants in the 

process. The stakeholder process will 

bring stakeholders together to discuss 

the information needs and help EPA to 

ensure any reporting burdens and costs 

are minimized, ensuring information 

already available is considered in order 

to avoid duplication of efforts. The 

dialogue will also assist EPA in 

determining how information that is 

claimed Confidential Business 

Information could be aggregated and 

disclosed to maximize transparency and 

public understanding. 

Section 9(d) of TSCA provides that 

the EPA Administrator shall consult and 

cooperate with other Federal agencies 

‘‘for the purpose of achieving the 

maximum enforcement of [TSCA] while 

imposing the least burdens of 

duplicative requirements.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

2608(d). Consistent with TSCA section 

9(d), in the development of these 

actions, EPA will consult and cooperate 

with other agencies (e.g., Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) and the U.S 

Department of Energy (DOE)). 

Consistent with TSCA section 9(b), EPA 

will consult and cooperate with 

multiple offices within the Agency. 

Regarding the TSCA section 4 request, 

EPA has concluded that the petition 

does not set forth sufficient facts to 

support the petitioners’ assertion that it 

is necessary to initiate the requested 

rulemaking under TSCA section 4. The 

discussion in this unit provides the 

reasons for EPA’s decisions to deny the 

petition in part. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41770 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

A. Partial Denial of the TSCA Section 

8(a) Request 

Although EPA is granting the TSCA 

section 8(a) request in part, the 

petitioners’ request is overly broad, and 

they have not demonstrated that the 

broad rule they requested is necessary. 

The petitioners request that for all 

chemical substances and mixtures used 

throughout all E&P operations, EPA 

require by rule submission of essentially 

all of the information identified in 

TSCA section 8(a) for rules under that 

section. (The petitioners request all 

information for the chemical substances 

and mixtures generally, even beyond 

their use in the E&P industry.) The E&P 

industry is a large industry involving a 

range of varied operations and classes of 

chemical substances and mixtures (Refs. 

11 and 12). EPA, other Federal agencies, 

and States, have focused attention on 

hydraulic fracturing due to specific 

concerns raised about this practice, and 

most of the incidents and information 

sources referenced in the petition 

pertain to hydraulic fracturing. EPA 

believes information collection under 

TSCA could significantly advance the 

Federal Government’s understanding of 

potential risks associated with this 

practice. EPA notes that it already has 

broad regulations under TSCA section 

8(a) requiring periodic reporting of 

extensive information with respect to 

chemical substances (Ref. 1) including 

chemical substances used in the E&P 

industry. Before proposing a TSCA 

section 8(a) rule specific to the E&P 

industry as a whole, EPA would want a 

better understanding of the incremental 

value of individual information 

elements. 

B. Partial Denial of TSCA Section 8(d) 

Request 

EPA is partially granting the TSCA 

section 8(d) request in this petition. EPA 

intends first to issue an ANPRM 

regarding the submission of 

unpublished health and safety studies 

and lists of ongoing and initiated 

studies from companies manufacturing 

(including importing), processing, and 

distributing certain chemical substances 

and mixtures, used in hydraulic 

fracturing. As part of the stakeholder 

process discussed in Unit IV., EPA 

plans to seek input on the range of 

chemical substances and mixtures that 

may be subject to the TSCA section 8(d) 

rulemaking. For the reasons set out in 

Unit IV.A., EPA does not believe a 

broader TSCA section 8(d) rule is 

needed or appropriate at this time. 

C. Denial of TSCA Section 4 Request 

The petitioners requested a TSCA 

section 4 test rule covering all chemical 

substances and mixtures used in oil and 

gas E&P. Specifically, the petitioners 

requested that EPA promulgate a rule 

under TSCA section 4 requiring 

‘‘manufacturers and processors of E&P 

[chemical substances and mixtures] to 

develop test data to evaluate the toxicity 

and potential for health and 

environmental impacts of all chemical 

substances and mixtures they 

manufacture and process’’ and that the 

TSCA section 4 rule require the 

manufacturers and processors to 

identify all chemical substances and 

mixtures tested (Ref. 2). EPA is denying 

this request as the petitioners have not 

set forth sufficient facts to support their 

assertion that it is necessary to issue a 

TSCA section 4 rule requiring testing of 

all chemical substances and mixtures 

used in all oil and gas E&P, as required 

by TSCA section 21(b)(1). Further, to the 

extent that the petition could be read to 

articulate a somewhat narrower request 

(that only some chemical substances 

and mixtures should be tested, as 

necessary to evaluate the potential 

impacts of those chemical substances 

and mixtures), this is not a request for 

an identifiable rule under TSCA section 

4, as required by TSCA section 21 (e.g., 

the petition does not identify specific 

chemical substances or mixtures for 

which inadequate data exist, or the data 

gaps or endpoints for which testing is 

necessary). 

The petitioners have not set forth 

sufficient facts for EPA to find that 

information available to the EPA 

Administrator is insufficient to permit a 

reasoned evaluation of the health and 

environmental effects of all E&P 

chemical substances and mixtures, or 

that testing is necessary to develop such 

information. The petitioners identified 

two reports that discuss health effects 

from some chemical substances and 

mixtures used during oil and gas 

operations with some specific 

discussion on hydraulic fracturing. The 

reports are an information source that 

EPA might review in developing a 

TSCA section 4 rulemaking to 

determine whether data are lacking for 

specific health end points for specific 

chemical substances. However, EPA 

believes the analysis conducted for the 

reports are not comprehensive because 

not all E&P chemical substances and 

mixtures were reviewed in either report 

(Ref. 2). Therefore, the petitioners do 

not demonstrate that data are 

insufficient for all E&P chemical 

substances and mixtures. 

The petitioners also failed to show it 

is necessary to issue a TSCA section 4 

rule by failing to support the other 

findings under TSCA section 4. 15 

U.S.C. 2603(a)(1)(A)(i) and (B)(i). The 

petitioners made a minimal attempt to 

show that any individual E&P chemical 

substance is produced in ‘‘substantial 

quantities’’ and provided no production 

volume information for any individual 

chemical substance. While the 

petitioners do make general statements 

that E&P chemical substances and 

mixtures are used in large quantities 

(Ref. 2), this does not provide a basis for 

EPA to conclude that all E&P chemical 

substances and mixtures are produced 

in substantial quantities. The term 

‘‘substantial quantities’’ has been 

interpreted by EPA to generally be one 

million pounds or more per year (Ref. 

13). Nor have the petitioners shown that 

any specific chemical substance or 

mixture enters or may reasonably be 

anticipated to enter the environment in 

substantial quantities or that there is or 

may be significant or substantial human 

exposure to any specific chemical 

substance or mixture. Individual 

chemical substances and mixtures used 

in E&P operations may well be 

produced and released in small 

volumes. 

Furthermore, the petitioners have not 

shown that all E&P chemical substances 

and mixtures may present an 

unreasonable risk (Refs. 4 and 5). The 

oil and gas E&P industry is broad and 

engages in a wide variety of activities 

and uses many different chemical 

substances and mixtures depending on 

site characteristics. Although petitioners 

provided examples of spills and releases 

and cited existing databases collecting 

health effects data, they did not show 

that any individual chemical substance 

or mixture, or the entire class of 

chemical substances and mixtures used 

in all phases of the E&P industry, may 

present an unreasonable risk. While it is 

possible that such a finding could be 

made for some chemical substances and 

mixtures used in some operations, it is 

also likely that many are benign, and 

petitioners did not provide sufficient 

information for the broad finding they 

request. For these reasons, the 

petitioners have not demonstrated that 

it is necessary to issue the requested 

TSCA section 4 rule. 

With respect to E&P mixtures, 

petitioners have not made any attempt 

to show that evaluating the effects of 

mixtures would be reasonable and more 

efficient than testing chemical 

substances in the mixtures. 15 U.S.C. 

2603(a)(2). EPA is not prepared to make 

this finding without more complete 

information regarding the chemical 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41771 

substances and mixtures currently in 

use and the existing available 

information regarding potential health 

effects. EPA understands that mixtures 

can change frequently in hydraulic 

fracturing operations, and in the E&P 

industry more broadly, and the petition 

does not provide sufficient information 

to enable EPA to effectively identify 

what mixtures, or classes of mixtures, if 

any, might most efficiently be tested. 

Any existing mixture tested might not 

still be in use once testing has been 

completed, and additional mixtures 

might be in use at that point. A 

requirement to test certain 

representative mixtures might be 

reasonable and more efficient than 

testing individual chemical substances, 

but petitioners did not provide 

sufficient information to support such a 

finding. 

EPA is in the process of evaluating 

information in its possession and plans 

to request additional information as 

described in this document. While EPA 

agrees with petitioners that the Office of 

Research and Development (ORD) study 

focuses on the potential impacts on 

drinking water resources and does not 

require companies to conduct testing or 

to develop health and safety data, EPA 

plans to summarize the available data 

(including data the Agency may already 

have collected) on the toxicity of 

chemical substances and mixtures used 

in hydraulic fracturing, and to identify 

and prioritize data gaps for further 

investigation. This information will aid 

in EPA’s understanding of potential 

effects beyond drinking water impacts. 

EPA also plans to review the results 

from the Agency’s other activities and 

those from other Federal agencies (Ref. 

3). 

V. References 

The following is a list of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document and placed 

in the docket that was established under 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2011–0683. For information on 

accessing the docket, refer to Unit I.B. 

1. Legal Standards on TSCA Section 4, 8(a), 

8(c), 8(d) and Applicability to a Section 21 

Petition. May 24, 2012. 

2. Earthjustice and 114 other organizations. 

Letter from Deborah Goldberg, Earthjustice to 

Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director, Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), 

EPA. ‘‘Re: Citizen Petition Under Toxic 

Substances Control Act Regarding the 

Chemical Substances and Mixtures Used in 

Oil and Gas Exploration or Production.’’ 

August 4, 2011. 

3. EPA, ORD. EPA’s Study of Hydraulic 

Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on 

Drinking Water Resources. Available online 

at: 

http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy. 

4. TEDX. Health Effects Spreadsheet and 

Summary. Summary Statement. January 27, 

2011. Available online at: http:// 

www.endocrinedisruption.com/

chemicals.multistate.php. 

5. NYSDEC. Draft Supplemental SGEIS 

[Generic Environmental Impact Statement] 

on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining 

Regulatory Program. September 30, 2009. 

Available online at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/ 

energy/58440.html. 

6. Letter from Erik Milito, Group Director 

Upstream and Industry Operations, American 

Petroleum Institute (API) to Wendy ClelandHamnett, Director OPPT, EPA: ‘‘Comments 

on August 4, 2011 Citizen Petition under 

Toxic Substances Control Act Regarding the 

Chemical Substances and Mixtures Used in 

Oil and Gas Exploration or Production.’’ 

October 13, 2011. 

7. Letter from Christina Franz, Senior 

Director, Regulatory & Technical Affairs, 

American Chemistry Council (ACC) to 

Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director OPPT, 

EPA: ‘‘Comments of the American Chemistry 

Council on the TSCA Section 21 Petition 

Concerning Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Production Chemicals.’’ October 20, 2011. 

8. Letter from Mark N. Duvall, Council for 

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., to Wendy 

Cleland-Hamnett, Director OPPT, EPA: 

‘‘TSCA Section 21 Petition Regarding Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Production Chemicals; 

Comments of Halliburton Energy Services, 

Inc.’’ October 26, 2011. 

9. Letter from Stephen A. Owens, Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

(OCSPP), Assistant Administrator, EPA: 

‘‘TSCA Section 21 Petition Concerning 

Chemical Substances and Mixtures Used in 

Oil and Gas Exploration or Production.’’ 

November 2, 2011. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/ 

SO.Earthjustice.Response.11.2.pdf. 

10. Letter from Stephen A. Owens, OCSPP 

Assistant Administrator, EPA: ‘‘TSCA 

Section 21 Petition Concerning Chemical 

Substances and Mixtures Used in Oil and Gas 

Exploration or Production.’’ November 23, 

2011. Available online at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/EPA_

Letter_to_Earthjustice_on_TSCA_

Petition.pdf. 

11. North American Industry Classification 

System. 2007 NAICS Definition. August 

2011. Available online at: http:// 

www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/index.html. 

12. API Energy. About Oil and Natural Gas. 

Industry Sectors. September 14, 2011. 

13. EPA. TSCA Section 4(a)(1)(B) Final 

Statement of Policy; Criteria for Evaluating 

Substantial Production, Substantial Release, 

and Substantial or Significant Human 

Exposure; Final Statement of Policy. Federal 

Register (58 FR 28736, May 14, 1993) (FRL– 

4059–9). 

List of Subjects in Chapter I 

Environmental protection, 

Exploration and production (E&P), 

Hydraulic fracturing, Oil and gas, Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

Dated: July 3, 2013. 

James Jones, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16485 Filed 7–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 90 

[WP Docket No. 07–100; Report No. 2984] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, a Petition 

for Reconsideration (Petition) has been 

filed in the Commission’s Rulemaking 

proceeding by William Brownlow on 

behalf of the Public Safety 

Communications Council. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed on or before July 26, 2013. 

Replies to an opposition must be filed 

on or before August 5, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rodney Conway, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418– 

2904, TTY (202) 418–7233. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of Commission’s document, 

Report No. 2984, released June 20, 2013. 

The full text of document Report No. 

2984 is available for viewing and 

copying in Room CY–B402, 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC or may be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. 

(BCPI) (1–800–378–3160). The 

Commission will not send a copy of this 

Notice pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), 

because this Notice does not have an 

impact on any rules of particular 

applicability. 

Subject: Amendment of Part 90 of the 

Commission’s Rules, document FCC 13– 

52, published at at 78 FR 28749, May 

16, 2013, in WP Docket No. 07–100, and 

published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). 

See also § 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

Number of Petitions Filed: 1. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of 

Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16635 Filed 7–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS