*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release *** BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Page 1 of 34 ENVIRONMENTAL PRO TECTION 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 expl oration 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 reac tions to human health or the environment alleged to have been caused by E&P chemi cal substances and mixtures; and TSCA section 4 to require manufacturers and pro cessors of E&P chemical substances and mixtures to conduct toxicity testing of E&P chemical substances and mixtures. For the reasons set forth in this notice, EPA granted in part and denied In a letter dated November 2, 2011, EPA informed petitioners that it deni ed the TSCA section 4 request and in a letter dated November 23, 2011, EPA informed pe titioners that it granted in part the TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) requests. Th is 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TSCA section 21 does not apply to requests for a TSCA section 8(c) data call-in.*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 2 of 34 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) 564-29 01; 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; telephon e number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@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 manufact ure (including import), process, or distribute chemical substances or mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing to create fractures in geologic formations, such as shale rock, allowing enhanc ed natural gas or oil recovery. Since other entities also may be interested, the Agency ha s not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this acti on. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the tec hnical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. B. How Can I Access Information About this Petition? The docket for this TSCA section 21 pe tition, identified by do cket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0683, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 3 of 34 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 revi ew the visitor instru ctions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets

. II. Background 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 s ections 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the facts that are clai med to establish the necessity for the action requested. EPA is required to grant or deny th e 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 Agen cy 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 rulema king 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 Deci sion on a TSCA Section 21 Petition? 1. Legal standard regarding TSCA section 21 petitions

. Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petiti on “set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 4 of 34 is necessary” to issue the rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21 implicitly incorporates the statut ory standards that apply to the requested actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 establis hes standards a court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaki ng in the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner. 15 U.S.C. 2620( b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA ha s relied on the standards in TSCA section 21 and in the provisions unde r which 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 esta blished for this TCSA section 21 petition. 2. Legal standard regarding TSCA section 8(a) rules. Section 8(a) of TSCA authorizes the EPA Administra tor to promulgate rules under which manufacturers and processors of chemical substances must maintain such records and submit such information as the EPA Administrator may reasonably require. Regarding mix tures,

s ection 8(a) of TSCA authori zes the EPA Administrator to promulgate rules under which manufacturers and processors of mixtures must maintain such records and submit such information to the extent the EPA Administrator determines the maintenance of records or submission or reports, or both, is necessary for the effective enforcement of TSCA. Section 8(a) of TSCA generally excludes sma ll manufacturers and processors of chemical substances or mixtures from the reporting requirements established in TSCA section 8(a). However, EPA is authorized by TSCA secti on 8(a)(3)(A)(ii) to require TSCA section 8(a) reporting from small manufacturers and pr ocessors with respect to any chemical substance or mixture that is the subj ect of a rule proposed or promulgated under TSCA section 4, 5(b)(4), or 6, or that is the subj ect of an order in effect under TSCA section 5(e), or that is the subject of relief granted pursuant to a civil action under TSCA section*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 5 of 34 5 or 7. The standard for determining whether an entity qualifi es as a small manufacturer is found at 40 CFR 704.3. Section 21(b)(4)(B) of TSCA provides th e standard for judicial review should EPA deny a request for rulemaking under TS CA section 8(a): ‘‘If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence that ...there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of su ch a rule ...is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of in jury,’’ the court shall order the Administrator to in itiate the requested action. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). 3. Legal standard regarding TSCA section 8(d) rules. Section 8(d) of TSCA authorizes EPA to require the submission of unpublished health and safety studies initiated or conducted by, or known to or rea sonably ascertainable by, manufacturers, processors, and distributors of chemical substances or mixt ures. Studies may be excluded ‘‘if the Administrator finds that submission of lists of such studies are unnecessary to carry out the purposes of [TSCA].’’ 1 5 U.S.C. 2607(d)(1). Section 21(b)(4)(B) of TSCA provides th e standard for judicial review should EPA deny a request for rulemaking under TS CA section 8(d): ‘‘If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of th e court by a preponderance of the eviden ce that ...there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of su ch a rule ...is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of in jury,’’ the court shall order the Administrator to initiate the requested action. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B).
4 . Legal standard regarding TSCA section 8(c) call

- in. TSCA section 8(c) requires manufacturers, processors , and distributors of chemi cal substances or mixtures 1) to keep records of significant ad verse reactions to health or the envi ronment, as*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 6 of 34 determined by the Administrator by rule, allege d to have been caused by the substance or mixture and 2) to permit inspection and subm it copies of such records upon request of any duly designated representative of the Administrator. EPA’s implem enting regulations are at 40 CFR part 717. TSCA section 21 does not list data call

- ins under TSCA section 8(c), and EPA has therefore concluded that pe titions for this activity ar e not covered by TSCA section 21. 5 . Legal standard regarding TSCA section 4 rules. To issue a TSCA section 4 test rule, EPA must find that data and experience ar e insufficient to reasonably determine or predict the effects of a chemical substance or mixture on health or the environment and that testing of the chemical substance or mixture is necessary to develop the missing data. 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1). In additi on, EPA must find either that the chemical substance or mixture may present an unreasonable risk of injury or that the chemical substance or mixture is produced in substan tial quantities and may either result in significant or substantial human exposure or result in s ubstantial environmental release. 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1). In the case of a mixture, EPA must also find that ‘‘the effect s which the mixture’s manufacture, distr ibution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal or any combination of such activities may have on health or the environment may not be reasonably and more efficiently determined or predicted by test ing the chemical substances which comprise the mixture.’ ’ 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(2). TSCA section 21 omits the finding that ‘‘te sting is necessary to develop the data’’ from the findings that a petitioner must demons trate in order for a court to require EPA to*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 7 of 34 initiate TSCA section 4 rulemaking. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4 )(B)(i). Nonetheless, EPA believes TSCA section 21(b)(4) is best inte rpreted as incorporating this finding. The alternative would be to read th e statute as empowering a court to require EPA to initiate a rulemaking even where the Agency could not make prop osed findings consistent with TSCA section 4 or take final action on th e rule. EPA’s interpre tation is supported by legislative history (Ref. 1). TSCA section 21(b)(4) (B)(i) provide s for judicial review of a petition to promulgate a TSCA section 4 rule for chemical substances

. In contrast, TSCA section 21 does not provide for judicial review of a petit ion to promulgate a te st rule for mixtures. Section 3 of TSCA gives distin ct definitions for “chemical substance” and “mixture”, and section 21(b)(4)(B)( i) of TSCA specifies that the court’ s review pertains to application of the TSCA section 4 factors to chemical substances. Moreover, TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B)(i) does not contain the additional finding that TSCA section 4 requires for issuing a test rule fo r mixtures (that the effect may not be reasonably and more efficiently determined or predicted by testing the chem ical components). Congress left the complex issues associated with the testing of mixtures to the Administrator’s discretion.

C. III. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 Petition
A. What Action was Requested? On August 4, 2011, Earthjustice and severa l other organizatio ns petitioned EPA

to: 1. Adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA section 4 to require manufacturers and processors of E&P chemical substances and mi xtures to develop test data sufficient to evaluate the toxicity and potential for h ealth and environmental impacts of all E&P*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 8 of 34 chemical substances and mixtures that th ey 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 s ection 8(a) requiring manufacturers and processors of E&P chemical substances a nd mixtures to maintain records and submit reports to EPA disclosing the identities, cat egories, and quantities of E&P chemical substances and mixtures, desc riptions of byproducts of E& P chemical substances and mixtures, all existing data on potential or dem onstrated environmental and health effects of E&P chemical substances and mixtures, and the number of individuals potentially exposed to E&P chemical subs tances and mixtures (Ref. 2). 3. Request call

- in of all allegations of significan t adverse reactions received and maintained by manufacturers, processors, and distributors of E&P chemical substances and mixtures pursuant to TSCA secti on 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 hea lth and safety studies related to the health and/or environmental effects of all E&P chemi cal substances and mixtures (Ref. 2).
D. B. What Support Do the Petitioners Offer? The petitioners believe that there are poten tial 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 St ate regulators can appropriate ly assess and regulate E&P chemical substances and mixtures and pr ovide information to the public about E&P*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 9 of 34 chemical substances and mixtures. To support their requests, the peti tioners discussed the following information sources and which focus mostly on hydraulic fracturing chemical substances and mixtures, and assert the limitations of these sources: • EPA’s current study to examine the rela tionship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources (Ref. 3). • FracFocus.org ( http://fracfocus.org ), a website (operated jointly by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and th e Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)) that serves as a vol untary chemical substance registry for companies to report all chemical substances that would appear on Material S afety Data Sheets (MSDSs) (Ref. 4) ; publically available information on chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations. • Current Federal and State regulations re quiring the disclosure of E&P chemical substances and mixtures. • Two reports published by The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) (Ref. 5 4 ) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (Ref. 6 5 ) that analyze the health effects of chemical substances and mixtures for which TEDX and NYSDEC could locate a Ch emical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN). • Reports of potential harm to human and environmental health from exposure to E&P chemical substances and mixtures. 1. EPA’s study. In Fiscal Year 2010, the U.S. Congress’ Appropriation Conference Committee direc ted EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) to conduct research to examine the relationshi p between hydraulic fracturing and drinking*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 10 of 34 water resources (Ref. 3). Hydraulic fracturing is a well stimulation treatment that can be used in reservoirs with low permeability to maximize natural gas or oil production. Specially engineered fluids containing ch emical additives and proppant are pumped under high pressure into well s to induce and hold open fractures in geological formation s . Those fractures increa se the exposed surface area of the rock in the formation and, in turn, stimulate the flow of natural gas or oil to the well bore once the applied hydraulic pressure is removed. The composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids varies by geologic formation, ranging from a simple mixture of water and sand to more complex mixtures with a multitude of chemical additives. Comp anies may use these chemical additives to thicken or thin the fluids, clean the formation, prevent corrosion of the well casing, improve the flow of the fluid, or kill bacteria that can reduce fracturing fluid performance ( Ref. 7 ). As the use of hydraulic fracturing has increased, so have concerns about its potential impact on human health and the environment (Ref. 3 ). The study i s designed to assess the potential impact s of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources and identify the driving factors that affect the severity and frequency of impacts (Ref. 3)

. The scope of the research includes the hydraulic fracturing
water us e lifecycle, which is a subset of the great er hydrologic cycle. For purposes of the study, the hydraulic fracturi ng water lifecycle begins w ith water acquisition from surface or ground water and ends with discharge in to surface waters or injection into dee p wells. Specifically, the water lifecycle for h ydraulic fracturing consists of wate r acquisition, chemical mixing, well injection, flowback and produced wat er (collectively referred to as “hydraulic fracturing wastewater”), and wast ewater treatment and waste disposal. (Ref. 3).*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 11 of 34 As part of its study, o n September 9, 2010, the Agency issued a voluntary information request to nine hydraulic fr acturing service providers (followed by a subpoena to one company) (Ref. 8 ). The data requested include : 1) informati on on the constituents of hydraulic fractur ing fluids, including all chemical s ubstances , proppants, and water, used in the last 5 years; 2) all data relating to the human health and environmental impacts of all constituen ts listed in (1); 3) all standard operating procedures and information on how the compos ition of hydraulic fracturing fluids may be modified onsite, and 4) all sites where hydrauli c fracturing has occurred within one year prior to the request date and one year from the request date. The Ag ency received information on approximately 900 chemical subs tances from the nine service providers. Additionally, on August 11, 2011, the Agency sent letters to nine oil and gas companies requesting their vo luntary participation in the study (Ref. 9 ). For example, the Agency requested data on well c onstruction, design, and well operation practices for 350 oil and gas wells th at were hydraulically fractured from 2009

- 2010. These wells were selected using a stratified random method and reflect the diversity in both geography and size of the well operator. This account of well performance, together with a literature review, assessment of data and information from states and communities, case studies, laboratory work, and computer modeling, will allow EPA to as sess more thorough ly the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturi ng on drinking water resources. As of December 1, 2011, EPA has received partial data from eight of the nine companies on 277 well s. All nine of the companies have committed to submitting all their responsive well data by December 31, 2011. By sharing information about specific well construction design and operatio ns, these companies will help EPA and the*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 12 of 34 public gain a better understand ing of well performance and technologies and practices associated with hydraulic fracturing in order to help us understand the potential for health and environmental effects . The final report is expect ed to be published in 2014. The petitioners state that “EPA’s study falls short of TSCA rulemakings because it will not require manufacturers and processors of E&P [chemical substances and mixtures] to take proactive efforts to conduct testing or to develop health and safety data needed to evaluate the health and environmental risks of their s ubstances and mixtures” (Ref. 2). 2. FracFocus website. FracFocus is a website that is operated jointly by the GWPC and the IOGCC to serve as a volunt ary chemical registry for individual companies to report all chemical subs tances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. The petitioners assert that “[b]ecause the re gistry is based upon voluntary disclosures, operators may choose to disclose only those ch emicals posing the least risk to health and the environment, and the pu blic could receive misleading or selective information” (Ref. 2). 3. Federal and state regulations. The petitioners state that federal agencies have extremely limited authority to regulate E&P chemical substances and mixtures. They assert that were hydraulic fracturing not specifically ex cluded from the definition of “underground injection” under the Safe Dr inking Water Act (SDWA), the oil and gas industry would be required to disclose in mandatory permit applic ations the source and analysis of the physical an d chemical characteristics o f all the chemical substances and mixtures injected below ground to stimulate oil and gas producti on. According to the petitioners, for the most part the oil and gas industry is not regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Emergency Planning and Community*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 13 of 34 Right to Know Act. Additionally, the petitioners believe there is limited information about E&P chemical substan ces and mixtures on MSDSs. Regarding state regulations , the petitioners stress th at states do not routinely disclose to the public information they r eceive about E&P chemical substances and mixtures, even when the information is not claimed to be proprietary, and no state requires toxicity testing or deve lopment of health and safety da ta. 4. TEDX and NYSDEC reports. According to the petitioners, in an attempt to determine the identity of E&P chemical substances and mixtures and to evaluate the health effect s associated with them, TEDX gathered information from multiple sources and matched the chemical substances that could be identified by CASRN with available health data. TEDX concluded that health data were available for “only a small percentage of the chemicals in use in the gas indu stry” (Ref. 2). The petitioners also cited a re port that describes NYSDEC’s limited analysis of the health effects of hydraulic fracturing chemical substanc es and mixtures likely to be used at well sites in New York State. The petitioners assert that “NYSD EC’s review of the identifiable chemical substances and mixtures demonstrated that compound

‐ specific toxicity data are very limited for many chemical additives to fracturing fluids” (Ref. 2). Based on these two reports, the pe titioners conclude that “the i nformation currently available is insufficient to identify the fu ll spectrum of E&P [che mical substances and mixtures] or to permit a reasoned evaluation of their health and environmental effects” (Ref. 2). 5. Health risks and exposure. According to the petit ion, numerous incidents of
exposure to E&P chemical substances and mixtures demonstrate that these chemical*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 14 of 34 substances and mixtures may present an unreasonable risk of harm to health and the environment at every stage of oil and gas development, including storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal. The petitioners cited reports of leaks and spills of E&P chemical substances and mixtures in states such as Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Texas. The petitioners assert that the incidences of harm lin ked to oil and gas exploration are likely to increase, especially if EPA fails to promulgate regulations requiring disclosure and testing of E&P chemical substances and mi xtures and reporting of related health and environmental effects. E. Background on Oi l and Gas E&P Industry Oil and gas E&P encompasses all the steps involved in finding, producing, and processing crude oil and natural gas prior to transportation, refining and marketing (Ref. 10 ). Many E& P activities include the use of chemical substances and mixtures that vary to meet the specific needs of a geological formation. These chemical substances and mixtures are used for different purposes, and many are not used solely in the oil and gas industr y (Ref. 11). E&P “ activities may include explora tion for crude petroleum and natural gas; drilling, comple ting, and equipping wells; oper ating separators, emulsion breakers, desilting equipment, and field gath ering lines for crude petroleum and natural
g as; and all other activities in the preparation of oil and gas up to the point of shipment from the producing property ” (Ref

. 12). Exploration activities include “ excavating slush pits and cellars, well surveying; r unning, cutting, and pulling casings, tu bes, and rods; cementing wells, shooting wells; perforating well casings; acidizing and chemically treating wells; and cleaning out, bailing, and swabbing wells ” (Ref. 1 2 ). Steps in exploration also may include “ spudding in, drilling in, redrilling, and di rectional drilling ”*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 15 of 34 ( Ref. 1 2 ). Production activities to extract liquid hydrocarbons from hydrocarbon bearing formations include the use of: separators, emulsion breaker s, desilting equipment, dehydrators and other processing equipment, and field gathering lines for crude oil and natural gas; and all other activities in the pr eparation of oil and gas up to the point of shipment from the producing property. “ This subsector includes the production of crude petroleum, the mining and extraction o f oil from oil shale and oil sands, and the production of natural gas, sulfur r ecovery from natural gas, and re covery of hydrocarbon liquids ” ( Ref. 1 2 ) (e.g., NAICS codes 213112, 213111 and 21111). There are more than “10,000 U.S. companies providing equipment, services, supplies, and design and engi neering support for explorati on, drilling, refining and other operations. Many are local firms, while others are global manufacture rs selling products f

or operations around the world” (Ref. 10 )

. F. Background on TSCA and Federal Activ ities Regarding Hydraulic Fracturing Under TSCA, EPA has authority to require reporting, record

- keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures manufactured, processed, used, distributed in commerce , or disposed of (Ref. 1 3 )

. In addition, EPA has a number of other authorities that can be used to address aspects of hydraulic fracturing. The following offices at EPA are working on hydraulic fracturing efforts under other authorities :

 EPA’s ORD is undertaking a st udy to better understand any pot ential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources (Ref. 3).

 EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emer gency Response (OSWER) is evaluating industry practices , alleged damage cases, and state requirements , and considering*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 16 of 34 whether technical guida nce on the design, operation, maintenance, and closure of pits and impoundments is needed under RCRA in order to minimize potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing waste

.

 EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation proposed a rule on August 23, 2011, to control air emissions at oil and gas wells, including during completi on of wells, that are hydraulic ally fractur ed (Ref. 1 4 ).

 EPA has announced a schedule to develop standards for wastewater discharges produced by natural gas extrac tion from underground coalbed and shale formations as part of its effluent guidelines developm ent process under sections 301 and 304 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Currently, wast e water associated with shale gas extraction is prohibited from being directly discharg ed to waterways and other waters of the United States. While some of the wastewater from shale gas extraction is reused or

re - injected, a significant amount still requires disposal. As a result, some shale gas wastewater is transported to treatment plants, many of which are not properly equipped to treat this type of wastewater. EPA will consider standards for shale gas wastewater that must be met before going to a treatm ent facility. Wastewater associated with coal bed methane extract ion is not currently subject to national standards when directly discharged into wa terways or to pretreatment standards and EPA will consider the development of standards for such discharges (Ref. 15 ).

 Under SDWA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) P rogram, EPA is working to provide EPA ’s UIC Program Directors guidance to ensure the SDWA programmatic requirements related to hydraulic fracturing when using diesel fuels are implemented
appro priately (Ref. 15 ).*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 17 of 34 Section 9(b) of TSCA provides that the Administrator of EPA “shall coordinate actions taken under [TSCA] with actions taken under other Federal laws administered in whole or in part by” EPA. 15 U.S.C. 2608(b). Therefore, in the developm ent of actions EPA proposes to initiate under TSCA de scribed in this notice , EPA will c onsult and cooperate with multiple offices within the Agency to address hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas production to avoid unnecessary or duplicative reporting. Other federal agencies have authoritie s to investigate and address hydraulic fracturing. In fact, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Energy are evaluating various asp ects of hydraulic fracturing.
BLM currently is developing proposed regulations to require disclosure of well

- specific information on chemical s ubstances used in hydraulic fracturing on public lands (Ref. 16 ). The Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secr etary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB)

rece ntly published a final report evaluating ways to reduce the environmental impacts from shale gas production (Ref. 1 7 ). TSCA section 8 provides EPA the authorit y to collect important information on chemical substances and mixtures, including the amount ma nufactured, health and safety information and exposure information, among other things. EPA’s p lanned use of TSCA section 8, as described in this notice, would enable EPA a nd other federal agencies to improve their risk screening capabilities, enabling the m to better assess and manage risk, and improve public awareness of information about chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. Although it is likely that some data su bmitted would be claimed confidential, limiting public disclosure, EPA urges submitters of data under TSCA to limit the number*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 18 of 34 and scope of confidentiality claims to those necessary to protect proprietary data (Ref.
1 8 ). EPA also notes that health and safety st udies that are submitted pursuant to TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d) rules, and data from such health and safety studies , are generally not considered confidential under TSCA a nd are therefore releasable. TSCA section 14(b).
III IV . Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition For the purpose of making its decision, EP A evaluated the information presented or referenced in the petition and the Agen cy’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. 11 6 ), the American Chemistry Council (Ref. 19 7 ), and Halliburton Energy Services (Ref. 20 8 ). After careful consideration, EPA has granted in part and denied in part the petition. EPA has decided to partially grant In a letter dated November 2, 2011 (R ef. 9), EPA informed petitioners that it denied the TSCA sections section 4 request. In a subseq uent letter dated November 23, 2011 (Ref. 10), EPA informed petitioners th at it granted in part the TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) requests and plans to initiate rulemaking to obtain data on chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing.

. By virtue of partially granting the TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) requests, EPA plans to initiate rulemaking under TSCA s ections 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 res ponse to the petition describes a principle that will guide EPA’s efforts: “given e fforts underway [in states, industry and other*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 19 of 34 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 comple ment, the well-by-well disclosure programs of states” (Ref. 10). EPA plans first to develop an A dvance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( ANPR ANPRM ) and initiate a stakeholder proce ss to provide input on the design and scope of the TSCA reporting requirements th at 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 stakeholder process. The stakeholder process will bring stakeholders together to discuss the in formation needs and help EPA to ensure any reporting burdens and costs are minimized, en suring information already available is considered in order to av oid duplication of efforts. Although EPA has partially granted the TSCA section 8(a) and section 8(d) requests, the Agency is not committing to a specific rulemaking outcome. The dialogue will also assi st EPA in determining how information that is claimed CBI can Confidential Business Information could be aggregated and disclosed to maximize transparency and public understanding . EPA intend s to release all reported information that is not claimed CBI

.

EPA has concluded that the request fo r EPA to use its TSCA section 8(c) authority is not subject to TSCA section 21. The Agency anticipates that the public dialogue will include discussions of th e need for section 8(c) reporting on allegations that chemical substances or mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing cause significant adverse reactions to health or the environmen t.*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 20 of 34 Regarding the TSCA section 4 request, EPA has concluded that the petition does not set forth sufficient facts to support the pe titioners’ assertion that it is necessary to initiate the requested rule making under TSCA section 4. The discussion that foll ows provides the reasons for EPA’s d ecisions to grant this petition in part and to deny it in part. A. Partial Grant With Respect to Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Substances and
Mixtures With regard to TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d), EPA has decided to initiate rulemaking to obtain data on chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. EPA is not granting the requests w ith respect to chemical substances and mixtures used in oil and gas E&P more broadly. At this time, EPA believes a more f

ocused information collection regarding hydraulic fracturing would significantly advance the government’s understanding of poten tial risks associated with this practice and would help to determine if future actions are necessary. TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d) actions would be an im portant part of the federal government’s efforts to better understand and ch aracterize potential ri sks associated with hydraulic fracturing. Given the specific auth orities under TSCA to collect and make public information on the manufacture, processing, distri bution in commerce, and use of chemical substances and mixtures , and to collect and make public health and safety data for chemical substances and mixtures, the da ta that would be colle cted would provide a chemical

- specific a nd mixture

- specific national picture of the chemical substances and mixture s used in hydraulic fracturing. This picture is currently not available , and would complement well

- by

- well disclosure programs of states.*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 21 of 34 The existing information sources provide on ly limited data on the chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. Individuall y, these sources often provide information on only a subset of the ch emical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing and often require the user to go to multiple sources to synthesize the information that the information source purpor ts to provide. Even when taken together the existing information is very limited. EPA is not aware of any other authority that can provide as effectively as TSCA a natio nal picture of the chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing

. These data collections and th e disclosure of these data that EPA intends to pursue would address some of the recommendations in both SEAB’s August 1 8 , 2011 (Ref. 21) and November 1 8 , 2011 (Ref. 17) Ninety

- Day Report s . The August 1 8 , 2011 report identifies measures that can be taken to re duce the environmental impact and improve the safety of shale gas production. The SEAB recommends that federal agencies have primary respo nsibility for ensuring disclosure of f racturing fluid composition and “immediately develop rules to require disc losure of all chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids on both public and private lands

. ” (Ref. 21 ) In addition, SEAB recommends that this information be made publicly available “ with an exception for genuinely proprietary information. ” In addition, the SEAB stressed the importance of creating a national database to link as many sources of public information as possible with respect to shale gas development and production (Ref. 21) . EPA believes the information reported under TSCA au thority would help to support the public disclosure of chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing fluid and provid e information to enable EPA an d other agencies to assess and manage potential risks

.*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 22 of 34 Section 9(d) of TSCA provides that th e EPA Administrator shall consult and cooperate with other Federal agencies ‘‘f or the purpose of achieving the maximum enforcement of [TSCA] while imposing the l east burdens of duplica tive requirements.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2608(d). Consistent with TSCA s ection 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 ) to avoid unnecessary or duplicative reporting

. (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 pe titioners’ assertion that it is necessary to initiate the requested rule making under TSCA section 4. The discussion in this unit provides the reasons for EPA’s decisi ons to deny the petition in part.
B. A. Partial Grant Denial of the TSCA Section 8(a) Request The petitioners requested that “EPA adopt a ru le pursuant to TSCA s ection 8(a) to require manufacturers and processors of E&P [c hemical substances and mixtures] to maintain certain records and submit to EPA reports on those records” (Ref. 2). After careful consideration, EPA has deci ded to partially grant the TSCA Section 8(a) Request to obtain data on chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. The petitioners did not show that the requested TSCA section 8(a) rule, requiring maintenance of records and reporting with respect to all of the TSCA section 8(a) data elements for all E&P chemical substances and mixtures, is necessary.

EPA plans to initiate a stakeholder process to assist the Agency in identifying reporting requirements for chemical substances and mixtur es used in hydraulic fracturing , in order to allow the Agency and others to evaluate potential risks and to allow for public disclosure of the information

. EPA’s current thinking with respect to TSCA section 8(a) is to propose a rule that would request information, such as chemical identity, categories of use, and volume and number of individuals exposed. Other TSCA section 8(a) elements also may*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 23 of 34 be incorporated. This type of information would provide the best basis for EPA and other federal agencies to assess risks associated with hydraulic fracturing chemicals substances and mixtures. Before developing the proposed rule and t o facilitate the stakeholder process,
EPA plans to first issue an ANPR to seek comment on the informati on that should be included in the proposed section 8(a) rule

. Comments submitted on the ANPR and as part of the stakeholder process will inform EPA's proposal, but given efforts underway, our expectation is that the TSCA proposal would focus on providing a n aggregate picture of the chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. Although EPA is granting the TSCA section 8(a) request in part, the petitioners’ request is overly broad, and they have not dem onstrated that the broad rule they requested is necessary. The petitioners request that for all chemical substances and mixtures used throughout all E&P operations, EP A 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 subs tances and mixtures generally, even beyond their use in the E&P industry.) As explained in Unit II.E, 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 rais ed about this practice, and most of the incidents and information sour ces referenced in the petition pertain to hydraulic fracturing. EPA believes in formation collection under TSCA would could significantly advance the Federal Government’s understanding of potential risks associated with this practice. EPA notes th at it already has broad regulations under TSCA section 8(a) requiring periodi c reporting of extensive information with respect to chemical substances (Ref. 2 2 1 ) including chemical substances used in the E&P industry.*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 24 of 34 Before proposing a TSCA section 8(a) rule sp ecific to the E&P industry as a whole, EPA would want a better understanding of the in cremental value of individual information elements. EPA also does not believe that petitioners have demonstrated all of the chemical substances and mixtures used th roughout the E&P industry (or any o f them) present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. The petition provid es an inadequate basis for EPA to evaluate the risk presented by individual chemical s ubstances or mixtures, or to evaluate the potential ec onomic impact of the requested TSCA section 8(a) rule , which is a necessary element of an unreasonable risk analysis . EPA’s assessment of information that may be submitted pursuant to TSCA section 8, along with EPA’s continued evaluation of the data submitted and results achieved under the Agency’s other actions and continued inte raction with other federal agencies, ma y inform the need for future additional TSCA sec tion 8(a) data collection.
B. Partial Grant Denial of TSCA Section 8(d) Request EPA is partially granting the TSCA sec tion 8(d) request in this petition. EPA intends first to issue an ANPRM regardi ng the submission of unpublished health and safety studies in their possession and lists of ongoing and initiated studies from companies manufacturing (including importi ng), processing, and distributing certain chemical substances and mixtur es, used in hydraulic fracturing. As part of the stakeholder process discussed in Unit IV., EPA plans to seek stakeholder input on the range of chemical substances and mixtures that should may be subject to the TSCA section 8(d) rulemaking. For the reasons set out in the above discussion of the TSCA section 8(a) request, Unit IV.A., EPA does not believe a broader TSCA section 8(d) rule is needed or*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 25 of 34 appropriate at this time.
C. TSCA Section 8(c) Request The petitioners requested that EPA ‘‘exerci se its authority under 40 C.F.R. section 717.17 and request submission of copies of any information related to significant adverse reactions to human health or the envir onment alleged to have been caused by E&P [c hemical substances and mixtures] manufactur ed, processed, or distributed” by nine companies (Ref. 2). As explained below, EPA has concluded that TSCA section 21 does not apply to the petitioners’ request for a TSCA section 8(c) data call

- in. EPA anticipate s that the stakeholder process will involve discussion of the possible use of TSCA 8(c) to request copies of records and reports of allegations from manufacturers (including importers) and processors for chemical s ubstances used in hydraulic fracturing. Among the actions potentially available under TSCA section 8, only rules are proper objects of a TSCA sec tion 21 petition. Pursuant to TSCA section 8(c) and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR 717.17, alle gations of adverse reactions are not called i n by rule. In contrast, other provisions of TSCA

— including part of TSCA section 8(c)

— require or authorize the Administrator to act by rule. Section 21 of TSCA allows any person to petition ‘‘to initiate a proceedi ng for the issuance, amendment, or repeal o f a rule under section 2603, 2605, or 2607.” 15 U.S.C. 2620(a). EPA interprets TSCA section 21 to apply only to the enumerated actions.
E C . Denial of TSCA Section 4 Request The petitioners requested a TSCA secti on 4 test rule cove ring all chemical substances and mixtures used in oil and ga s E&P. Specifically, the petitioners requested that EPA promulgate a rule under TSCA section 4 requiring ‘‘manufacturers and*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 26 of 34 processors of E&P [chemical substances and mi xtures] to develop test data to evaluate the toxicity and potential for health and envi ronmental impacts of all chemical substances and mixtures they manufacture and process” an d that the TSCA section 4 rule require the manufacturers and processors to identify all chemical subs tances and mixtures tested (Ref. 2). EPA is denying this request as the petitioners have not se t forth sufficient facts to support their asserti on that it is necessary to issue a TSCA section 4 rule requiring testing of all chemical substances and mixtur es used in all oil a nd gas E&P, as required by TSCA section 21(b)(1). Further, to the ex tent that the petiti on could be read to articulate a somewhat narrower request (t hat 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 sec tion 21 (e.g., the petit ion does not identify specific chemical substances or mixtures for wh ich 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 Administ rator is insufficient to perm it 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 inform ation. The petitioners identified two reports that discuss health effects from some chemi cal substances and mixt ures used during oil and gas operations with some specific disc ussion on hydraulic fractu ring. The reports are an information source that EPA might re view in developing a TSCA section 4 proposal rulemaking to determine whether data are lack ing for specific health end points for specific chemical substances. However, EPA believes the analysis conducted for the*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 27 of 34 reports are not comprehensive because not al l E&P chemical substances and mixtures were reviewed in either report (Ref. 2). Ther efore, the petitioners do not demonstrate that data are insufficient for all E&P ch emical 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 “substant ial quantities” and provided no production volume information for any individual chemical substance. While the petitioners do make general statements that E&P chemical subs tances 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 produ ced in substantial quantities. The term “substantial quantities” has been interpreted by EPA to generally be one million pounds or more per year (Ref. 2 3 13 ). Nor have the petitioners show n 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 ma y be significant or subs tantial human exposure to any specific chemical substance or mi xture. Individual chemical substances and mixtures used in E&P operations may well be produced and released in small volumes. Furthermore, the petitioners have not show n that all E&P chemical substances and mixtures may present an unreasonable risk (Refs. 5 4 and 6). As discussed in Unit II.E, 5). The oil and gas E&P industry is broad and e ngages in a wide variety of activities and uses many different chemical substances and mixtures depending on si te characteristics. Although petitioners provided examples of spills and releases and cited existing databases collecting health eff ects data, they did not show th at any individual chemical*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 28 of 34 substance or mixture, or the en tire class of chemical substanc es and mixtures used in all phases of the E&P industry, may present an unr easonable risk. While it is possible that such a finding could be made for some chemi cal substances and mixtures used in some operations, it is also likely that many are be nign, 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 i ssue 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 informa tion regarding the chemical substances and mixtures currently in use and the existing ava ilable 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 complete d, and additional mixtures might be in use at that point. A requirement to test certain re presentative mixtures might be reasonable and more efficient than testing individual chemi cal substances, but petitioners did not provide sufficient information to support such a finding. EPA may consider a TSCA section 4 rule at a later date. EPA is in the process of evaluating information in its possession and plans to request addi tional information as described in this notice document . While EPA agrees with petitioners that the Office of Research and Development ( ORD ) study focuses on the potential impacts on drinking*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 29 of 34 water resources and does not require companie s to conduct testing or to develop health and safety data, EPA plans to use the data to identify poten tially hazardous chemical substances and mixtures associated with hydraulic fractur ing , which will aid in EPA’s understanding of potential eff ects beyond drinking water impacts . EPA also plans to summarize the available data (including data the Agency may already have collected) on the toxicity of chemical substances and mi xtures used in hydraulic fracturing, and to identify and prioritize data ga ps for further investigation. This information will aid in EPA’s understanding of potential e ffects beyond drinking water impacts. EPA also plans to review the results from the Agency’s other activities and those from other Federal agencies ( see Unit II.F). Ref. 3). IV 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 EPAHQ-OPPT-2011-0683. For information on accessing the docket, refer to Unit I.B. 1. House Conference Report 94

– 1679

. A L egislative History of the Toxic Sub stances Control Act, (Committee Print 1976) (Legislative History, pp. 97

- 99 ). 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 organiza tions. Letter from Deborah Goldberg, Earthjustice to Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Di rector, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), EPA. “Re: Citizen Petit ion Under Toxic Substances Control Act Regarding the Chemical Substances and Mixt ures Used in Oil and Gas Exploration or Production

. .” August 4, 2011.*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 30 of 34 3. EPA, ORD. EPA’s Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources. November , 2011. Available on - line online

at: http:// water www .epa.gov/ type/groundwater/uic/class2/h ydraulicfracturing/upload/FINA
L

- ST UDY

- PLAN

- HF_Web_2.pdf

. hfstudy. 2. Ground Water Protection Council and th e Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. FracFocus. Chemi cal Disclosure Registry. October 2011. Available on

line at: . The Endocrine Disruption Exchange 4. TEDX . Health Effects Spreadsheet and Summary. Summary Statement. January 27, 2011. Available online at: http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.multistate.php

. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 5. NYSDEC . Draft Supplemental SGEIS [Generic Environmental Impact Statement] on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Se ptember 30, 2009. Available online at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/58440.html

. 3. Waxman, Henry A., Markey, Edward, J., and DeGette, Diana. United States House of Representatives Committee on Ener gy and Commerce Minority Staff Report

. Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fr acturing. April 2 011. Available on

- line at: http://democrats.energycommerce.hous e.gov/sites/defau lt/files/document s/Hydraulic %20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf. 4. EPA, Office of Research and Developm ent. 2010 Hydraulic Fracturing Information Request. September 9, 2010. Available on

- line at: . 5. EPA, Office of Research and Develo pment. 2011 Hydraulic Fracturing Informa tion*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 31 of 34 Request. August 11, 2011. Available on

- line at: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/cla ss2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/LetterT o9HFCompanies_August2011.pdf.
6. API Energy. About Oil and Natural Gas. Industry Sectors. September 14, 2011. Available on

- line at: http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/

. 6. Letter from Erik Milito, Group Director Upstream and Industry Operations, American Petroleum Institute (API) to We ndy Cleland-Hamnett, Di rector OPPT, EPA: “Comments on August 4, 2011 Citizen Petition under Toxic Substances Control Act Regarding the Chemical Substances and Mixt ures Used in Oil and Gas Exploration or Production.” October 13, 2011.
7. North American Industry Classificati on System. 2007 NAICS Definition. August 2011. http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/index.html

. 8. EPA. Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Available on

- line at:

. 9. EPA. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews . Proposed Rule. Federal Register ( 76 FR 52738, August 23, 2011). ( FRL

– 9448

– 6). 10. EPA. EPA Press Release

- EPA Announces Schedule to Develop Wastewater Standards/Announcement is part of administ rator's priority to ensure natural gas development continues sa fely and responsibly Available on

- line at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpr ess.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/91e7 fadb4b114c4a8525792f00542001!OpenDocument. 11. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. BLM to Hold Regional Forums on Hydraulic Fracturing in Natural Gas Production. Available on

-*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 32 of 34 line at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/in fo/newsroom/2011/april/NR_04_01_2011.html

. 12. U.S. Department of Energy. The SEAB Shale Ga s Production Subcommittee Second Ninety

- Day Report. November 1 8 , 2011 . Available on

- line at: http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/r esources/111811_final_report.pdf 13. EPA. Claims of Confidentiality of Certain Chemical Identities Contained in Health and Safety Studi es and Data from Health and Safety Studies Submitted Under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Notice. Federal Register ( 75 FR 29754, May 27, 2010). ( FRL

- 8827

- 3 ).
7. Letter from Christina Franz, Senior Di rector, Regulatory & Technical Affairs, American Chemistry Council (ACC) to Wendy Cl eland-Hamnett, Director OPPT, EPA: “Comments of the American Chemistry Council on the TSCA Section 21 Petition Concerning Oil and Gas Exploration a nd Production Chemicals.” October 20, 2011. 8. Letter from Mark N. Duvall, Council for Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., to Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director OPPT, EP A: “TSCA Section 21 Petition Regarding Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Ch emicals; Comments of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.” October 26, 2011. U.S. Department of Energy. The SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Ninety

- Day Report. August 1 8 , 2011 . Available on - line at: http://www. shalegas.energy .gov/ resources/081811_90_day_report_final .pdf

. 9. Letter from Stephen A. Owens, Offi ce of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Assistant Administra tor, EPA: “TSCA Section 21 Petition Concerning Chemical Substances and Mixtur es Used in Oil and Gas Exploration or*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 33 of 34 Production.” November 2, 2011. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ oppt/chemtest/pubs/SO.Earthjustice.Response.11.2.pdf

. 14. EPA. TSCA Inventory Update Reporting Modifications; Chemical Data Reporting. Final Rule. Federal Register ( 76 FR 50816, August 16, 2011). ( FRL

– 8872

– 9). 10. Letter from Stephen A. Owens, OC SPP 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 Classi fication System. 2007 NAICS Definition. August 2011. Available online at: http://www.census.gov/eos /www/naics/index.html. 12. API Energy. About Oil and Natura l 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 Substant ial or Significant Human Exposure

. ; Final Statement of Policy. Federal Register (58 FR 28736, May 14, 1993 ). ) (FRL-4059-9).*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 34 of 34 List of Subjects Chapter I Environmental protection, Explorati on and production (E&P), Hydraulic fracturing, Oil and gas, Toxic S ubstances Control Act (TSCA).

Dated: ____________________

_____________________________________________________

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

.