[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66660-66662]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27765]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1172: Notice No. 25-11-17-SC]

Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace LP (GALP) Model G280
Airplane, Operation Without Normal Electrical Power

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Gulfstream
Aerospace LP (GALP) Model G280 airplane. This airplane will have a
novel or unusual design feature associated with operation without
normal electrical power. The applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: We must receive your comments by November 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies of your comments to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules
Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. FAA-2011-1172, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356. You may deliver two copies to the
Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. You must mark your
comments: Docket No. FAA-2011-1172. You can inspect comments in the
Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4
p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nazih Khaouly, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile
(425) 227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask
that you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before
and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in
person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We

may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
    If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this
proposal, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard
on which you have written the docket number. We will stamp the date on
the postcard and mail it back to you.

Background

    On March 30, 2006, GALP applied for a type certificate for their
new Model G280 airplane. The G280 will have a novel or unusual design
feature associated with operation without normal electrical power.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, GALP must show that the Model G280 airplane meets the
applicable provisions of part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through
25-117.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model G280 airplane because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model G280 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and
exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model G280 airplane will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features:
    The Model G280 airplane is equipped with electrical and electronic
systems that control critical functions and systems. Examples of these
include the electronic displays, rudder, brakes, spoilers, flaps, and
electronic engine controls. The G280 electrical power generation and
distribution architecture is equipped with an essential APU and not
equipped with a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) generator. The loss of all
electrical power to certain functions and systems impacts the airplane
ability to land safely. Therefore, these special conditions are issued
to retain the level of safety intended by the current Sec.  25.1351(d).

Discussion

    The Model G280 airplane requires a continuous source of electrical
power for continued safe flight and landing. The current regulation in
Sec.  25.1351(d), ``Operation without normal electrical power,'' states
that the airplane must be operated safely in VFR conditions, for a
period of not less than five minutes, with the normal electrical power
(electrical power sources excluding the battery) inoperative. This rule
was structured around a traditional design utilizing mechanical
controls for flight systems while the crew took time to sort out the
electrical failure, start engine(s) if necessary, and re-establish some
of the electrical-power-generation capability.
    To maintain the same level of safety associated with traditional
designs, the Model G280 airplane electrical-system design must not be
time-limited in its operation. It should be noted that service
experience has shown that the loss of all electrical power, which is
generated by the airplane's engine generators or auxiliary power unit
(APU) is not extremely improbable. Thus, it must be demonstrated that
the airplane can continue through safe flight and landing (including
steering and braking on ground for airplanes using steer/brake-by-wire)
with the use of its emergency electrical-power systems. These emergency
electrical-power systems must be able to power loads that are required
for continued safe flight and landing.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
GALP Model G280 airplane. Should GALP apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.
    Gulfstream Model G280 certification is currently scheduled for
December 2011. The substance of these special conditions has been
subject to the notice and public-comment procedure in several prior
instances. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the
applicant's certification of the airplane, we are shortening the
public-comment period to 20 days.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the GALP Model G280 airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA
for approval of these features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following proposed special conditions are issued as
part of the type-certification basis for GALP Model G280 airplanes. The
special conditions are issued in lieu of Sec.  25.1351(d) and are
required to ensure that the airplane has sufficient electrical power
for continued safe flight and landing.
    1. The applicant must show by test or a combination of test and
analysis that the airplane is capable of continued safe flight and
landing with all normal electrical power sources inoperative, as
prescribed by paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b) below.
    For purposes of this special condition, normal sources of
electrical-power generation do not include any alternate power sources
such as a battery, ram-air turbine (RAT), or independent power systems
such as the flight-control permanent-magnet generating system. In
showing capability for continued safe flight and landing, consideration
must be given to systems capability, effects on crew workload and
operating conditions, and the physiological needs of the flightcrew and
passengers for the longest diversion time for which approval is sought.
    a. Common cause failures, cascading failures, and zonal physical
threats must be considered in showing compliance with this requirement.
    b. The ability to restore operation of portions of the electrical-
power generation and distribution system may be considered if it can be
shown that unrecoverable loss of those portions of the system is
extremely improbable. An alternative source of electrical power must be
provided for the time required to restore the minimum electrical-power-
generation capability required for safe flight and landing.
Unrecoverable

loss of all engines may be excluded when showing that unrecoverable
loss of critical portions of the electrical system is extremely
improbable. Unrecoverable loss of all engines is covered in 2, below,
and thus may be excluded when showing compliance with this requirement.
    2. Regardless of any electrical-generation and distribution-system
recovery capability shown under paragraph 1, sufficient electrical-
system capability must be provided to:
    a. Allow time to descend, with all engines inoperative, at the
speed that provides the best glide slope, from the maximum operating
altitude to the altitude at which the soonest possible engine restart
could be accomplished, and
    b. Subsequently allow multiple start attempts of the engines and
APU. This capability must be provided in addition to the electrical
capability required by existing 14 CFR part 25 requirements related to
operation with all engines inoperative.
    3. The airplane emergency electrical-power system must be designed
to supply:
    a. Electrical power required for immediate safety, which must
continue to operate without the need for crew action following the loss
of the normal electrical power, for a duration sufficient to allow
reconfiguration to provide a non-time limited source of electrical
power.
    b. Electrical power required for continued safe flight and landing
for the maximum diversion time.
    4. If APU-generated electrical power is used in satisfying the
requirements of these special conditions, and if reaching a suitable
runway upon which to land is beyond the capacity of the battery
systems, then the APU must be able to be started under any foreseeable
flight condition prior to the depletion of the battery or the
restoration of normal electrical power, which ever occurs first. This
capability must be demonstrated by flight tests at the most critical
condition.
    a. It must be shown that the APU will provide adequate electrical
power for continued safe flight and landing.
    b. The AFM must incorporate non-normal procedures that will direct
the pilot to take appropriate actions to activate the APU after loss of
normal engine-driven generated electrical power.
    As a part of showing compliance with these special conditions, the
tests by which loss of all normal electrical power is demonstrated must
also take into account the following:
    1. The failure condition should be assumed to occur during night
instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), at the most critical phase
of the flight, relative to the worst possible electrical-power
distribution and equipment-loads-demand condition.
    2. After the unrestorable loss of normal engine generator power,
the airplane-engine restart capability must be provided and operations
continued in IMC.
    3. It should be demonstrated that the aircraft is capable of
continued safe flight and landing. The length of time must be computed
based on the maximum diversion-time capability for which the airplane
is being certified. Consideration for airspeed reductions resulting
from the associated failure or failures must be made.
    4. The airplane must provide adequate indication of loss of normal
electrical power to direct the pilot to the non-normal procedures, and
the AFM must incorporate non-normal procedures that will direct the
pilot to take appropriate actions.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 14, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-27765 Filed 10-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 4227]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01430]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 26, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement
proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: January 19, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01430 Filed 1-20-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 60306]
[DOCID:fr10oc08-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-3288-EM]

Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Florida (FEMA-3288-EM), dated August 21, 2008, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 19, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jeffery L.
Bryant, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    This action terminates my appointment of Thomas P. Davies as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-24099 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41768-41771]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16485]

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

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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

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.

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

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 Cleland-
Hamnett, 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