9298 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

priorities are no longer applicable, HUD

has not adopted the comment in this

final rule.

The interim rule’s preamble refers to

deletion of the 90 percent-of-value

criterion. The commenter noted that

Section 223(a)(7) applications

refinancing loans insured pursuant to

section 223(f) of the Act are subject to

an 85 percent-of-value limitation, in lieu

of 90 percent. The commenter believed

this could cause confusion and

recommended that the rule explicitly

eliminate the 85 percent loan-to-value

limitation. Although the specific

language of the regulatory change is

clear, HUD accepts the commenter’s

suggestion that the explanation of the

change should be clarified to avoid

confusion. Because there are also

instances (in 24 CFR 221.560(a)(1)(iii)

and 24 CFR 236.40(b)(1)(iii)) where the

value criterion limited the maximum

insurable mortgage amount to 100

percent-of-value in lieu of 90 percent or

85 percent, HUD is revising the

preamble simply to state that HUD is

deleting the value criterion in Section

223(a)(7) refinancing.

Other Matters

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary, in accordance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), has reviewed this rule before

publication and by approving it certifies

that this rule does not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The rule

deletes a counterproductive restriction

that unnecessarily limits the refinancing

of certain HUD-insured mortgages. By

removing this restriction, HUD hopes to

avoid unnecessary defaults by viable

projects and resulting losses to HUD’s

Insurance Fund.

Environmental Review

In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of

the regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality and 24 CFR

50.20 of the HUD regulations, the

policies and procedures contained in

this rule relate only to the establishment

of loan limits and approval of mortgage

refinancing under section 223(a)(7) of

the National Housing Act, and,

therefore, are categorically excluded

from the requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

The General Counsel, as the

Designated Official under section 6(a) of

Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has

determined that the policies contained

in this rule will not have substantial

direct effects on States or their political

subdivisions, or the relationship

between the Federal government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. As a

result, the rule is not subject to review

under the Order. The rule is limited to

removing an unnecessary restriction on

refinancing certain HUD-insured

mortgages at more favorable rates.

Executive Order 12606, The Family

The General Counsel, as the

Designated Official under Executive

Order 12606, The Family, has

determined that this rule does not have

potential for significant impact on

family formation, maintenance, and

general well-being, and, thus, is not

subject to review under the Order. No

significant change in existing HUD

policies or programs would result from

promulgation of this rule, as those

policies and programs relate to family

concerns.

Regulatory Agenda

This rule was listed as sequence 1793

in HUD’s Semiannual Agenda of

Regulations published on November 14,

1994 (59 FR 57632, 57654), under

Executive Order 12866 and the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects

24 CFR Part 207

Manufactured homes, Mortgage

insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Solar energy.

24 CFR Part 213

Cooperatives, Mortgage insurance,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

24 CFR Part 221

Low and moderate income housing,

Mortgage insurance, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 236

Grant programs—housing and

community development, Low and

moderate income housing, Mortgage

insurance, Rent subsidies, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, the interim rule

published in the Federal Register on

October 26, 1993 (58 FR 57558),

entitled, ‘‘Parts 207, 213, 221, and 236,

Deletion of the 90–Percent-of-Value

Criterion in Section 223(a)(7)

Refinancing’’, is adopted as final with

the following change:

PART 207—MULTIFAMILY HOUSING

MORTGAGE INSURANCE

The authority citation for part 207 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701z–11(e), 1713,

and 1715b; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

Dated: February 8, 1995.

Jeanne K. Engel,

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 95–3975 Filed 2–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–27–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

Notice of Interpretation Concerning the

Burning of Liquid Hydrocarbons

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of interpretation.

SUMMARY: This notice presents the

intention of the Minerals Management

Service (MMS) to restrict the burning of

liquid hydrocarbons. Guidance on

burning liquid hydrocarbons is

necessary because applicable

regulations do not provide specific

direction on burning liquid

hydrocarbons.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon Buffington, Engineering and

Standards Branch, telephone (703) 787–

1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests

to burn liquid hydrocarbons (crude oil

and condensate) have recently become

more prevalent in the Outer Continental

Shelf (OCS). The OCS Lands Act

requires the Secretary of the Interior to

provide for the prevention of waste and

conservation of the natural resources of

the OCS. Section 250.20(a) provides that

lessees perform all operations in a safe

and workmanlike manner and maintain

all equipment in a safe condition for the

protection of the lease and associated

facilities, the health and safety of all

persons, and the preservation and

conservation of property and the

environment. Conservation of property

and the environment requires that

lessees not burn liquid hydrocarbons.

Therefore, it is the intention of MMS

to prohibit the burning of liquid

hydrocarbons unless the lessee

demonstrates to the Regional Supervisor

that the amount of liquid hydrocarbons

to be burned is minimal or the

alternatives are infeasible or pose a

significant risk to offshore personnel or
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 9299

the environment. Therefore, lessees

must contact the appropriate MMS

Regional Supervisor prior to burning

liquid hydrocarbons.

The MMS recognizes that the best

way to provide restrictions on burning

liquid hydrocarbons is by rulemaking.

Therefore, MMS is issuing a proposed

rule under a separate Federal Register

Notice that will cover the restrictions on

burning liquid hydrocarbons.

The proposed rule will also give the

public the opportunity to comment on

the restrictions on burning liquid

hydrocarbons.

Dated: December 23, 1994.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals

Management.

[FR Doc. 95–3985 Filed 2–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[OPPTS–400006A; FRL–4929–6]

Butyl Benzyl Phthalate; Toxic

Chemical Release Reporting;

Community Right-to-Know

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is granting a petition to

delete butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP)

from the list of toxic chemicals under

section 313 of the Emergency Planning

and Community Right-to-Know Act

(EPCRA). By promulgating this rule,

EPA is relieving facilities of their

obligation to report releases of BBP that

occurred during the 1994 calendar year

and releases that will occur in the

future. This relief applies only to

reporting requirements under section

313 of EPCRA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

February 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

specific information on this rule: Maria

J. Doa, Petition Coordinator, Mail Code

7408, Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460,

Telephone: 202–260–9592. For more

information on EPCRA section 313:

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Hotline, Environmental

Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll

free: 1–800–535–0202, In Virginia and

Alaska, 703–412–9877 or Toll free TTD:

1–800–553–7672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

This final rule is issued under section

313(d) and (e)(1) of the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C.

11023. EPCRA is also referred to as Title

III of the Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986

(Pub. L. 99–499).

B. Background

Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain

facilities manufacturing, processing, or

otherwise using listed toxic chemicals

to report their environmental releases of

such chemicals annually. Beginning

with the 1991 reporting year, such

facilities must also report pollution

prevention and recycling data for such

chemicals, pursuant to section 6607 of

the Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C.

13106). When enacted, section 313

established an initial list of toxic

chemicals that was comprised of more

than 300 chemicals and 20 chemical

categories. Section 313(d) authorizes

EPA to add or delete chemicals from the

list, and sets forth criteria for these

actions. Under section 313(e)(1), any

person may petition EPA to add

chemicals to or delete chemicals from

the list. EPA has, from time-to-time,

added and deleted chemicals from the

original statutory list.

EPA issued a statement of petition

policy and guidance in the Federal

Register of February 4, 1987 (52 FR

3479), to provide guidance regarding the

recommended content and format for

petitions. On May 23, 1991 (56 FR

23703), EPA published guidance

regarding the recommended content of

petitions to delete individual members

of section 313 metal compound

categories. EPA has also published a

statement clarifying its interpretation of

the section 313(d)(2) criteria for adding

and deleting chemicals from the section

313 list (59 FR 61439, November 30,

1994).

II. Description of Petition and Proposed

Response

On January 12, 1987, EPA received

from the Monsanto Company a petition

to delete BBP from the list of toxic

chemicals subject to reporting under

section 313 of EPCRA. BBP was

included on the original list of toxic

chemicals when EPCRA was enacted.

On July 20, 1987, following a review

which consisted of a toxicity evaluation

and an exposure analysis, EPA proposed

to grant the petition to delete BBP from

the section 313 list by issuing a

proposed rule in the Federal Register

(52 FR 27226).

The proposal to grant the petition was

based upon EPA’s preliminary finding

that BBP did not meet the listing criteria

found in section 313(d) of EPCRA. It

was EPA’s belief that there was not

sufficient evidence to demonstrate that

BBP causes or can reasonably be

anticipated to cause significant adverse

human health or environmental effects.

One concern which remained

following the initial review was the

apparently widespread presence of BBP

in the environment despite low

anticipated release levels. Because of

this concern, EPA stated in the

proposed rule that the delisting would

not be promulgated until the 1987 Toxic

Chemical Release Inventory (TRI)

reports submitted pursuant to section

313 could be examined to confirm that

there were no substantial releases of

BBP from covered facilities (see unit III.

of this preamble).

Only one commenter, the Monsanto

Company, responded to EPA’s proposal

to delete BBP from the section 313 list

of toxic chemicals. The Monsanto

Company concurred with EPA’s

proposed deletion but objected to the

decision to delay promulgation until the

1987 TRI reports could be reviewed.

Based upon evaluation of the petition,

available toxicity and exposure

information, the review of the 1987 -

1992 TRI reports, and the comment,

EPA affirms its determination that BBP

does not meet any of the toxicity criteria

listed in section 313(d). Therefore, EPA

is deleting BBP from the list of

chemicals subject to reporting under

section 313 of EPCRA.

BBP also appears on the Priority

Pollutant List (PPL) of section 307 of the

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1317);

however, at this time EPA believes that

insufficient data preclude the derivation

of ambient water quality criteria for BBP

by the Agency.

This petition does not request that

any action be taken under any statutory

provision other than EPCRA section

313, and today’s rule should not be

inferred as an action under any statutory

provision other than EPCRA section

313. Each statute prescribes different

standards for adding or deleting

chemicals of pollutants from their

respective list. Specifically, the deletion

of BBP from the EPCRA section 313 list

does not alter its regulatory status under

other statutory provisions. Today’s rule

is based solely on the criteria in EPCRA

section 313.

III. EPA’s Review of Butyl Benzyl

Phthalate

As discussed in the proposal, EPA

preliminarily determined that BBP has

low toxicity with respect to human