TSCA Section 21 Petition; Response to Citizens' Petition

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPPTS-211035A; FRL-4766-9]

TSCA Section 21 Petition; Response to Citizens' Petition

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Response to citizens' petition.

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

SUMMARY: On December 16, 1993, the Board of Supervisors of the County

of Imperial, California, petitioned EPA under section 21 of the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA), to issue a test rule under section 4 of

TSCA to require monitoring of the New River for chemical pollutants and

subsequent health and environmental effects testing of the identified

chemicals, in addition to other requested actions. This Notice

announces EPA's response to Imperial County's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Price, Environmental

Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. EB-67, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460, (202) 260-3790.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Petition and Response

On December 16, 1993, EPA received a petition under section 21 of

TSCA from the Board of Supervisors of the County of Imperial,

California. The petitioner has requested that EPA take the following

actions: Require monitoring of the New River to determine the presence

and level of contaminants under section 4 of TSCA; require health and

environmental effects testing of detected chemicals under section 4 of

TSCA; and take appropriate action under TSCA or other Federal laws to

protect human health and the environment, based on the results of the

testing. The petitioner requests the actions because the Board believes

there are insufficient monitoring data on the chemicals in the River as

well as insufficient health and environmental effects data on those

chemicals.

The petitioner alleges that there may be a serious health risk to

the citizens of Imperial County, California resulting from toxic

chemicals and pathogens present in the New River. The petitioner also

alleges that the presence of these chemicals and pathogens results from

discharges by facilities located in Mexico in the vicinity of the City

of Mexicali. The petitioner argues that discharges of a chemical into

the New River in Mexico, where the river-borne chemical subsequently

crosses the U.S. border, constitute ``import'' into the U.S. under

TSCA. The petitioner also argues that manufacturers and processors of

the pollutants in Mexico should bear the burden of conducting the

testing.

In addition to the request for action under section 21 of TSCA, the

petitioner states that the poor and predominantly Hispanic citizens of

Imperial County who live and work along the New River, as a matter of

environmental equity, are entitled to the same rigorous enforcement of

environmental laws regarding water quality as citizens in other areas

of the United States. Imperial County also requested that EPA raise the

need for a solution to the New River problem with Mexican officials

through mechanisms under the North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA).

The County Board has simultaneously petitioned the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for a health assessment of the

New River under section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. section

9601, et. seq.

EPA believes that additional monitoring of the New River is

necessary to adequately characterize the chemical contamination in the

River, and that obtaining such information is an important step in

addressing New River pollution. To expedite EPA's review of the New

River situation, EPA will fund work with the California Regional Water

Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) to develop the monitoring data that,

along with other currently available information, will allow EPA to

determine with a reasonable level of confidence the identities and

amounts of chemical pollutants in the New River and whether additional

testing is necessary. A more detailed discussion of the proposed

monitoring activities is located in Unit IV.A. of this Notice.

In light of its decision to fund the CRWQCB monitoring, EPA has

determined that the imposition of a test rule to require monitoring of

the River is unnecessary. The Agency will obtain the data requested by

the petition by more expeditious means. Promulgating a test rule could

require several years due to the notice-and-comment procedures required

for agency rulemaking and the complexity of the New River situation.

With regard to the petitioner's request to impose testing to

evaluate the ecological and health risks of the River pollutants, the

Agency has decided that it is not currently in a position to conclude

that the requisite section 4 criteria have been met. This is true even

for the pollutants identified in the petition or in existing monitoring

data. EPA believes it will be better able to evaluate whether it is

necessary and appropriate to promulgate a section 4 test rule for

ecological and health effects testing after the Agency has received and

evaluated up-to-date monitoring information on the identities, levels

and environmental partitioning of pollutants in the River. A more

detailed discussion of this issue is contained in Unit III. of this

Notice.

EPA is also continuing and/or taking a number of additional

initiatives as described in Unit IV. of this Notice. These activities

are aimed at addressing the pollution problems in the New River that

appear to result from both international pollution coming from Mexico

and pollution contributions from Imperial County.

II. Background

A. Statutory Requirements

Section 21 of TSCA provides that any person may petition EPA to

initiate proceedings for the issuance of rules under sections 4, 6, and

8 of TSCA.

A section 21 petition must set forth the facts which the petitioner

believes establish the need for the rules requested. EPA is required to

grant or deny the petition within 90 days. If EPA grants the petition,

the Agency must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA

denies the petition, the Agency must publish its reasons in the Federal

Register.

Within 60 days of denial, the petitioner may commence a civil

action in a U.S. district court to compel the initiation of the

rulemaking requested in its petition. The court must, for a petition

for a new rule, provide the opportunity for the petition to be

considered de novo.

After hearing the evidence, the court can order EPA to initiate the

action requested if the petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance

of the evidence, support for particular conclusions described in

section 21.

In a challenge to an EPA denial of a section 21 petition requesting

a section 4 rule, the petitioner would have to demonstrate by a

preponderance of the evidence that information available to the Agency

is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the effects of a

chemical, that the chemical either may present an unreasonable risk or

will be produced in substantial amounts and may result in significant

or substantial human exposure or substantial environmental release, and

that testing is necessary to characterize the risks.

Section 21 does not provide specific direction as to how the Agency

should evaluate a citizen's petition, but merely states that EPA must

grant or deny within 90 days. However, there are standards under

section 4 for issuing regulations, and in determining whether to grant

or deny, EPA must consider whether the requirements for section 4

rulemaking can be met.

Under section 4 of TSCA, EPA may issue rules to require chemical

manufacturers and processors to test the chemical substances and

mixtures that they produce. To issue a section 4 rule on a chemical,

EPA must find either that activities involving the chemical may present

an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, or that

the chemical is or will be produced in substantial quantities and that

there is or will be significant or substantial human exposure to the

chemical or that the chemical is or will be released to the environment

in substantial quantities. In addition, EPA must find that existing

data are insufficient to determine or predict the effects of the

chemical and that testing is necessary to develop that data. EPA must

be able to make all of the above findings to issue a test rule; if EPA

believes on the basis of the information obtained from the petition,

and from its investigation during the 90-day review period, that it

cannot make all of the necessary findings, EPA will deny the section 21

petition.

One of the criteria most relevant to this petition is whether

testing is necessary. Section 4 expands the concept of sufficiency

provided in the section 21 standards established for the purposes of

district court review, requiring that EPA find that testing is

necessary to develop the data needed to evaluate a chemical before it

may issue a test rule. In making this finding, EPA considers whether

there are other means of obtaining data without resorting to a test

rule.

The relief available under section 21 is limited to the initiation

of a proceeding to issue, amend, or appeal a rule under either section

4, 6, or 8, or an order under section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). Consequently,

some of the remedies requested in the petition are not within the scope

of actions available through a section 21 petition.

B. Description of the New River Problem

The population of Mexicali, Mexico, and Calexico, U.S., like other

major sister cities in the border area has grown rapidly in the last 50

years, and has paralleled the expansion of the industrial base of

Mexicali. The rapid population growth in Mexicali and all along the

border, coupled with rapid urban growth and unanticipated land use, has

resulted in serious problems. One of these problems has been severe

pressures on the urban infrastructure (e.g., wastewater treatment and

collection systems).

Mexicali's existing wastewater treatment systems are inadequate for

the existing volume of wastewater being generated. Since the existing

treatment systems are overloaded, it is likely that the influent to the

systems is not receiving sufficient treatment. In addition, Mexicali's

rapid growth has resulted in communities which are not yet connected to

the treatment system. In 1990, this uncollected sewage averaged about

13 million gallons per day (mgd) and, after recent improvements to the

Mexicali system by the Mexican government, the uncollected flow is

about 8 mgd. These flows also end up in the New River. Once the New

River crosses the international boundary, it flows through Imperial

County, where it is augmented by more agricultural drainage, to the

Salton Sea which is also located in Imperial County.

In addition to agricultural drainage and domestic sewage,

industrial wastewater reaches the New River in Mexico, either via

discharge to the sewer system or direct discharge to the River. Mexican

law requires that industries treat their waste, prior to discharge, to

minimize impacts to the sewer system and to receiving waters. However,

monitoring data from both the International Boundary and Water

Commission (IBWC), the binational commission responsible for border

sanitation issues, and the CRWQCB have indicated the significant

presence of industrial waste in the River. Studies by CRWQCB,

throughout the 1980's consistently found trace organics and trace

metals in fish, water, and sediment samples. Reports describe the River

as very discolored, often with a foam layer, and not swimmable or

fishable. CRWQCB continued to monitor the River from 1990-1993. These

monitoring data and visual observations show the flow crossing the

international boundary has generally been less than in the previous

decade, observations of foam are less frequent, but trace organics and

metals are still detected, and the River at the international boundary

is still not considered fishable or swimmable.

Pesticide runoff from Mexico into the New River is not well

documented, although the petition implies that this is a problem.

CRWCQB monitoring data indicate that although some DDT, DDT breakdown

products, and toxaphene are emanating via the New River flow from

Mexico, the primary contribution originates from normal agricultural

practices within the Imperial Valley. Although no longer used in

Imperial Valley, DDT, toxaphene, and possibly other pesticide residues

remain on cropland from former years of usage and enter drainageways,

including the New River, via tailwater runoff during cropland

irrigation. Due to historical use of DDT and toxaphene, this phenomenon

is common throughout the southwestern U.S.

Both the U.S. and Mexican governments have recognized the

seriousness of the contamination problem of the New River, as evidenced

by the Integrated Environmental Plan for the Mexican-U.S. Border Area

which was released in 1992. The IBWC, with assistance from EPA, the

California State Water Resource Control Board, and the CRWQCB, have

negotiated binational agreements to address the New River problem.

Although some steps have been taken, the problem of partially treated

and untreated wastewater in the New River continues to exist.

All references for the information contained in this Unit (II.B.)

can be found in the administrative record under the following heading,

``Memorandum on References for the Description of the New River

Problem.''

III. EPA Analysis of Approaches to Obtaining Information on

Condition of the New River

EPA acknowledges that the New River appears to have serious

pollution problems that have resulted from pollution coming across the

border from Mexico and from within Imperial County, California. EPA

recognizes that it is important to continue to work with Mexico to try

to resolve border pollution problems as well as continuing to work with

the State of California and Imperial County to resolve pollution

problems on the U.S. side of the border. As demonstrated in the EPA

activities described below, EPA considers clean-up of the New River a

high priority and is pursuing solutions to the problem domestically as

well as internationally.

EPA believes that additional monitoring of the New River is

necessary to adequately characterize the chemical contamination in the

River, and that obtaining such information is an important step in

addressing New River pollution. EPA does not believe that initiating a

section 4 test rule under TSCA is the best or most expeditious way to

obtain the information necessary to characterize the chemical

contamination in the River. First, it could take EPA several years to

initiate and complete a test rule, and the complex legal and policy

issues involved in this rulemaking could further delay the process.

Consequently EPA would not receive the monitoring information for

several years which would result in a large gap in the monitoring data

available to the Agency on the condition of the New River. Second, if

monitoring is delayed because it must occur through implementation of a

test rule, EPA would not be able to track the planned improvements in

the Mexicali treatment facilities or identify possible currently

unknown risks that immediate monitoring would enable the Agency to

identify. Finally, a test rule may not cover all of the parameters of

concern to the petitioner because of the limited scope of TSCA. For

instance, EPA may not be able to require testing for E. coli, where it

may be difficult to identify manufacturers, importers, and/or

processors who would be subject to a rule.

Consequently, EPA will fund work with the CRWQCB to develop the

monitoring data that, along with other currently available information,

will allow the Agency to determine with a reasonable level of

confidence the identities and amounts of chemical pollutants in the New

River and whether additional testing is necessary. The petitioner

submitted a monitoring proposal developed by the CRWQCB, similar to

monitoring being considered by EPA. EPA will work with the CRWQCB to

ensure that the monitoring proposal covers the parameters of concern to

EPA, the CRWQCB, and the petitioner. Once the monitoring information is

available, EPA, in conjunction with ATSDR, will determine what further

steps are necessary and appropriate to address the concerns about the

New River raised by the petitioner.

Because the additional monitoring sought by the petitioner is

available more expeditiously through other mechanisms, the Agency has

concluded that it is unnecessary at this time to initiate a section 4

test rule as requested by Imperial County. The potential risks that

might be posed by the pollution in the New River merit a more

expeditious response than would be possible by initiating a regulatory

proceeding as requested by the petitioner.

With regard to the petitioner's request to impose testing to

evaluate the ecological and health risks of the River pollutants, the

Agency has decided that it is not currently in a position to conclude

that the requisite section 4 criteria have been met. This is true even

for the pollutants identified in the petition or in existing monitoring

data. Much of the available information is several years old, and may

not reflect a current profile of the River and its pollutants. In

addition, much of the previous sampling was conducted throughout the

length of the River, and as a result, the Agency cannot definitively

determine the identity and extent of any pollutants entering the River

from Mexico. Also, certain kinds of information that would be valuable

to the Agency's assessment (e.g., sediment contamination levels) are

either missing or very limited. EPA believes it will be better able to

evaluate whether it is necessary and appropriate to promulgate a

section 4 test rule for ecological and health effects testing after the

Agency has received and evaluated up-to-date monitoring information on

the identities, levels, and environmental partitioning of pollutants in

the River. Moreover, EPA will be better able to coordinate with ATSDR

on data needs for any health assessment it conducts once the Agency has

a clearer picture of the condition of the New River--a picture that

will be greatly enhanced by the additional monitoring data from the

EPA-initiated tests. In the meantime, EPA will work with ATSDR to

evaluate available health and ecological effects data to determine

whether there are data gaps which need to be filled.

In summary, the Agency recognizes that the New River may be a

significant source of human exposure to an unquantified mixture of

industrial and chemical pollutants. Moreover, EPA shares Imperial

County's concerns and agrees that efforts to better characterize the

pollutants in the River, and their potential health effects should be

continued and expanded. EPA believes it is prudent to minimize human

exposure to these chemicals where reasonable, and has initiated or will

initiate in the near future, actions that will significantly further

this goal. Finally, as a matter of policy, the Agency believes that

efforts on the part of domestic and foreign manufacturers to reduce and

pretreat their industrial discharge should be strongly encouraged.

IV. Specific Actions to Address the New River Problem

The actions that follow listed under Units A., B., and C. are not

actions contemplated as a result of EPA receiving the petition. They

are specific actions planned by EPA through the 1983 La Paz binational

workgroup structure and by EPA unilaterally through its program

offices.

A. Monitoring and Other Testing

EPA will provide financial assistance to the CRWQCB, by the fall of

1994, to implement their monitoring proposal for the New River

watershed. This monitoring proposal was submitted to EPA as part of the

petition, and was submitted to EPA's Region 9 office by CRWQCB prior to

receipt of the petition. The petitioner has indicated that the CRWQCB

monitoring proposal is along the lines contemplated by the petitioner.

Prior to funding, EPA and the CRWQCB will verify that the comprehensive

monitoring study incorporates the parameters of concern mentioned in

the petition, including pesticides.

The U.S. and Mexico will discuss a proposed program for monitoring

contaminants of domestic, industrial, and agricultural origin in the

Colorado River for implementation in 1994.

EPA will provide financial assistance for a study of the New River

that addresses organic chemical contamination of the New River as it

flows to the Salton Sea using monitoring data and water quality

modelling to determine the fate of organic pollutants in the River.

EPA will coordinate with ATSDR as they conduct any activities to

assess the New River. EPA will work to provide, collect, or develop

additional necessary information, such as exposure or hazard

information, to determine the health and environmental risks from the

New River. In the event ATSDR decides not to undertake any action in

response to the CERCLA 104 petition it has received, EPA will continue

to independently assess the hazards and risks associated with the New

River.

B. Wastewater Treatment

EPA is pursuing specific authorization for Border-area projects

from the ``Hardship Communities'' funds set aside in EPA's FY 94

appropriation, which will include funding for the U.S. share of costs

to start the New River project described in the IBWC's Minute 288. EPA

will also explore additional funding mechanisms, such as the Border

Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American

Development Bank (NADBank), which are currently under development in

both the U.S. and Mexican financial communities.

The U.S. section of the IBWC has responded to Mexico's submittal of

the proposed wastewater treatment facilities it plans to construct. The

U.S. section has requested that Mexico submit a more detailed facility

plan on projects that include funding by the U.S.

The U.S. and Mexico, in accordance with IBWC Minute 288, will

undertake the following actions: Review and approve the specific

projects; complete final design of the Mexicali II wastewater treatment

plant; define the terms of financial participation for the U.S.; and

agree on arrangements for the IBWC to design, construct, operate, and

maintain the system.

EPA and the State of California have offered and provided technical

assistance to IBWC and to Mexico in planning and designing the

wastewater collection and treatment facilities for Mexicali. EPA will

continue to offer similar assistance.

EPA is designing an industrial wastewater pretreatment training

course for Mexican officials. This pilot training course will be taught

in the Nogales, Sonora, area. Efforts will be made to subsequently

target the training in Mexicali. EPA will also encourage those Mexican

officials who attend the course in Nogales to share their knowledge

with State of Baja California and City of Mexicali officials.

C. Pesticides

EPA has been informed that the CRWQCB has requested that the

Imperial Irrigation District (IID) put together a list of Best

Management Practices (BMP) for the control of agricultural pollutants.

The IID has responded with a letter which describes their plan for

developing BMP and a Drain Water Quality Improvement Plan by January

1996. CRWQCB will work with the County to implement these plans.

EPA will provide bilingual training and outreach programs on border

pesticide-related issues. This training will be designed to promote the

safe and appropriate use of pesticides in order to prevent future

pesticide contamination in these areas. Funds will be provided to and

utilized by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the

Texas Department of Agriculture to develop and conduct bilingual

pesticide training for pesticide applicators and outreach to the

affected border communities along the Imperial Valley-Mexicali and the

Lower Rio Grande Valley (Texas-Tamaulipas) border areas.

D. Information Collection

EPA has taken three interim actions to collect information on the

nature of the pollutants: Sending a letter to the U.S. section of the

IBWC on January 18, 1994, to ask them to request information from the

Mexican section of the IBWC; sending a letter to Mexico's Secretariat

for Social Development (SEDESOL) on January 25, 1994; and issuing a

Federal Register Notice on January 26, 1994 (59 FR 3687). The U.S.

section of the IBWC has requested information from the Mexican section

of the IBWC.

In the letters and the Federal Register Notice, EPA requested any

information Mexican authorities and the public may have regarding New

River pollution. In the letters to the IBWC and SEDESOL, EPA also

proposed contacting U.S. parent companies of maquiladoras operating in

Mexicali and requesting information on releases to the New River. A

maquiladora is a foreign owned industry operating in Mexico which can

import raw materials into Mexico without tariffs and must export all

products, including hazardous waste generated, back to the country of

origin. If Mexico agrees that this action is appropriate, EPA will

contact the companies and provide any information received to ATSDR or

other appropriate parties. EPA will do the same with any information

received from the IBWC or in response to the Federal Register Notice.

E. California Action

EPA has been informed that the State of California has requested

that California-based parent companies of maquiladoras located along

the California/Mexico border voluntarily provide Toxics Release

Inventory (TRI) reports for those facilities. The California

Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to provide EPA with copies

of those reports and EPA will use those data, to the extent they can be

verified, to determine possible pollutants entering the New River.

F. Additional Action

Notwithstanding the Agency's response to this petition, EPA may

decide additional action is necessary, under TSCA or other Federal

laws, to address the apparent pollution problems in the New River. EPA

will make this decision by evaluating the results of any ATSDR

activities, through review of the monitoring data or any other data

gathered through EPA activities, and through review of the issues

raised in a second TSCA section 21 petition on the New River that EPA

received on February 23, 1994. This petition was submitted by the

Environmental Health Coalition, the Comite Ciudadano Pro Restauracion

del Canon del Padre y Servicios Comunitarios, and the Southwest Network

for Environmental and Economic Justice. This new petition builds upon

the Imperial County petition and requests additional actions by EPA.

See Unit VIII of this Notice for more information on this second

petition.

V. Environmental Justice

To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, EPA will

ensure that environmental justice concerns are considered in any

decision to take additional action under TSCA or other Federal laws, to

address the apparent pollution problems in the New River. EPA will also

ensure that any action taken with respect to the New River is

consistent with the directives embodied in President Clinton's February

11, 1994 Environmental Justice Executive Order.

VI. North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

The petitioner requested EPA to pursue available remedies under the

NAFTA to address the issue of pollution entering Imperial County from

Mexico via the New River. The NAFTA-related approaches available to

Mexico and the United States for dealing with transboundary pollution

are provided by the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation and the U.S.-Mexico agreement establishing the BECC and the

NADBank, rather than the NAFTA itself.

EPA and other agencies of the U.S. Government have just begun the

process of implementing the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation. Many provisions of the Agreement under which the U.S.

Government could potentially take action in an effort to improve the

water quality of the New River as it enters the United States from

Mexico are of limited utility at the present time because they require

the participation of institutions that are not yet fully established,

such as the Secretariate and the Council of Ministers acting within the

North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation.

In addition, several of the provisions of the Agreement relating to

transboundary pollution are linked to the date on which the Agreement

entered into force -- January 1, 1994. In particular, action under

Articles 22 through 36 of the Agreement relating to allegations by one

Party of another Party's ``persistent pattern of non-enforcement'' of

environmental law, is limited at the present time because the term

``persistent pattern'' is defined by Article 45 of the Agreement as ``a

sustained or recurring course of action or inaction beginning after the

date of entry into force of [the] Agreement.'' Therefore, it would be

extremely difficult if not impossible for the U.S. Government to

demonstrate a persistent pattern of nonenforcement under the Agreement

with respect to pollution of the New River in Mexico because any

allegations would be limited to events since January 1, 1994.

Given the current limitations on action under the North American

Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, other cooperative environmental

agreements between the U.S. and Mexico may be more useful to address

expeditiously pollution of the New River. Accordingly, EPA, as the U.S.

National Coordinator under the 1983 U.S.-Mexico Agreement of

Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in

the Border Area (the ``La Paz Agreement''), has requested from the

Mexican Government any information that it may have relating to

pollution of the New River in Mexico from chemical substances or

mixtures. A similar request has been made of the Mexican section of the

IBWC by the U.S. section of the IBWC. EPA has also determined that the

La Paz Agreement, in conjunction with domestic statutes, would provide

sufficient legal authority to undertake testing of the New River for

chemical and other pollutants on both sides of the border, in

cooperation with the Government of Mexico.

However, a remedy may be available to the petitioner (as opposed to

the U.S. Government acting in behalf of the petitioner) under Article 6

of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Under

that Article, the petitioner can request Mexico to investigate possible

violations of Mexico's environmental law that may be resulting in

contamination of the New River. Mexico, as the requested Party, must

give such requests ``due consideration in accordance with law.''

VII. Public Record

EPA has established a public record of those documents the Agency

considered in reviewing this petition. The record consists of documents

located in the file designated by Docket Number OPPTS-211035A and

Administrative Record Number 2194001, located at the TSCA

Nonconfidential Information Center (NCIC). This Docket is available for

inspection from 12 noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal

holidays, in TSCA NCIC, Rm. E-G102, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460. The public record consists of all documents in the OPPTS-211035A

file and all documents cited in the documents in that file.

VIII. New TSCA Section 21 Petition

On February 23, 1994, EPA received a second TSCA section 21

petition on the New River. This petition was submitted by the

Environmental Health Coalition, the Comite Ciudadano Pro Restauracion

del Canon del Padre y Servicios Comunitarios, and the Southwest Network

for Environmental and Economic Justice. This second petition reasserts

and incorporates by reference the facts alleged in the Imperial County

Board of Supervisors petition, particularly the introduction, and

sections III and IV. EPA will address all of the issues raised in the

new petition by May 24, 1994. EPA will consider the actions described

in this petition response, as well as the need for expanded action by

EPA, in the response to the second petition.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection.

Dated: March 16, 1994.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic

Substances.

[FR Doc. 94-6833 Filed 3-22-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F