# TSCA Section 21 Petition; Response to Citizens' Petition

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-6833

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** March 23, 1994

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-6833. Public record. Not legal advice.