[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6833]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 23, 1994]


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

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